Thank you for the interesting links! I'm well aware of this problem and tried to highlight it:

The phrase is also a convenient tool to clearly and in vivid colours paint something as low status and unworthy of further investigation. A boo light applied to any explanation that has people acting in anything that can be described as self-interest and happens to be few inferential jumps away from the audience. Not only is its use in this way well knwon, this is arguably the primary meaning of calling an argument a conspiracy theory.

We do have plenty of historical examples of high-stakes conspiracies. So we do know they can be the right answer. Noting this and putting aside the misuse of the label, people do engage in crafting conspiracy theories when they just aren't needed.

...

But how many here are likely to accept "conspiracy theories"? To do so with stuff that actually gets called a conspiracy theory dosen't fit our tribal attire. Reverse stupidity may be particularly problematic for us on this topic. Being open to thinking conspiracy is recommended. Just remember to compare its probability to other explanations. It is also important to call out people who misuse the tag for rhetorical gain.

Perhaps I should have emphasised this point more.