That which is stated without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Fine article, but all the "on the other hand"-ness gets tiresome. One can't drift in the dark forever. Occam's razor, people. It works pretty well.

I agree that "conspiracy theory" is thrown around willy-nilly and quite too often to tarnish dissenters. It has most of the makings of a moral panic.

However, the lockdowns are not authoritarian. Just like when referring to the appeal to authority fallacy, which is about the appeal to illegitimate authority, a temporary restriction on liberties for a legitimate purpose is not authoritarian.

> a temporary restriction on liberties for a legitimate purpose is not authoritarian.

It seems like you are arguing this on the basis that "authoritarian" is inherently negative. I'd argue that it is authoritarian, and justifiably so! In these circumstances, being authoritarian is absolutely the right thing even if in other circumstances it may not be.

Likewise with "appeal to authority": it applies regardless of the legitimacy of the authority. The key point being that someone being an expert in something is not a good refutation to a substantial argument against their point of view: experts can be wrong.

Feels like that's playing definitional games. Why not just own up to the fact that the lockdowns are authoritarian to some degree, and then go on to say that doesn't mean they aren't sensible?

I feel like no rational person would stand behind 'you are incorrect because what you are saying sounds like a conspiracy theory and there have never been conspiracy theories.' This is a straw-man. An easy-to-dismiss opposing narrative. And one that can be used to drown out a wide array of incoming narratives by surreptitiously reducing them to this one, then dismissing this one as it was basically designed to be dismissable.

I would say not -all- of the lock downs are authoritarian, but -some- are. Some of the restrictions simply make no sense, and often some special interest is let off the hook while the smaller players are left in limbo or are restricted. Which in the end helps the big players, and puts the smaller ones out of business/at risk. Do I really think that that wasn't lobbied hard for? I'm not naive.

We're obviously talking about the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.

Might be worth posting the critique that Eisenstein was alluding to https://medium.com/@jackadamweber/coronation-unveiled-a-crit...

Covid-19 is a nasty threat and must be taken seriously.

The tinfoil hattery comes from the near-exclusive focus on the one threat at the expense of the rest of the threat spectrum.

Hence the "Newton's 3rd Law" reaction to edicts that are not popularly supported.

Nah, the tinfoil hattery is always there, in the people that demand that type of content. The creative writers of the stuff will always incorporate the latest events into their existing plotlines. Covid is a goldmine for them.

Almost seems a symbiotic relationship.

Both tobacco and oil companies have been trying to undermine science generally for decades now by promoting things like “DDT is actually safe.” It’s well-documented. Take a minute to google it.

Way too long to read so I'm gonna assume it says "government conspiracies are real, happen all the time because a conspiracy is just people working together towards some goal while keeping it a secret from other people and the only question is if your particular one is true or even remotely makes sense" and agree.

Nope, should read an article before commenting on it.

Nope. It says that "conspiracy theory" is a silly epithet used as a pro-stupidity attack by people who don't learn - read about - what they are commenting on.