Is there an updated or expanded version of the conspiracy theory spectrum?

Liambp

New Member
I just started reading "Escaping the Rabbit Hole" and I am intrigued by the conspiracy theory spectrum and the demarcation line concept. Has Mick or anyone else produced an updated or expanded version? There are so many new conspiracy theories floating round in the wake of the 2020 election and Covid that it would be useful to see where they rank.
 
I have not updated it. But essentially it's a subjective assessment, and different people would place different theories in different positions. It's one of those things you can slice in different directions. Consider this chart by Abbie RIchards, it's more organized by potential harm - with the vaguely defined "Deep State" ranking much higher than "The Beatles Never Existed." Such ranking isn't an exact science.

135829753_2894323260810370_873239923463183333_n.jpg
 
Thanks Mick. Abbie's chart is interesting in itself and quite engrossing (a rabbit hole about rabbit holes!). As you point out though it focuses more on potential harm so I don't think you can draw a demarcation line on it the way you can with your ranking.
 
I notice the 'Covid-19 Made in a lab' has been removed (or shall we say mutated ;))
Whilst I don't think it was but based on what I've heard over the last year or so, it is a possibility.

Also how is 'Hollywood is turning your kids gay' more out there than 'Biden is a robot'. Now whilst I don't think hollywood/tik tok etc is turning kids gay but we know that media can influence people, But Biden no way, Now if they said Mark Zuckerberg then perhaps.
But like Mick saiz above its personally subjective though if it is by potential risk surely 'Global warming hoax' should be near the top
 
Links below are from the interactive version of the chart.
I notice the 'Covid-19 Made in a lab' has been removed (or shall we say mutated ;))
Whilst I don't think it was but based on what I've heard over the last year or so, it is a possibility.
The DNI report came out, https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf .
External Quote:
SmartSelect_20240127-091441_Samsung Notes.jpg

It sums up what various US intelligence agencies are thinking, and they agree Covid was not engineered/not a bioweapon. So "made in a lab" is out. There's still one agency that prefers "escaped from a lab", so that idea would be lower, in "we have questions", though I think that's false as well. See these threads (we discuss the DNI report there):
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...drawn-by-authors-other-man-made-claims.11103/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-natural-covid-19-broke-out-of-wuhan-lab-not-man-made.11212/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ne...hu-yu-ping-and-yan-zhu-as-patient-zero.13006/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-e-pai-report-on-the-origins-of-covid-19.11260/

Also how is 'Hollywood is turning your kids gay' more out there than 'Biden is a robot'. Now whilst I don't think hollywood/tik tok etc is turning kids gay but we know that media can influence people, But Biden no way, Now if they said Mark Zuckerberg then perhaps.
First, media can influence people, but it can't make them gay. Being gay is not a personal choice.
In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”

The top two categories are both, loosely speaking, "harmful to others"; the distinction is that the topmost category can make people grab a gun and go out and shoot someone, and the anti-gay conspiracy theories do that while the Biden robot theory does not.
But like Mick saiz above its personally subjective though if it is by potential risk surely 'Global warming hoax' should be near the top
It's the same for "global warming": nobody is going around shooting climate scientists, that's why it is "only" in the "dangerous to yourself and others" category.
 
It sums up what various US intelligence agencies are thinking, and they agree Covid was not engineered/not a bioweapon. So "made in a lab" is out. There's still one agency that prefers "escaped from a lab"
Sorry my mistake, I was including 'escaped from a lab' in the 'made in a lab' term, i.e. it originated from a lab and not it originated in the wild, like from captured pangolins sold in the market (or whatever the current theory is)

First, media can influence people, but it can't make them gay. Being gay is not a personal choice.
To clarify, I didn't say that it was a personal choice, in fact I said the opposite. Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm saying if something becomes portrayed as 'normal' (whatever that is) more people will experiment with it as they feel less restrictions about it being a bad look society wise.
I know people who even now, only found out they were gay in their thirties, Personally I can't really comprehend that but cool.
Now if it was 100+ years ago where there was far less exposure to all things gay in the media, there was a good chance they could of gone through life without ever knowing they were in fact gay.

I don't think anyone is harmed from the hollow earth theory, unless theres news I haven't heard about. Though I have heard about death threats for climate scientists (Though as with most death threats, they rarely carry through with their threats)
OTOH There are actual deaths each year due to extreme climate events which are becoming more frequent due to climate change, in fact climate change will prolly end up killing more than all the rest on the list combined
 
It sums up what various US intelligence agencies are thinking, and they agree Covid was not engineered/not a bioweapon. So "made in a lab" is out.
"So" implies some kind of logical deduction, yet there is no logical way of getting from your premise, which seems likely, to your concusion, which doesn't seem supported by the evidence. If any gain of function work was performed on an antecedent to what finally ran wild, then "made in a lab" is a valid conclusion. And we do know, from published academic papers, that gain of function research was performed on similar strains. We just don't know for sure whether what got out was one of those strains. We do however know that the largest investigation into that question was performed by a group of people who had a vested interest in the answer being "no", and thus ranks alongside the tobacco industry's "smoking doesn't cause cancer" claims for inherent believability.
 
This is the wrong (sub)forum, and the wrong thread, to discuss the lab leak theory. I've linked the threads above, and I'd be happy to discuss there.

I'd also ask you to review the DNI assessment linked above.
 
Last edited:
This is the wrong (sub)forum, and the wrong thread, to discuss the lab leak theory. I've linked the threads above, and I'd be happy to discuss there.

I'd also ask you to review the DNI assessment linked above.
I reviewed the words "plausible" and "information gaps" in the slide you posted above. If you agree with that slide, you agree with my prior post.
 
Sorry my mistake, I was including 'escaped from a lab' in the 'made in a lab' term, i.e. it originated from a lab and not it originated in the wild, like from captured pangolins sold in the market (or whatever the current theory is)
Afaik there basically is no "current theory" and it's been that way for a long time.
 
Back
Top