I do want to continue this argument, because actual dictionaries are getting it wrong too.
OK, but be warned, my following answer will come based on (logic based on) how I understand the things in the language I know better than English, so it can be wrong.
Also, it may get long and it's already way off-topic.
These dictionary publishers would have the same problem as you in a court case where you are charged with a conspiracy: saying "Oh come on, that's only a conspiracy you're saying I did!!!" would be a confession, it wouldn't even get to court if you said that in a police interview.
In theory, in the court, they should talk about the
facts, not about
a way of saying. And if needed, they can ask for clear up and avoid confusion.
Also, in court, it's no uncommon that people hand write confession of something being white (the color is chosen for being something pretty clear), and after some time retract it and maybe write it was red.
Also, the dictionaries are pretty clear about what conspiracy / conspiring means. While you also know that an expression of multiple words, "a saying", can
alter pretty badly the initial meaning of those words.
So imho your explanation doesn't stand.
So, I put it to you again, who should change their position here? You, and people who write dictionaries? Or the multiple institutions that would have you captured and locked in concrete room with murderers and child rapists for neighbors?
Neither.
Although some online dictionaries may ho a lousy job, the reputable ones are good, no matter what you think.
A dictionary has to reflect
all the possible meanings, including the ones you don't agree with. Languages are not as fixed as math.
saying "not english" is no excuse here, most foreign languages had the word "conspiracy" exported directly into their language from English, with the spelling slightly changed, because it's a legal expression, pertaining to criminality, and only loosely connected to crazy stories if at all.
I find this particularly surprising because you are a non-native English speaker, as your own language almost certainly makes correct use of the word, in it's proper context.
You continue to insist on one word and link it to legal stuff.
Well, I'll tell about this single word too:
some definitions tell that a conspiracy is a secret agreement for carrying out an illegal, immoral or overall negative activity.
As you can see, while it's about something bad, it's not necessarily about something illegal.
But this is irrelevant, since the two word should be taken together for the meaning. This happens in all languages.
I'm sorry if this seems obnoxious, but the word "conspiracy" is being used in a thoroughly Orwellian double-speak manner since the 2000's (and really the 1960's), and in a rather insidious and unpalatable way.
I'm not sure I've understood this right.
The term "conspiracy theory" is used a lot of times for stories about "bad things" various "parts" of the "state" do or cover up.
And of course I expect most of them be made up, only to sell certain types of newspapers or make some people famous. (Hence my first post in this topic).
When someone powerful is accused of doing something heinously immoral, their instant response these days is to use their influence to have the accusation dismissed as a "conspiracy theory".
Every time you or a dictionary, or anyone else misuses the word, it reinforces the the social pressure not to take an interest in powerful people committing unethical or immoral acts, because the "conspiracy theory" label will be (mis-)used to make you appear crazy or paranoid. This is very clever (yet simple) psychological manipulation, not least because me saying that can be believably dismissed as crazy or paranoid, it's a beautiful concept to abuse if you're powerful and want to sweep something you did under the rug.
I consider it our responsibility towards everyone else, including the unborn, not to let this happen unchallenged.
This is the equivalent of asking nicely the avalanche slow down, really.
The language changes, we like it or not.
And we should never forget, that Bitcoin itself is a direct consequence of solid facts that are..... dismissed as a conspiracy theory. If you relay the facts about financial markets, institutions and central banks, the powerful people with an interest to prop up their bullshit dog-ate-my-homework stories about themselves will call you a conspiracy theorist, and the facts a conspiracy theory, because you're telling the truth and exposing their lies.
Those things you (and me in this case) call facts, if taken into court, could not make a case, because we may not be able to prove them.
And since with no proof there's no crime, so indeed we have a conspiracy theory. Life is cruel, what can I say? There's not only black and white, there are also plenty of shades of grey.
