Conspiracy theorists unaware their beliefs are on the fringe

Media, politics, and “emotional truth”

• Several comments argue that conspiracy-style narratives have been absorbed into mainstream right-wing politics via a party–media “doom loop,” especially talk radio and cable news that “just ask questions” to legitimize fringe claims.
• One thread contrasts “factual falsehood” (e.g. Trump) with “emotional falsehood” (e.g. some Democratic figures seen as inauthentic), claiming voters often respond more to emotional resonance than correctness.
• Another likens Trumpist politics to pro-wrestling “kayfabe”: consistency doesn’t matter; what matters is sticking to the in-group narrative.

Psychology of self-destructive and conspiratorial beliefs

• A long subthread centers on a parent describing a child’s severe eating disorder as “possession” by an idea; others share similar experiences with anorexia, over-exercising, and addiction.
• Common themes: ideas as coping mechanisms, fear at the core of self-destructive behavior, and the need for internally generated motivation to change.
• Several recommend CBT/FBT, professional therapy, and note that severe malnutrition itself impairs the brain, complicating treatment.
• Multiple commenters frame ideas as “memes” or “demons” that spread like viruses and can override rational self-interest.

What counts as a conspiracy theory?

• Some emphasize unfalsifiability as the key feature: any counter‑evidence gets reinterpreted as part of the plot.
• Others stress that real conspiracies exist (NSA mass surveillance, Epstein, Watergate, etc.), and that many “crazy” claims later contain partial truth.
• Debate over whether concepts like “systemic racism” function like conspiracy explanations (invisible cause inferred from disparities) or are empirically grounded.
• The term “conspiracy theorist” is described by some as a “kill shot” used to stigmatize dissent; others reply that its meaning has been watered down and now covers almost any skepticism.

Fringe vs mainstream, bias, and overconfidence

• Several note parallels to the Dunning–Kruger effect: conspiracy believers overestimate both their reasoning ability and how common their views are.
• Others argue this is true of “most people,” not just conspiracists; humans systematically overestimate agreement and struggle with their own cognitive blind spots.
• Some see the study as tautological or pseudo‑scientific, since it classifies “false conspiracies” via an ad‑hoc list and largely ignores widely held or true conspiracies.

How to respond to conspiracy thinking

• One proposal: treat conspiracy theories as hypotheses, allow open structured debate, and let better explanations rise rather than relying on censorship or ridicule, which can harden belief.
• Pushback: entrenched conspiracy worldviews often have built‑in defenses against contrary evidence, making rational engagement difficult and driving experts out of open forums.