I'm no fan of James Shaw, who was my third place pick for co-leader, but really, when you say:
This whole argument is predicated upon a contention that the Greens are somehow failing in the first place.
I would respond by saying your whole argument is predicated on accepting the views of people like Hooton and Farrar, who have a vested interest in making it look like the Greens are shifting to the Centre or Centre Right; you seem to be buying into the very conspiracy theory about the Greens you ostensibly oppose. Are you really suggesting that the party membership of the Greens, who you "No True Scotsman" construe as follows:
[Are] characterised by a deep ethical, philosophical and political commitment. These are the ten per cent, and historically, they have punished parties they consider to have deserted their dogma.
are really under the sway of the practitioners of the Right's Dark Arts? Because either the Right are far more powerful and able to change the hearts and minds of the stalwart co-leader electing Greens membership, or they are merely successfully getting some of us to see enemies in our midsts in order to generate blogposts just like this.
So, I asked this question on Twitter and I'm going to ask it here: I'm the author of the book "The Philosophy o Conspiracy Theories" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014) and I want to know how I can prevent the extension of copyright on my work post my death. I realise that, at the moment, the copyright is really with the publisher, but is there anything I can do to make sure they don't apply for extensions when I'm dead?
If conspiracy theory gets claimed only to include the wacky claims used to put down the person talking, then we’ll lose the use of a particularly useful phrase.
Boy, do I have a book to sell you then. Because that's what I argue, although at slightly more length and with more references to the assassination of Julius Caesar.
You'll need to be a little more specific, I'm afraid, Ian.
A conspiracy is just a few people doing stuff out of public sight that’s deniable and for personal gain.
I'm with you up until that point, and all I want to say is that I don't think we need to bake into the definition of a conspiracy theory that it's for personal gain or anything vaguely nefarious or malevolent. I think there can be conspiracies of goodness where people act in secret towards some public good. After all, one story as to why Brutus and his associates assassinated Julius Caesar was to rid Rome of a tyrant (it's not the only story, admittedly), and activists who plot in secret to disrupt some meeting or stop some event from occurring (which is a kind of conspiratorial activity) often do it because they consider it to be the best outcome for all.
I think it's fair to say that John Key is a bit of a conspiracy theorist about the work of Nicky Hager. So was Helen Clark.
What are the odds that there’ll be an SIS operative under cover with those police digging around for any Snowden or Greenwald correspondence on Hagers computers? And no, I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
That's a great example of what I call the "I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but..." fallacy, where people are happy to put forward what are, to them, plausible conspiracy theories but don't want to be labeled as a conspiracy theorist. I say own the term: I'm happy to be called both a conspiracy theorist and a conspiracy theory theorist.
Well, yes. Once again, that's one kind of conspiracy theorist. The members of the Dewey Commission were called conspiracy theorists for their belief Stalin and his cronies had manufactured the verdicts of the Moscow Trials. Turns out the members of the Commission were right.
The actual issue here, surely, is the claim about whether those in power will ignore or hide evidence which reflects badly upon them, or even disseminate disinformation (a term invented by the Stalin regime to "describe" the Dewey Commission's report)? However, that's an issue which isn't unique to claims of conspiracy.
Part of the attraction of apparent conspiracy theories seems to be that they give an illusion of power to the powerless – the eureka moment of “I was right, everything I knew was wrong!”
That's true of some conspiracy theorists but I'd hesitate to define a set of beliefs which range from the plausible to the implausible with reference to just one kind of conspiracy theorist. Also, after the Snowden revelations, et al., it seems some of those conspiracy theorists might well have known something was up.
The line was being deployed preemptively, before Dirty Politics was even published. And it was quite effective. The number of people who can’t perceive a difference between Hager and Ian Wishart is quite remarkable.
In the terms of your argument, of course, Hager is a conspiracy theorist.
Indeed. As are you, what with your remonstrations of Messrs. Farrar, Williams and Graham on Twitter the other day. :)