Simply using the old ‘stop spreading conspiracy theories’ as the foundation of your argument against a contradictory narrative to the mainstream narrative is an illogical argument and a symptom of delusional thinking, not critical thinking.
This kind of argument is used by the mainstream to defend their narrative.
It is planted into the heads of the complicit via influential controlled media.
The very mainstream media you use (often so arrogantly) as the source of your (unquestionable) facts to refute alternate theories (potentially facts if you actually looked) are the ones alleged to be fully complicit in the conspiracy. Their so-called experts and the educational institutions or research centers, the so-called world and national health institutes and organisations, the many national and state governments and the very wealthy who fund them all stand accused of playing a part in a global conspiracy.
To use them and information sourced from them and to ignore looking at the evidence against them because you have been told by them that anything contrary to what they tell you is a lie (conspiracy theory) is insanely illogical.
Let’s draw an analogy for this kind of brain numbing illogic.
Prosecution brings charges against a person for murder. In court, the charged speaks with the magistrate/judge and provides his/her defense along with stating that the prosectuion are just liars (conspiracy theorists) and have nothing of value to state in the case.
When the prosecution attempt to present their case the magistrate interrupts them and simply says “you are liars and stop spreading your false allegations (conspiracy theories) around here”.
Whenever the prosecution tries to counter such an illogical argument with facts from the murder scene (DNA of the accused on the murder weapon etc…) they are simply shut down by the magistrate who uses only what the murderer has told him/her to counter the prosecution.
Is that reasonable?
Is that a good magistrate/judge?
Would there be any justice in that?
Is there any genuine evidence of facts in that?
Is the judge actually acting as a judge or simply as an advocate for the accused?
So, if you have answered these correctly you will know that those who so proudly and arrogantly shut down ‘conspiracy theorists’ in such a manner are not judges but are simply brainwashed advocates for the accused.
This is, of course, obvious to those trying to introduce contradictory facts to the accused’s narrative, but it is not obvious to the illogical advocates of the alleged global conspiracists who stand charged by an ever-growing number of the population.
In this day and age; he who controls the narrative, who influences the narrative, controls the world, not he who has all the facts.
The majority of the world are so conditioned by the accused that they cannot recognise a fact if it is beaten against their heads a hundred times. Only when the soldiers of the accused and their boots are trampling over your heads and your children’s heads will it dawn on you that “hey, just maybe I should not have listened solely to the words of those who stood accused of murder”.