Crude oil conspiracy theories could be right: Oil is often the reason for interfering in another country's war; "Researchers have for the first time provided strong evidence for what conspiracy theorists have long thought -- oil is often the reason for interfering in another country's war."

Yes, that oil is the secret reason for much of the wars is now fairly well known among politically interested people. More people know about it now than ever before and hindsight is 20/20. Yet, how can we claim that nearly all of the people we see at work beleive it? If that were the case, why do we keep collectively buying the fabricated justifications for wars?

Why do we have to declare that since we are aware of this secretive, immoral, deceptive behavior that it isn't conspiracy theory?

This behavior clearly fits the definition of conspiracy. Just because we know about it, it doesn't mean it isn't conspiracy. Just because it's true, it doesn't mean that it isn't conspiracy.

I know that many of you would insist that the phrase conspiracy theory no longer means what the words that compose the phrase are defined to mean. That does happen in language, but consider the effect it has on your behavior and others.

The phrase conspiracy theory connotes inherent incorrectness and mental instability. Is it true that every idea about people working together in secret for immoral or illegal ends is incorrect? Of course not. Well, notice how these sorts of ideas are quickly labeled conspiracy theories and then the connotations of incorrectness and mental instability are applied to the messenger. How does that affect public discourse about ideas of people working together in secret for immoral or illegal ends? It obviously stifles it. Nobody wants to be ostracized from their social groups, so they usually keep their mouths shut and their ideas that could be labeled conspiracy theories to themselves. This is why people talk more about conspiracy theories online than in person. They don't fear lasting damage to their social relationships as much while posting online.

I know some of you will say that conspiracy theories are outlandish and unbelievable. Well yes, many of them are. Does that mean ALL of them are? Of course not. So, why allow the connotations of a phrase to shut down your thought process and your ability to discuss ideas? Don't let the perceived extremes control your behavior, the official supposed experts vs the sloppy, ignorant clowns. You don't have to believe either group. The world is a lot more complex than binary, so why think in binary?

By using the phrase in the way that we do, we are reenforcing a behavioral protocol on ourselves that aids those that actually do work together for immoral or illegal ends. Powerful people have been conspiring to preserve and enhance their power for as long as recorded history. Why give them a pass by dismissing all ideas that they are working together to advance their own interests?

If prosecutors and investigators didn't believe in any conspiracy theories, they'd be deemed incompetent. Their job is to put the apparently desperate pieces of evidence together into a picture, a theory, to explain how one or more people violated of the law, so they can be convicted. They can't do their jobs without thinking in the very way we inhibit ourselves from thinking.

Well, then should you believe all conspiracy theories? Of course not, but perhaps you should consider such ideas based on the credibility and structure of the evidence available. Don't let the misuse of language control your thoughts and actions. Don't contribute to that by misusing the phrase conspiracy theory as so many others do.

/r/politics Thread Link - sciencedaily.com