New conspiracism abandons evidence while classic conspiracism theorizes it

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

What validates the new conspiracism is not evidence but repetition. When Trump tweeted the accusation that President Barack Obama had ordered the FBI to tap his phones in October before the 2016 election, no evidence of the charge was forthcoming. What mattered was not evidence but the number of retweets the president’s post would enjoy: the more retweets, the more credible the charge. Forwarding, reposting, retweeting, and “liking”: these are how doubts are instilled and accusations are validated in the new media. The new conspiracism—all accusation, no evidence—substitutes social validation for scientific validation: if a lot of people are saying it, to use Trump’s signature phrase, then it is true enough. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 15 (#builds-on, via linked claim)

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• 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; Conspiracism is not bullshit because it cares about being affirmed as reality. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 166; Mistrust is democratic, delegitimation assaults democracy — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 86 (+18 more)

Related

• New conspiracism drops explanation and evidence in favor of bare assertion (similarity 0.90)
• Bare-assertion conspiracism demands no errant facts to explain (similarity 0.90)
• Repetition substitutes for evidence as validation in new conspiracism (similarity 0.87)
• New conspiracism lowers the assent bar to mere possibility, without evidence (similarity 0.86)
• New conspiracists assent forcefully without believing or disbelieving their claims (similarity 0.83)
• New conspiracism thrives on innuendo that is only ‘true enough,’ never actually verified. (similarity 0.82)
• New conspiracism differs from classic conspiracy theory in kind (similarity 0.82)
• New conspiracism replaces skeptical inquiry with certainty immune to correction (similarity 0.82)
• New conspiracists replace organized political action with mass repetition and assent (similarity 0.81)
• Conspiracism differs from bullshit in its emphatic demand for affirmation (similarity 0.81)
• New conspiracism abandons explanatory theory and targets democratic legitimacy (similarity 0.81)
• New conspiracism operates without theory because its sole product is delegitimation (similarity 0.81)
• New conspiracism is monologic and untethered to shared facts and experience (similarity 0.81)
• New conspiracism floats allegations disconnected from observable reality (similarity 0.81)
• New conspiracism is a closed system that abandons explanation entirely (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Bare-assertion conspiracism demands no errant facts to explain #expands (0.92) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 63