'Conspiracy theorist!': How to effectively respond to toxic labeling

The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is losing its punch due to overuse. Like other worn-out labels (racist, bigot, woke, white supremacist), it is more often than not deployed reflexively to describe any fact, fact pattern or hypothesis that the user of the label does not understand, or does not agree with.

Used in this way, labeling is toxic to the possibility of a productive conversation, tending to send interlocutors into states of smug superiority or misunderstood frustration (depending on who is using it).

It is therefore valuable to have the skills to defuse inappropriate use of toxic labels so as to bring the conversation back onto the course of building mutual understanding.

I’m going to share with you four simple techniques I used to defuse conspiracy theory labeling over the weekend, coaxing the user through his own feelings and thoughts on the subject until he voluntarily reversed his position. At no point did I suggest that he was wrong, or argue for an alternative point of view. I simply used a combination of non-judgemental questions and listening techniques, and my conversational partner reversed his conspiracy theory accusation all by himself.

The case study

Last weekend I had a conversation with a perfectly nice, normal man at a dinner party.

He learned that I work in the alt-media space. Where did I think Covid came from, he asked. A lab, I said. Yes of course, he said, but was it deliberate, or accidental?? Surprised, I said I wasn’t sure either way. I had thought the normal-sphere was still arguing over lab vs. wet market theories. He said he thought it was an accidental lab leak, as he thought it implausible that any government would go so far as to deliberately start a pandemic.

Next he asked me, what do you think of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Before I could offer a response, he immediately asnwered his own question. Conspiracy theories abound, which frustrate him to no end. His friend had gone so far as to write a book on 9/11 conspiracies (in earnest, apparently) which referenced sources from discredited conspiracy theorists, and my conversational partner was just furious that it was all bunk.

I remarked that his friend’s use of discredited conspiracy theorist sources was a shame, given the plentitude of legitimate conspiracy facts about 9/11 that his friend could have inserted into his book. These facts, being easily verifiable, would have eased the frustrations of readers such as himself.

Facts like what, my conversational partner asked. Well, like that 9/11 was used as a pretext to start a war with Iraq, along with the actual conspiracy theory that Iraq had WMDs. You know, like in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore.

At this he braced. Michael Moore! He spreads conspiracy theories!

From there, the conversation continued roughly as follows:

Me: Conspiracy theories?

Him: Yes

Me: Like what?

Him: Well, people will think that if he’s saying Iraq doesn’t have WMD’s, then neither does Iran. But Iran does have nuclear weapons, so Michael Moore is spreading this conspiracy theory and people will believe Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons because of his movie.

Me: Iran? Why do you think Michael Moore’s audience will think Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons? Isn’t the film about Iraq?

Him: Iraq and Iran sound similar.

Me: So you think because Iraq and Iran sound similar, Michael Moore’s audience will get the countries confused, and they’ll think a film about fake WMD charges leading to the Iraq war is really about Iran?

Him: Well, Michael Moore’s audience is from midwest America. They’re not good at geography.

Me: I’ve watched the film and to be honest, it didn’t occur to me that Michael Moore was trying to send a message about Iran. Can you draw the Iran link for me?

Him: Well, you’re not Michael Moore’s audience. You’re well read, they’re not. [We had earlier discussed my current reading list]

Me: Ok, but one more time, can you help me to understand why you think Michael Moore’s film about the Iraq war would be interpreted as a conspiracy theory that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons? Can you give me an example?

It turned out that my conversational partner had found Michael Moore’s comical representation of President George Bush to be spiteful and unnecessarily laboured, as Presidents are under enormous pressure and President Bush was probably doing his best.

It seems like you think Michael Moore treated George Bush unfairly, I commented.

That’s right! he said.

I can understand why you don’t like the film then, and maybe you would think Michael Moore is not credible, I said.

With that, my conversational partner nodded, sat back, and then said something quite remarkable.

‘Ok, I’ll wind back what I said about Iran. That wasn’t right.’

And then we moved on.

What just happened is that I strategically used four non-confrontational techniques to gently coax my conversational partner through the process of testing his own ideas, to the point that he discarded the one that didn’t stand up to scrutiny - namely, that Michael Moore’s audience is so dumb, they’ll think Iraq is the same as Iran because they sound sorta similar, and therefore Michael Moore is responsible for mass denial of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Four techniques to diffuse conspiracy theory accusations