right. if the replier above had said "you have no evidence for that claim" I would reply by saying "you are correct, it is however a possibility, surely we can agree on that?" but instead the replier used the term "conspiracy theory nonsense" to characterize my words, which is, to say the very least, a highly loaded term with built-in connotations.
I personally believe that dismissing any sort of theorizing as being "conspiracy theory nonsense" is more harmful than any sort of benign theorizing itself. this line of thinking seems to assert that in reality, nothing ever happens with ulterior motives, people and groups in seats of power wouldn't do anything and everything to maintain said power under any circumstances, everything is just an isolated, random occurrence, geopolitics don't exist, and that looking for patterns and connections is something that only delusional people engage in.
many people have been programmed to react to anything not commonly-accepted in the mainstream "narrative" by immediately labeling it a "conspiracy theory" and then refusing to think any more critically about it. I believe the rapid spread of this way of thinking to be incredibly dangerous to society as a whole. I am not saying that theorizing should be taken as fact, merely that theories shouldn't be dismissed entirely out of hand using a stock phrase. in fact, when discussing such things, or anything really, any sort of kneejerk word/phrase association-type response should give one pause, because these word/phrase associations are learned behavior, and it may be enlightening to determine the source of this learned behavior.