Muscatine

I'm not sure that "bully" is a correct description.  It's more likely that sane people are expressig their frustation and displeasure with the attempts to frighten us with crazy theories.  Ridicule is a legitimate defense against bogus threats.  Threats that tend to distract the  citizenry from the real problems we face.

 

Here is a thought:

"A conspiracy theorist attempts to project fiction onto real-life people, groups and organisations. It purports to actually be true that which really is fiction and this is the problem. Their attempt to project into reality that which at best is fiction is one reason I believe they have a mental illness.

By way of example look at all the religious conspiracy theories on
youtube. Some of these conspiracy theorist's project their thought off on others and expound some of the wildest things one can imagine. The problem is they are playing with a loaded deck. By that I mean, if one debunks their theories that person is sucked into their black hole and becomes part of the conspiracy.

 Debunkers are part of the fuel that keep the fire going.

One person who is a conspiracy theorist says he gives an "accurate account of history." The problem is that in his paranoid imagination he believes he is right. Again, it does not matter if you show him to be totally wrong, because to him you then become part of the conspiracy. In short they have lost all touch with reality.

He and other conspiracy theorists change their so called evidence in response to each part of the conspiracy that is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny the first ever exsisted. Theorists aften argue that those who debunk such information are themselves involved in the conspiracy.

If some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory, either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new information, or the theorist questions the legitimacy of the new information. This is something one can see over and over again in their comments.

They spend countless hours looking for things to support their theory. The sad thing is that when they find information that shows them wrong they simply bypass it and find people [and sources] to support their theory. They have the idea that the greater the lie the more easily it is swallowed by the likeminded people."

This is an interesting view.   But when you take this all into context he/she is developing his/her own conspiracy on conspiracy theorists. Thus creating a conspiracy against conspiracy theorist's.

What does everyone else think of this?

Where does this come from?   Is it just your opinion or from some scholarly source?   It's a pretty good analysis of conspiracy theorists.