<p>Examining some recent projects in the philosophy of conspiracy theory theory (the academic study of conspiracy theories) that portray belief in conspiracy theories as <i>in some sense </i>generally bad, I argue that such projects are prone to failure. They either rely on overly restrictive definitions of what counts as a ‘conspiracy theory’ (i.e. they turn out to be about a subset of such theories), or overly permissive definitions of what falls under the label ‘conspiracy theory’ (i.e. the account ends up including a lot of beliefs we typically—and for good reason—tend not to consider problematic). I then argue that a further problem is that many of these projects tend to change the subject or topic of debate rather than work with the emerging philosophical consensus (AKA particularism) of a non-pejorative definition of ‘conspiracy theory’.</p>