No, the logic is that just calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it any less true. The term "conspiracy theory" has been socially engineered to automatically produce an 'ok, no need to think about it any more then' reaction, which is precisely the opposite of what needs to be done, in many cases, when enough evidence is gathered to the point that such theories are being formulated... especially when it involves known-nefarious actors and agents, such as the US government, top-secret military-industrial-complex inner societies, and so on.. too often, the general public is dissuaded by critical thought with a mere phrase or two. "Conspiracy theory" is one of those phrases that has been intentionally propagated in modern society to shut down attention.

The CIA coined the term conspiracy theory (and the media used it) to discredit people who didn't believe the governments version of the Kennedy Assassination.

He's pointing that calling someone a conspiracy theorist is an example of an ad hominem attack. Which it is and was and always will be. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist is talking about a person, not the ideas they are expressing.

According to Paul Graham in his article How to Disagree an ad hominem attack is the second weakest form of disagreement, only a little better than calling someone mean names.

However, in the case of calling someone a conspiracy theorist, I would argue that it actually is an example of name calling as well. It is a negatively charged word. Name calling, according to Paul Graham, is the weakest form of disagreement.

From a logical fundamentals perspective, calling someone a conspiracy theorist has never held water. It can't hold water, unless talking about the character of a person, because it tries to attack the character of a person, rather than refuting their ideas.

Wikipedia, citing conspiracy theory as an example of ad hominem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It is an error of logic to support that the fact that an ad hominem attack doesn't hold weight means that a thing is right or wrong. The entire point of understanding fallacy is to realize that there is a disconnection between ground truth and any claims reached via their use.

In this particular case, people are talking about Elon being a conspiracy theorist, because he suspects there might be outside actors involved on the basis of known data exportation, known sabotage, and profit motives. These are examples of things tied directly to the question of whether Tesla is experiencing corporate espionage.

Not exactly. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" can certainly be an ad hominem attack akin to calling someone a "wacko", but it can also be shorthand for "your argument is structured like a conspiracy theory", and conspiracy theories tend to be logically unsound because they are unfalsifiable. (Broadly speaking, the conspiracy theorist can always explain away evidence contrary to their claims by suggesting that it, too, is part of the conspiracy.)

9/11 truthers, birthers, JFK assassination theorists, Illuminati/Satanist/New World Order types, pizzagaters, ZOG-believing antisemites, flat earthers, hollow earthers, etc. all have common rhetorical tactics and modes of argumentation that are distinctly "conspiracy theorist".

Good point, though I'm really just trying to get across that 'since some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true, all conspiracy theories are likely true' is not a good summation of the motivations which produced rplst8 statement. When I apply the principle of charity to what rplst8 said, I'm forced to ascribe to him beliefs which maximize the correctness of his views. In doing so, I have to take the position that he is referring to conspiracy theorist as applied as a label to a person, rather than used as shorthand to discuss the structure of someone's argument. This is especially a truth maximizing necessity, because the conversation he is replying to is discussing cases where conspiracy theories turned out to be true; not just unfalsifiable rhetoric.

I think what they meant was that the label "conspiracy theory" is often used to discredit the truth, At this stage we have so many examples of conspiracy theories turning out to be straight up conspiracies that you would be unwise to not look further for yourself when you hear someone roll-out the conspiracy theory label.

I disagree with "often," "so many," and the general idea that anything more than a small percentage of things labeled conspiracy theories have ever turned out to be true.

Conspiracy theories tend to be unfalsifiable claims without counter-explanations, while later-revealed conspiracies have tended to unravel based on credible counter-explanations from the beginning. Yes, the US government imported drugs into inner cities, just as the San Jose Mercury News spelled out, and it's a tragedy that the government then hounded that journalist to suicide before finally admitting it was all true.

In the meantime, hundreds or thousands of claims have been made that have no basis in reality, nothing other than "the world ought to make more sense than it does."

Our planet isn't flat because the US government tested drugs on poor black people without telling them. The latter was consistent with known facts all along, while the former is the result of Dunning-Kruger nonsense.

That oil companies and auto manufacturers are sabotaging Tesla, while competing rocket companies sabotaged SpaceX, is not impossible. It is, however, far less likely than that production is difficult, and that employees treated as Tesla employees are reported to be treated sometimes become disgruntled. So I won't be surprised if there does turn out to be evidence worth charging somebody with, but I think reason suggests that it's less likely than Musk is claiming.

Flat earth is not exactly what i had in mind when i made my comment. Let's be real here, there is an incredible amount of nefarious bullshit happening in business and politics all the time. There always has been, which if you enjoy reading history you would know. I see no evidence that it is slowing down. If anything it is accelerating.

Added to that corporate espionage and disgruntled employees are not opposites. One provides opportunity for the other.

There's a big difference between crazy conspiracy theories, like the moon hoax and stuff like that, and actual conspiracies, which can still exist, whether anyone theorises about them or not.

For example, to me it's pretty clear that Putin is trying to destabilise the West. This is a theory about a conspiracy, but it's supported by plenty of evidence from multiple sources, and it makes sense, because Putin really hates NATO. But there's no credible evidence that the moon landing was a hoax, and the theory is insane, because the USSR would have had to be in on the hoax and help the US defeat them in the space race.

So what about Tesla? Are there people and organisations that have reason to feel threatened by Tesla? Is there evidence that they're trying to sabotage Tesla? And are these cases unconnected or is there actual coordination? (Otherwise it's still not a conspiracy.)