Bare-assertion conspiracism demands no errant facts to explain

Evidence

The typical form of the new conspiracism is bare assertion. Consider Trump’s repeated insistence that busloads of fraudulent voters were sent to cast ballots against him in the New Hampshire presidential primary. The primary was “rigged.” Yet there is nothing begging for explanation. Trump lost New Hampshire by fewer than 3,000 votes, true; but he won the election—a fact that nobody disputes. The outcome in the Electoral College would have been the same whether he won New Hampshire or not. Unless one thinks it defies belief to suppose that Trump could lose an election, there is nothing here that needs to be explained. Nor are there stray facts to account for. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 63

Categorization

• DEFINE: Concrete illustration of bare assertion: a ‘rigged’ claim with nothing needing explanation.
• XREF: connects to: Repetition substitutes for evidence as validation in new conspiracism — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 15; Industry disinformation demanded impossible certainty regardless of accumulated evidence — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 94; Herd immunity means only a large-enough majority needs inoculation against misinformation — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 835 (+14 more)

Broader Connections

• Bare assertions of non-hostility cannot substitute for authenticable facts #expands (0.85) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 569
• Conspiracy claims can float unattached to any settled belief system #corroborates (0.85) — Naomi Klein, Doppelganger, 93
• Conspiracist claims must fit the larger story regardless of specifics. #complicates (0.75)
• Conspiracy theories become unfalsifiable by dismissing skeptic evidence as planted #complicates (0.72)