Exclusively? Really? Like there are no actual crazy or malign conspiracy theories out there? Literally none?
> This qualifer that the goal of a conspiracy has to be nefarious is ridiculous
I very specifically said "generally nefarious" to indicate that nefariousness was non-essential. The essential parts (as you'll find in a dictionary) are "operating together" and "hidden" and you already conceded on those. Your original key claim ("to be a conspiracy theorist...") was clearly ridiculous, and you even seem to have admitted as much. What's the point of quibbling about non-essential and secondary parts?
> conspired to intercept the private communications
Nice red herring you've got there. Be a shame if anyone thought you were avoiding actual productive discourse by resorting to it.
> You can't just use the epithet as a synonym for inferior and outgroup and expect people to treat it as a serious argument.
Never did. Is that a strawman, or attributing motive, or both?
You've dug yourself a nice deep hole of bad faith here. Either start climbing out of it, or at least stop digging.