Should there be open discussion of “conspiracy theories”?

Must even the disinterested individual pay attention to them?

Yes.

Here’s why.

(Calling them “conspiracy theories”, though, simply buys into someone else’s purposefully-generated meme.)

Critical events that dramatically alter the nature of our society, its governance, its culture, its foreign policy, its military commitments to war, changes in social attitudes, and the relationships or social contract as expressed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, deserve our whole-hearted attention.

Related pronouncements (official and unofficial statements) about those critical events by the US Government, its officials, its official bodies, its elected representatives, its investigatory and intelligence agencies, et al are the core of the interaction between the public and the government. Similarly, pertinent statements by leading press and media spokespeople are a major conduit of information and attitude and help shape our awareness, involvement, understanding and participation in our government and our society.

Who (other than the common citizen, alert, informed to the best of his or her ability) should be the necessary watchdog and responsible owner of the government and its policies, actions and behaviors?

Critical events such as the murder of a sitting President, or the murder of the leading candidate from one major Party at a time of social upheaval and unrest amidst a war, or the murder of thousands of US citizens at multiple sites in one integrated act, are the fuel for major socio-political and cultural impact, stress, shock, and reaction.

Each changed the direction of our nation, its culture, and its government dramatically and permanently.

Where and when the government itself (and/or the media) denies, delays, obfuscates or inserts confusion into various investigations and subsequent discussion, it raises serious questions. When the government will not be forthcoming, when the government will not share with the people the evidence it holds behind walls of secrecy, it cannot do anything but build levels of mistrust and social divisiveness.

When a serious, well-regarded, independent effort has been made to assemble a complete record of all pertinent news reports, films and videos, statements, timelines, etc. and when neither the government nor the media will acknowledge or address them or the public's awareness of them, it is worthy of our time and attention.

When serious rhetorical discussion, review and analysis has been made, it is worthy of our consideration.

When the consequences of those critical events lead unequivocally to our involvement in foreign adventures that must, by any measure, be considered costly at a severe rate (in human lives, in trillions of dollars, in the degradation of our military capacity and posture, and in our world image), it is our obligation to consider and discuss those events.

When the consequences of those critical events profoundly alter the way in which our government operates and result in the rollback of our rights and freedoms, we have a need to consider and discuss those events, their prequels, and their sequels.

When it has been shown arguably, rhetorically, logically and through significant evidence that what we are told by our government is at best misleading, littered with misstatements, punctuated with false intelligence or outright lies, then the very nature of this Republic is in question and at risk.

Don’t you think we should talk about that?