"David Gerard" wrote
I think even strong supporters of [[David Icke]] would have a hard time seriously arguing the point, for example.
It was once pointed out to me that, pedantically speaking, pejorative implies position B in an A/B pair, where the denotation is roughly the same but the connotation is that B is worse. Or something. Well, it wasn't explained like that, but 'pejorative' once was like a worse type of comparative.
In that light, anyway, I think 'conspiracy theorist' is not necessarily a pejorative. It applies to anyone who postulates a (successful, hidden) conspiracy. Would 'cartel theorist' be a bad thing to call someone who postulates cartels? All those non-Stratfordian Shakespeare theorists postulate unlikely, hidden things; but accept labels saying that they think conventional literary history is just wrong.
I think the pejorative forms of 'conspiracy theorist' include 'barking conspiracy theorist', 'anti-Masonic nutter and conspiracy theorist' and so on.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 8/23/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
It was once pointed out to me that, pedantically speaking, pejorative implies position B in an A/B pair, where the denotation is roughly the same but the connotation is that B is worse. Or something. Well, it wasn't explained like that, but 'pejorative' once was like a worse type of comparative.
Presumably it comes from the latin 'peior' "worse". I'm not convinced that etymology helps solves arguments though...:)
Steve
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
I think even strong supporters of [[David Icke]] would have a hard time seriously arguing the point, for example.
It was once pointed out to me that, pedantically speaking, pejorative implies position B in an A/B pair, where the denotation is roughly the same but the connotation is that B is worse. Or something. Well, it wasn't explained like that, but 'pejorative' once was like a worse type of comparative.
It's not just a matter of degrees, but of characterizations. If it's just a matter of comparatives then why not just use A? Why do you need to include allusion and innuendo to circumvent verifiability?
In that light, anyway, I think 'conspiracy theorist' is not necessarily a pejorative.
"Not necessarily" logically only implies that there is at least one instance where the claim is not pejorative. On those terms I agree with you. But rather than isolate those few claims where it does not apply you choose to imply that it is applicable to all.
It applies to anyone who postulates a (successful, hidden) conspiracy. Would 'cartel theorist' be a bad thing to call someone who postulates cartels? All those non-Stratfordian Shakespeare theorists postulate unlikely, hidden things; but accept labels saying that they think conventional literary history is just wrong.
By slight-of-hand you have projected the practice of these other theorists of multiple cartels and literatures onto the person who postulates a single theory. This is indeed an argument that may be common among conspiracy theorists. You also use the word "postulate" which is stronger than the simple "support". That they have "postulated" also needs to be verifiable. It's also important to distinguish between "conspiracy theory" which applies ad rem, and "conspiracy theorist" which applies ad hominem.
I think the pejorative forms of 'conspiracy theorist' include 'barking conspiracy theorist', 'anti-Masonic nutter and conspiracy theorist' and so on.
Almost the entire range of conspiracy theorists is also a subset of the pejorative forms.
Ec