Where oh Where Have People Gotten Their Freakish Ideas about Conspiracies?

[Nous]

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to act in concert in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, or some purpose that is not in itself illegal but is to be accomplished by illegal means. Pettibone v. United States (1893). A person need not commit the agreed-upon illegal act in order to be guilty of conspiracy, as the crime is consummated by the agreement. However, many statutes require that at least one person commit some overt act in furtherance of the plot. The agreement between two or more persons that constitutes a conspiracy can be proven by either direct evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence (such as an overt act in furtherance of the plot).

The US Code contains dozens of statutes that criminalize various forms of conspiracies, including the general conspiracy statute 18 USC § 371, which outlaws conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Charges and convictions for conspiracy are among the most common charges and convictions under federal law. Convictions under 21 USC § 846, which prohibits the illegal manufacturing, distribution, dispensing or possession of controlled substances, is the third most common federal conspiracy conviction, with approximately 5,000-10,000 convictions as a lead charge in a given year (according to my rough extrapolation from monthly figures). Convictions under 18 USC § 371 as a lead charge generally total more than a thousand per year (according to my extrapolation), and total among the top ten most common type of conviction.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was the result of a conspiracy:

Occurring near the end of the American Civil War, the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy intended by Booth to revive the Confederate cause by eliminating the three most important officials of the United States government. Conspirators Lewis Powell and David Herold were assigned to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward, and George Atzerodt was tasked with killing Vice President Andrew Johnson. Beyond Lincoln's death the plot failed: Seward was only wounded and Johnson's would-be attacker lost his nerve.​

The interception of and 23 stab wounds that killed Julius Caesar were part of a conspiracy:

On the Ides of March . . . of 44 BC, the conspirators staged a game of gladiatorial sport at Pompey's theatre. The gladiators were provided by Decimus Brutus in case their services were needed. They waited in the great hall of the theatre's quadriportico.[9] Mark Antony, having vaguely learned of the plot the night before from a terrified Liberator named Servilius Casca,[10] and fearing the worst, went to head Caesar off at the steps of the forum. However, the group of senators intercepted Caesar just as he was passing the Theatre of Pompey, located in the Campus Martius (now adjacent to the Largo di Torre Argentina), and directed him to a room adjoining the east portico of the Theatre of Pompey.[11]

According to Plutarch, as Caesar arrived at the Senate, Lucius Tillius Cimber presented him with a petition to recall his exiled brother.[12] The other conspirators crowded round to offer their support. Both Plutarch and Suetonius say that Caesar waved him away, but Cimber grabbed Caesar's shoulders and pulled down Caesar's toga. Caesar then cried to Cimber, "Why, this is violence!" ("Ista quidem vis est!").[13] At the same time, Casca produced his dagger and made a glancing thrust at the dictator's neck. Caesar turned around quickly and caught Casca by the arm. According to Plutarch, he said in Latin, "Casca, you villain, what are you doing?"[14] Casca, frightened, shouted "Help, brother!" in Greek ("ἄδελφε, βοηθεῖ", "adelphe, boethei"). Within moments, the entire group, including Brutus, were stabbing the dictator.​

There is no other logical account for the confluence of acts described in these two assassinations except as the outcome of conspiracies. People do not act in such concerted and complex ways by accident.

Yet, according to the claims and suggestions of a noticeable portion of people (not only Americans), conspiracies just don't happen. “Conspiracy theories” are spoken of as theories that are inherently false. Either explicitly or implicitly, the phrase “conspiracy theory” is often used to mean something like “a crazy falsehood”. One can find the claim all over the internet, including on this board, that conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11 have been “debunked”--e.g., a 4 minute YouTube video uploaded in 2007 is entitled, “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked,” and that's exactly what the video claims to do. So how the hell did a lone perpetrator crash four different jetliners into buildings and the ground, killing everyone on board, including the pilots? Talk about “crazy falsehoods”. Apparently among those claiming that “9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked,” there is simply no consciousness of the fact that the official government story about the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, where numerous people agreed to perform illegal acts, with most of the alleged plans apparently being accomplished that day. Zacarias Moussaoui was charged with and convicted of 6 counts of conspiracy in relation to the events of 9/11; as the Fourth Circuit recounted in reviewing his appeal, “In December 2001, Moussaoui was indicted for his participation in the conspiracies that led to the 9/11 attacks.” United States v. Moussaoui, (4th Cir. 2010). It would be difficult to say something more idiotic than that 9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked. Yet numerous people have said just that.

So what is the origin of people's flippy, erroneous ideas about conspiracies? There surely was and some motivation or reason (other than sheer ignorance) for employing an idea of “conspiracy” that is contrary to the concept in the law. What is or was that motivation or reason?

One can easily get the impression that the explanation goes something like this: People propose conspiracies for important national or world events that are not easily refuted but, if true, would destroy one's worldview (e.g., the conspiracy may imply that authorities were not truthful). So, as a way to psychologically deal with that dilemma or the uncomfortable facts, one portends that conspiracies don't happen and/or that “conspiracy theories” are inherently false. Does that sound about right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most crimes appear to be conspiracies. The lone robber of a 7-Eleven would be an exception, but not if he has a get-away driver.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" seems to say that its holder is a whack job, whatever idea is being proposed. Who benefits from such an arrangement?

Consider this: There are two ideas about what happened on 911. Both are conspiracies, whether purely Arab or involving Americans as well. If you like the first idea, you will never be accused of offering a conspiracy or of being a whack job. Not so much for the latter.

Was the Trump-Russia collusion a conspiracy? Well, if you want to demean its advocate, just call it that.

 

[Nous]

Most crimes appear to be conspiracies. The lone robber of a 7-Eleven would be an exception, but not if he has a get-away driver.

The phrase "conspiracy theory" seems to say that its holder is a whack job, whatever idea is being proposed. Who benefits from such an arrangement?

Consider this: There are two ideas about what happened on 911. Both are conspiracies, whether purely Arab or involving Americans as well. If you like the first idea, you will never be accused of offering a conspiracy or of being a whack job. Not so much for the latter.

Was the Trump-Russia collusion a conspiracy? Well, if you want to demean its advocate, just call it that.

Totally, emphatically agree.

The issue of "the Trump-Russia collusion" is interesting. It's hardly ever referred to by media outlets as a conspiracy, though it's difficult to imagine "collusion" that isn't a conspiracy. On the other hand (the reason whatever may have occurred is usually referred to as "collusion" rather than "conspiracy"), there might have been some sort of coordinated effort between someone one the Trump team and Russians without it rising to the level of an illegal conspiracy.

BTW: in my last paragraph in the OP, do you think I am close to right there, a little bit right, in the same neighborhood as correct, in my explanation?

 

[Kemosloby]

It seems like once it was a legitimate cause to expose the truth about the corruption of potential leaders. Think of James Bond hacking into some evil characters computer to expose all the corruption he was involved in before he could be elected into a high ranking position. So if it was James Bond hacking into Hillarys computer it would not be called conspiracy or collusion, they would probably call it justice.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have heard that some crimes that are not felonies become felonies if you conspire with someone else.

 

[Nous]

I have heard that some crimes that are not felonies become felonies if you conspire with someone else.

Hmmm. . . I don't know what misdemeanor that would be where the conspiracy to commit it is a felony--unless one is just counting the additional time in prison to define "felony". Sentencing guidelines generally provide that the base level offense of conspiracy to commit a particular crime is equal to the base level of the offense that was conspired. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. §2D1.1.

 

[Nous]

It seems like once it was a legitimate cause to expose the truth about the corruption of potential leaders. Think of James Bond hacking into some evil characters computer to expose all the corruption he was involved in before he could be elected into a high ranking position. So if it was James Bond hacking into Hillarys computer it would not be called conspiracy or collusion, they would probably call it justice.

I'm unsure how any of this is suppose to relate to the issue of conspiracy or people's freakish ideas about conspiracies.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Maybe take a look at conspiracies that actually came true.

 

[Nous]

Maybe take a look at conspiracies that actually came true.

What do you think are noted in the OP?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

BTW: in my last paragraph in the OP, do you think I am close to right there, a little bit right, in the same neighborhood as correct, in my explanation?

You wrote, "One can easily get the impression that the explanation goes something like this: People propose conspiracies for important national or world events that are not easily refuted but, if true, would destroy one's worldview (e.g., the conspiracy may imply that authorities were not truthful). So, as a way to psychologically deal with that dilemma or the uncomfortable facts, one portends that conspiracies don't happen and/or that “conspiracy theories” are inherently false. Does that sound about right?"

That's probably correct. If one rejects an idea and want to undermine and demean the idea and its source, all one need do is use the phrase "conspiracy theory" and the discussion is often over and somebody marginalized.

It's a very effective meme. It stifles certain discussions.

 

[Revoltingest]

You wrote, "One can easily get the impression that the explanation goes something like this: People propose conspiracies for important national or world events that are not easily refuted but, if true, would destroy one's worldview (e.g., the conspiracy may imply that authorities were not truthful). So, as a way to psychologically deal with that dilemma or the uncomfortable facts, one portends that conspiracies don't happen and/or that “conspiracy theories” are inherently false. Does that sound about right?"

That's probably correct. If one rejects an idea and want to undermine and demean the idea and its source, all one need do is use the phrase "conspiracy theory" and the discussion is often over and somebody marginalized.

It's a very effective meme. It stifles certain discussions.

Of course, some ideas deserve to be undermined, eg, faked Moon landings.
This widespread belief is quite understandable because of many factors....

1) Space travel is science fiction, ie, something fantastic & hard to believe.
2) Few people have much training & experience in the sciences.
3) Few have space travel affect their own lives in any discernable way.
4) Few actually work in the aerospace industry. Most people don't even know any such workers.
5) Government has earned our distrust & disdain.
It becomes the boogeyman upon whom all is blamed...a component of every conspiracy theory.
To believe the worst about it is natural, & invites bias confirmation.
6) Even those who distrust government often have high regard for spy agencies & the military.
A friend (a big fan of conspiracies) tells me that they can do anything because they're so
capable...more so than ordinary folk. To believe they're so competent heightens their malevolence.
7) On the internet, all things are true. So 'experts' can be found to support any conspiracy theory.
8) Arguments can be complex, sophisticated, full of arcane terminology.
To the unfamiliar, a wall of technobabble text can be impressive.
9) Modern movie special effects would enable a convincing fraud.

But while the conspiracy is popular, it's still worth dubunking it...for the betterment of its believers.
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are far more important to quash because people tend to minimize
some dangers & the necessity of addressing them....
- Buildings should be designed with more resistance to terrorist acts.
(If government had demolished them, then no design change would help.)
- Extremist elements of Islam must be watched & countered.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Conspiracy theory" as commonly used, is not as widely
applicable as to encompass every conspiracy & theory of it.
Ref....
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.[3]

Some conspiracies can turn out to be real....
5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true
What differentiates the real from the merely imagined?
There are things to consider....
- Is there evidence which stands up to ordinary scientific scrutiny (as opposed to the ICR type)?
- Is there an alternative better explanation?
- Are there insurmountable problems with a theory?
Example:
If government were behind the 9/11 attacks, this conspiracy would've have involved
thousands of people, some of whom would've willingly given up their lives (in the
collapsed buildings) to perpetrate the cover-up. Is our government so organized
& competent at all levels that even to this day, all players have remained faithful?
Nah!
I've worked for government. I've known special forces types, & even one NSA spook.
They're too ordinary & rife with the usual human failings.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sometimes I refer to someone else's idea as a conspiracy theory and they get immediately defensive as though I had said they were crazy. The term conspiracy theory definitely has been divorced from it's literal meaning.

Did "conspiracy theory" ever have the literal meaning which is divorced from current usage?
Such phrases are often invented to mean more than just their face value.

I've never quite understood why 9/11 conspiracies are so popular. Even if 9/11 was purely arab, cause could still be traced back to America, no?

I see Americastan's meddling in the Mid-East as causative.
But this doesn't justify the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've never quite understood why 9/11 conspiracies are so popular. Even if 9/11 was purely arab, cause could still be traced back to America, no?

Even if they were backed by someone in the US, the actual 9/11 story implies some fearful facts about how vulnerable we are: if less than 20 people with enough determination can kill thousands of people, what can stop something like that from happening again? How can any of us really feel safe? There's a weird sort of comfort in the idea that it would take a huge, extraordinary effort by many, many people to inflict that sort of damage on the US.

Conspiracy theories often offer the "consolation" that even though the world seems like a chaotic, unpredictable place, there's order and planning behind it all. The people in charge might not be good people, but there IS someone in charge, which means that if we examine the "facts" closely enough, we can figure out that plan and make ourselves safe.

That's my take on it, anyhow.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if they were backed by someone in the US, the actual 9/11 story implies some fearful facts about how vulnerable we are: if less than 20 people with enough determination can kill thousands of people, what can stop something like that from happening again? How can any of us really feel safe? There's a weird sort of comfort in the idea that it would take a huge, extraordinary effort by many, many people to inflict that sort of damage on the US.

Conspiracy theories often offer the "consolation" that even though the world seems like a chaotic, unpredictable place, there's order and planning behind it all. The people in charge might not be good people, but there IS someone in charge, which means that if we examine the "facts" closely enough, we can figure out that plan and make ourselves safe.

That's my take on it, anyhow.

The "angry god" view to explain human affairs, eh?
I too have noticed that people come in 2 types, who tend to see.....
1) Events are controlled by central forces, or....
2) Events are the result of stochastic processes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't mean to imply it did.

Understood.

 

[Nous]

I've never quite understood why 9/11 conspiracies are so popular.

I assume it's because there is simply no coherent theory in which a lone perpetrator hijacked and flew 4 different jetliners into buildings and the ground, killing everyone on board.

Even if 9/11 was purely arab, cause could still be traced back to America, no?

True, as Bob Graham (who headed the joint investigation on 9/11) noted in a series of interviews (with someone I didn't know), where he pointed to, not just the Bush administration's inaction in response to imminent terrorist threats, but obstruction to people acting on those threats. Further, there is the completely inexplicable and indefensible flying of(dozens? hundreds?) important Saudis out of the country just hours after the attacks, Saudis who quite likely knew something about the attacks and who should have been interviewed.

 

[Nous]

"Conspiracy theory" as commonly used, is not as widely
applicable as to encompass every conspiracy & theory of it.
Ref....
Conspiracy theory - Wikipedia


Some conspiracies can turn out to be real....
5 US national security-related conspiracy theories that turned out to be true
What differentiates the real from the merely imagined?
There are things to consider....
- Is there evidence which stands up to ordinary scientific scrutiny (as opposed to the ICR type)?
- Is there an alternative better explanation?
- Are there insurmountable problems with a theory?
Example:
If government were behind the 9/11 attacks, this conspiracy would've have involved
thousands of people, some of whom would've willingly given up their lives (in the
collapsed buildings) to perpetrate the cover-up. Is our government so organized
& competent at all levels that even to this day, all players have remained faithful?
Nah!
I've worked for government. I've known special forces types, & even one NSA spook.
They're too ordinary & rife with the usual human failings.

So how did it happen that some people ignorantly use the term "conspiracy theory" in a way that is contrary to the meaning of "conspiracy" as used in the law?

Would it be good or intelligent to begin using "bribery" in a similar idiotic way, so that all "bribery theories" are inherently false?

 

[Revoltingest]

So how did it happen that some people ignorantly use the term "conspiracy theory" in a way that is contrary to the meaning of "conspiracy" as used in the law?

Common usage of a phrase needn't be the same as legal jargon.
Moreover, individual words when combined into a phrase often mean
something specialized....different from the literal combination.
Think of idioms....
When a TV show "jumps the shark", it means to use a far fetched scenario, which indicates
a severe quality decline. The show itself doesn't literally do that (even though Fonzie did).

Would it be good or intelligent to begin using "bribery" in a similar idiotic way, so that all "bribery theories" are inherently false?

This analogy isn't useful.
"Bribery theory" isn't a phrase one hears in common usage.
So it's not idiomatic...just a pairing of words.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So how did it happen that some people ignorantly use the term "conspiracy theory" in a way that is contrary to the meaning of "conspiracy" as used in the law?

It isn't contrary; the term "conspiracy theory" does refer to purported conspiracies, just not all conspiracies.

Would it be good or intelligent to begin using "bribery" in a similar idiotic way, so that all "bribery theories" are inherently false?

If you're going to insist on a prescriptivist approach to language, then prepare for a lifetime of disappointment.

You seem like a smart guy. I'm sure you can figure out that when people talk about conspiracy theories in relation to, say, 9/11, they're referring to the "9/11 was an inside job" stuff and not "al Qaeda operatives conspired to attack the US with hijacked airliners." You might not like the implications that this has for your pet hypotheses (if you actually have one you'll admit to and aren't just JAQing off), but I have confidence that you can figure out the intended meaning.