Why are conspiracy theorists called theorists?

The opposite of a conspiracy is a scheme for benevolence. To expect there to be plans for good is to be a benevolence theorist, right?
People who doubt conspiracy theorists or call them crazy often talk like they have high faith in leaders. Why?

Have you ever [i][c=003BB2]thought[/c][/i] about that?

What do "benevolence theorists" require to accept that the powers or leaders they trust in do not have good will at heart for them? Especially here in the West?

Has the world really been looking like benevolence was the aim by the powers in control? Are things getting better? Is life getting easier with all the power, influence, and money being siphoned after pillaging foreign nations? Or has it truly been conspiracy after conspiracy? Life getting worse and worse for [b]you[/b]? Do the people you viciously defend the image of not conspire against you?

And this is a serious question. I'm talking the laws passed, do they really serve you? Or do they find scheme after scheme to plot against you and either drive you that much more insane or force that much more money from you into their hands? 🤔

A question for a true thinker

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

NerdyPotato · M

[quote]People who doubt conspiracy theorists or call them crazy often talk like they have high faith in leaders.[/quote]
This isn't always true, and probably not even the case for the majority. You can believe that vaccines are beneficial, but disagree with other policies or even the way vaccination is encouraged. To me it's obvious that no politician anywhere in the world wants the best for everyone.

The interesting thing about conspiracy theories is that people truly believe the information it is based on, and that the logic used to combine them is solid. Facts/truth are subject to change as more information is discovered, so not trusting what is commonly accepted as truth still kinda makes sense. But you can poke as many holes as you want in the logic someone uses on the information they accept as a given, and they'll still believe that's all perfectly valid and their conclusion is the only reasonable one.

I don't understand how others can [i]that[/i] confidently deny there are any flaws in their reasoning when it is so obvious to me, but it obviously does happen. And that makes me worried: how can I be sure I'm not utterly blind to other logical fallacies no matter how many times I consider feedback? Without understanding how others do that with what's obvious to me, I don't think I can be sure I'm not doing that with other things.