My prediction: these documents may narrow some unknowns while providing zero evidence that rebuts the conventional story. Conspiracy theorists are emotionally invested in their wacko ideas, so they will continue peddling their warez.
Conspiracy theorists allow their emotions to overwhelm their rationality. It’s a self-imposed mental feebleness. Most of us, by contrast, find balance between the two.
Much of the worst we see in modern US politics are when bad actors knowingly take advantage of this emotionally driven mental feebleness. That’s how you empower extremists.
Your comment shows an lack of intellectual curiosity which I think demonstrates that conspiracy theories have done the job they were created to do - dissuade people from asking too many questions about actual conspiracies. You're applauding yourself for not being "mentally feeble".. for blindly accepting the CIA version of events.
> The term "conspiracy theory" is itself the subject of a conspiracy theory, which claims the term was popularized by the CIA in order to discredit conspiratorial believers, particularly critics of the Warren Commission, by making them a target of ridicule.
> The earliest known usage was by the American author Charles Astor Bristed, in a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 11, 1863. He used it to refer to claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests.
What else would you like us to call a theory about an alleged conspiracy? What's your preferred term that accurately encompasses the collection of quite-plausible all the way to batshit-insane possible explanations that have been proposed?
I provided it: "plausible-but-unproven accusation"
You had said "this is itself a conspiracy theory" and then provided evidence that it was false. Therefore it is simply false. But the implication seemed to be that "conspiracy theory" = "something that is false but people still believe"
My point was that, similar to many of the other "-ist"s, a term can have a technically valid meaning yet still be misused in bad faith to shut down debate. (Not at all saying that's what you were doing - just seemed like a relevant place to make the point.)
I think anything that isn't also a term that people like you have spent decades using as a slur would suffice.
The problem isn't the term. It's the connotation. Many conspiracy theories are baseless, some are not. When people like you constantly use the term as an umbrella slur for people who are alleging that things aren't quite as they are being purported (often times they are not even alleging that conspiring is happening) for reasons that the public would not like it no longer becomes useful for it's original intent. See also: retarded.
The problem isn't the term. It's that it's a constant game of cat and mouse with you. Over decades people like you will co-opt it in order to lump people who have legitimate "hey, this press release says X because Y but the facts all seem to say Z" criticism in with "the politicians are lizards" type garbage.
Then the government agencies in the 70s are caught doing a lot of illegal provable (often admitted) conspiracies. These including things such as spying, giving citizen deadly diseases (Tuskegee experiments), blackmailing, bribing and threatening members of congress, etc (see church committee)
It’s easy to see why these conspiracy theories persist.
You seem to really have it out for "conspiracy theorists" as a whole lumped group.
Seems like you are the one allowing "emotions to overwhelm their rationality."
Especially in the context of JFK assasination, which is like the most mainstream of anything that could be called a conspiracy theory.
Did a conspiracy theorist bang your girlfriend or something? I prefer those wackos to people like you that claim balance while being totally incurious about anything contradicting what you've been told by "trusted sources"
Conspiracy theorists allow their emotions to overwhelm their rationality. It’s a self-imposed mental feebleness. Most of us, by contrast, find balance between the two.
Much of the worst we see in modern US politics are when bad actors knowingly take advantage of this emotionally driven mental feebleness. That’s how you empower extremists.