Helene/Milton response hampered by misinformation, conspiracy theories

[ThatRobGuy]

Hm. MY first thought is...let's start naming and shaming the people providing the misinformation and maybe throttle their platform.

Maybe recognize that before the internet the weirdoes would just scream and rant on their own little street corners all around the world. But that lack of connection kept us safe. Now they're connecting and getting louder and more dangerous thanks to the internet.

Dollars to donuts all of those 3 guys were on X...just by way of example. I'm going to guess they're were all on Truth Social but I have no proof of that.

NONE of them have an obvious left leaning bent so they aren't sitting their listening to democrats again and again.

They've tried that, and it just seemed to galvanize the adherents to those theories. For example, did them very publicly denouncing vaccine misinformation, and "naming and shaming" (they did the whole "these are the 12 people behind 80% of the misinformation" on the news) the people spreading it, and kicking them off of platforms weaken or strengthen the adherents to those theories?, from all available evidence, it seemed to strengthened them from what I could tell.

The people already inclined to want to believe that conspiracy, viewed the "cracking down on the misinformation", as further evidence of the conspiracy in their minds. Sort of the un-intuitive "Well it must really be true, because look at how hard the government is trying to stop us from seeing it"


In my previous reply right above this one, I provided what I feel are reasonable challenges to the "it's the internet misinformation" hypothesis.

A) Why haven't all conspiracy factions enjoyed the same windfall of new members? Why would "the election was stolen" conspiracies be able to wrangle 30% of the population, yet, the "flat earther" movement remains pretty stagnant in comparison? (despite having access to the exact same platforms)

B) How would you explain how two other larger conspiracies "Bush did 9/11" and "Obama was secretly Kenyan" were able to enjoy the same kinds of numbers as the stolen election conspiracy, prior to the these types of tech advances (I think Facebook was technically in existence for both of those, but certainly not in it's current form and reach). All it took for those to take off were hokey faux documentaries from Michael Moore and Dinesh D'Souza for those to take off like wildfire.


The pre-disposition and pre-existing skepticism still needs to exist in the ethos for the conspiracy theories to "catch on" so to speak.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But then that just describes the mechanism for "reach" in terms of connecting with those types of folks, that's not what's initially radicalizing them, in that, from the scenario you're describing, if they existed and predated the latest tech advances, I'm asking what conditions were present that made them exist in their current form in the first place?


If the easy access to advanced tech is the disease (and not just a exacerbation of a symptom), then why have other conspiracy realms not been able to enjoy the "windfall of new converts" like the ones being discussed here?

I think it would be more accurate to say that the disease already exists and tech access is the vector by which it spreads.

For example: If it is the tech, why would that cause anti-government type conspiracies to spread like wildfire (to the point where over a quarter of the population believes an election was stolen), yet others like, say, "the moon landing was faked" and "flat-earther" have remained relatively stagnant in comparison?

They're stagnant now. They had more popularity in the past.

On the flip side, two of the bigger "anti-establishment" conspiracies of the past generation (in terms of percentage of adherents) "Bush Did 9/11" and "Obama was a secret Kenyan that wasn't born in the US" enjoyed widespread popularity in their respective factions prior to the types tech advances we're talking about.

There has to be a certainly pre-existing amount of underlying skepticism already present for conspiracy theories to "work" ("work" meaning, actually sway people). Where did that pre-existing skepticism come from is what I'm trying to get at.

I think that would indicate that if there's enough underlying skepticism out there in the "ethos", the vehicle doesn't matter, whether it be a Russian bot twitter feed, or a faux documentary from hacks like a Michael Moore or a Dinesh D'Souza

Skepticism isn't the only ingredient required for these conspiracies to flourish. There also has to be a fair amount of ignorance among the audience with regards to how the subject of the conspiracy works.

You know who never took up the moon landing or flat earth conspiracies? The people working at NASA.
You know who never took up the vitamins-cure-cancer conspiracy? Oncologists
You know who doesn't fret over the "deep state"? Career bureaucrats
You know who never screamed about "game journalism" during gamergate? Game devs

For the most part, people don't harbor conspiracy theories about things they understand. They harbor theories about things they don't understand. There's too much information available now for something like the moon landing and flat earth conspiracies to grow; too much of our society is built on things that require them to be false or around doing things that demonstrate them to be false. But people don't understand the machinations of a bureaucracy and they don't understand the randomness of cancer.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Skepticism isn't the only ingredient required for these conspiracies to flourish. There also has to be a fair amount of ignorance among the audience with regards to how the subject of the conspiracy works.

You know who never took up the moon landing or flat earth conspiracies? The people working at NASA.
You know who never took up the vitamins-cure-cancer conspiracy? Oncologists
You know who doesn't fret over the "deep state"? Career bureaucrats
You know who never screamed about "game journalism" during gamergate? Game devs

For the most part, people don't harbor conspiracy theories about things they understand. They harbor theories about things they don't understand. There's too much information available now for something like the moon landing and flat earth conspiracies to grow; too much of our society is built on things that require them to be false or around doing things that demonstrate them to be false. But people don't understand the machinations of a bureaucracy and they don't understand the randomness of cancer.

I would say that even the ignorance is only a small sliver of it.

You mentioned the vitamins thing... That's actually a good example of what I'm talking about.

Linus Pauling (and his claims that mega dosing vitamin C cures cancer -- those still float around pretty regularly on alternative medicine social media)
vs.
Robert Malone (and his claims that ivermectin is a prophylactic against covid -- that the government and social media companies made every effort to squash)

I would say the general public is (in comparison to doctors) ignorant when it comes to both communicable disease and oncology. However, the odd part is that the ignorance is probably less in the former, yet more people seemed receptive to the conspiracies about the former.

Apart from knowing high level terms like "radiation" and "chemo" and knowing "stage 1 means this, stage 4 means that", most people aren't going to any specifics with regards to cancer (unless they're one of the unfortunate ones who've actually had cancer)

In the realm of communicable disease, the general public actually does have a little less ignorance in that (people can usually correctly self-identify certain things and know the difference between a cold and a flu, they know which meds are commonly prescribed for strep throat, a parent can often correctly identify when their kid has chicken pox, etc...)


I think the key factor is still the pre-existing anti-government skepticism. One of the big differences between the two aforementioned scenarios, the government wasn't really trying to make a concerted effort push anything or filter anything on the "vitamin C cures cancer" thing.

And you take things like flu shots, many of the people who bought into covid vaccine conspiracies were people who'd happily gotten flu shots for years (despite having a limited understanding of how they work), and despite the covid vaccine being new, people had been taking "new" drugs because they'd seen a commercial about it with a guy walking down the beach. (I would go as far as saying when you look at the usage rates of prescription drugs in the US compared to the rest of the world, the public is actually under-scrutinizing it and not being selective enough in their willingness to pop a pill to cure XYZ)

The part that was bringing out their "inner skeptic" was the perception that "the government is telling me I have to do this, and they're making rules stating that nobody is allowed to say anything bad about it....hmmmm"

If the only main difference is the perception of "government force", then the ignorance was only a minor factor.


Another factor that should be discussed, is how partisanship can play a role in it as well.

If you look at the numbers (by party) between the "Bush did 9/11" back in the mid-2000's and "Stolen election" conspiracies of today, you'll notice a pattern.

Revisionist history says that 9/11 conspiracy theorists were just a "fringe minority" and nowhere on the scale of how readily people are willing to buy into conspiracies today, but the polling data from back then says otherwise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/10/false-toxic-sept-11-conspiracy-theories-are-still-widespread-today/

Compare that to "stolen election" theories of the present:

The common thread in both is distrust of "the elite/in-power".

 

[BPPLEE]

They've tried that, and it just seemed to galvanize the adherents to those theories. For example, did them very publicly denouncing vaccine misinformation, and "naming and shaming" (they did the whole "these are the 12 people behind 80% of the misinformation" on the news) the people spreading it, and kicking them off of platforms weaken or strengthen the adherents to those theories?, from all available evidence, it seemed to strengthened them from what I could tell.

The people already inclined to want to believe that conspiracy, viewed the "cracking down on the misinformation", as further evidence of the conspiracy in their minds. Sort of the un-intuitive "Well it must really be true, because look at how hard the government is trying to stop us from seeing it"


In my previous reply right above this one, I provided what I feel are reasonable challenges to the "it's the internet misinformation" hypothesis.

A) Why haven't all conspiracy factions enjoyed the same windfall of new members? Why would "the election was stolen" conspiracies be able to wrangle 30% of the population, yet, the "flat earther" movement remains pretty stagnant in comparison? (despite having access to the exact same platforms)

B) How would you explain how two other larger conspiracies "Bush did 9/11" and "Obama was secretly Kenyan" were able to enjoy the same kinds of numbers as the stolen election conspiracy, prior to the these types of tech advances (I think Facebook was technically in existence for both of those, but certainly not in it's current form and reach). All it took for those to take off were hokey faux documentaries from Michael Moore and Dinesh D'Souza for those to take off like wildfire.


The pre-disposition and pre-existing skepticism still needs to exist in the ethos for the conspiracy theories to "catch on" so to speak.

In the case of COVID vaccines it didn’t help that you could take two vaccinations and a booster and still get COVID. Of course they tell us that it would be a lot worse if we were unvaccinated, but how can they prove that? I had two shots and I’ve had COVID twice. My business partner had 2 shots and a booster, got COVID and died. Healthy, in his 50’s with no underlying health conditions.
A co-workers son in his 20s developed heart problems. They took him to surgery, he was in the cath lab and suddenly the problem was gone. They think it was something caused by the vaccine. So it’s easy to see why misinformation about the vaccine spreads when there’s so much antidotal evidence,
If my dog got 3 rabies shots in a year and still got rabies I would be talking to my vet.

 

[rambot]

They've tried that, and it just seemed to galvanize the adherents to those theories. For example, did them very publicly denouncing vaccine misinformation, and "naming and shaming" (they did the whole "these are the 12 people behind 80% of the misinformation" on the news) the people spreading it, and kicking them off of platforms weaken or strengthen the adherents to those theories?, from all available evidence, it seemed to strengthened them from what I could tell.

The people already inclined to want to believe that conspiracy, viewed the "cracking down on the misinformation", as further evidence of the conspiracy in their minds. Sort of the un-intuitive "Well it must really be true, because look at how hard the government is trying to stop us from seeing it"


In my previous reply right above this one, I provided what I feel are reasonable challenges to the "it's the internet misinformation" hypothesis.

A) Why haven't all conspiracy factions enjoyed the same windfall of new members? Why would "the election was stolen" conspiracies be able to wrangle 30% of the population, yet, the "flat earther" movement remains pretty stagnant in comparison? (despite having access to the exact same platforms)

Why assume that they would have the "same windfall"? I think it's quite likely that Dunning Kruger tends to be more around specific topics than as a personality trait.

The "election was stolen" was also based on the personality and essentially idol worship of Trump. I am not a fan of the guy but he has some kinda magnatism that some people are attracted too. And of course, he displays a lot of narcissistic traits and name cache society wide latch on to.

B) How would you explain how two other larger conspiracies "Bush did 9/11" and "Obama was secretly Kenyan" were able to enjoy the same kinds of numbers as the stolen election conspiracy, prior to the these types of tech advances (I think Facebook was technically in existence for both of those, but certainly not in it's current form and reach). All it took for those to take off were hokey faux documentaries from Michael Moore and Dinesh D'Souza for those to take off like wildfire.

I wonder if there may be certain individuals who are prone to believe CTs. Or perhaps it is racism so deep seeded it's difficult to describe.
72% of Republicans STILL doubted his citizenship.
Poll: Persistent Partisan Divide Over ‘Birther’ Question


Bush did 9/11 / there was a coverup...seems to have gotten closer to about 43%.

What's VERY interesting to me is that there could not be clearer evidence provided that Obama WAS an American citizen (there is literally nothing more). And they still didn't doubt him. I have a hard time believing that isn't just an inherent prejudice though; at least it couldn't be denied that it's playing a role.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why assume that they would have the "same windfall"? I think it's quite likely that Dunning Kruger tends to be more around specific topics than as a personality trait.

...that's was actually my point. I was arguing against the notion that advances in social media were the "main driver"

I mentioned that I think it's actually anti-establishment predispositions that drove it.

If advances in social media were the main driver, then would expect every conspiracy circle to have grown leaps and bounds, which as you and I have both elaborated on, that's not the case.

The "election was stolen" was also based on the personality and essentially idol worship of Trump. I am not a fan of the guy but he has some kinda magnatism that some people are attracted too. And of course, he displays a lot of narcissistic traits and name cache society wide latch on to.

I think people give Trump "draw/magnetism" too much credit. I don't think it's so much "his personality" or "magnetism" (his personality is quite abrasive and awful)

I think it's much more simplistic. The people who rally behind him, in many cases I feel, do so simply because they know he agitates the hell out of the kind of people who agitated them for the previous few years.

The example I've used to try to describe the dynamic before is that of the bossy, condescending teacher on a power trip vs. the "class clown" troublemaker, and how that's perceived by some of the students.


Personal narrative:
I had one of those teachers back when I was in high school, used to publicly criticize students for getting answers wrong, make snide remarks to the students that they didn't like who didn't kiss their rear end...things of that nature. Basically treated some students like the weren't legitimate participants in the class discussion. (would go as far as ridiculing people, and then shooshing them at the end and saying "I get the last word, one more peep comes out and you get detention"...thereby making them sit there and seethe)

When the "class clown" snuck their wallet out of their jacket pocket the one day, and that wallet found it's way into the fish tank...

While taking someone's wallet when they're not looking and tossing it in the fish tank, as stand-alone behavior, is something we would've found "not cool" in normal circumstances, when it happened to that particular teacher, there was something oddly satisfying about seeing that happen to a teacher (and how upset they got) who would make you so mad you'd grit your teeth, feel so frustrated, and want to put your fist through a wall.

I posit that the same sort of dynamic is happening with Trump and his die-hard supporters.

The establishment (particularly the left leaning establishment -- academia, entertainment, etc...) is the "condescending teacher who talks down to them and tells them they have to shoosh and just sit there and take it because their not legitimate participants in the discussion"... Trump is the guy who grabbed the wallet when they weren't looking and tossed it in the fish tank. So those folks cheer Trump.

Perceived condescension has a way of evoking a certain visceral (illogical) reaction in ways that simple name-calling and superficial insults don't.

I wonder if there may be certain individuals who are prone to believe CTs. Or perhaps it is racism so deep seeded it's difficult to describe.
72% of Republicans STILL doubted his citizenship.
Poll: Persistent Partisan Divide Over ‘Birther’ Question


Bush did 9/11 / there was a coverup...seems to have gotten closer to about 43%.

What's VERY interesting to me is that there could not be clearer evidence provided that Obama WAS an American citizen (there is literally nothing more). And they still didn't doubt him. I have a hard time believing that isn't just an inherent prejudice though; at least it couldn't be denied that it's playing a role.

Quite possible that it's a little bit of both... I won't even try to pretend that there aren't a percentage of people who simply would cling to whatever narrative they heard just to justify trying to prevent a black president from being viewed as legitimate. There's some "old racism" that deeply embedded in certain parts of the country. But I think it'd be a mistake to pretend that was "most of it" for some of the types of folks we're talking about.

Both percentages are concerning. If we had 43-72% of people believing bigfoot was real, we'd see that as a major failure.
(for the record, to split the difference, 54% of Americans believe some varying level of conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination)

Anti-establishment based conspiracy theories seem to be "easier" to "catch on" for lack of a better way to put it.

That means that people have a certain level of distrust in their government and institutions.

Which brings us back around to my original question, of why is that?

I noted before, among those types of people, "anti-establishment" has become viewed as a stand-alone "credential"...merely the fact that someone disagrees with most of their peers on something becomes seen as a "good thing" by default in the eyes of those folks.

Evidence of that are the "Obama-Trump" voters, and then the "Sanders-Trump" voters. There were a substantial number of people who originally supported Sanders, but when he got knocked out of the primary, voted for Trump in 2016. We're talking about two guys who are pretty far apart on a lot of issues (both economic and social). Yet, they voted "anti-establishment"...and didn't seem to particularly care who it was or what the policies were, only that they were "outsiders"

How does that happen? lol

 

[BPPLEE]

...that's was actually my point. I was arguing against the notion that advances in social media were the "main driver"

I mentioned that I think it's actually anti-establishment predispositions that drove it.

If advances in social media were the main driver, then would expect every conspiracy circle to have grown leaps and bounds, which as you and I have both elaborated on, that's not the case.

I think people give Trump "draw/magnetism" too much credit. I don't think it's so much "his personality" or "magnetism" (his personality is quite abrasive and awful)

I think it's much more simplistic. The people who rally behind him, in many cases I feel, do so simply because they know he agitates the hell out of the kind of people who agitated them for the previous few years.

The example I've used to try to describe the dynamic before is that of the bossy, condescending teacher on a power trip vs. the "class clown" troublemaker, and how that's perceived by some of the students.


Personal narrative:
I had one of those teachers back when I was in high school, used to publicly criticize students for getting answers wrong, make snide remarks to the students that they didn't like who didn't kiss their rear end...things of that nature. Basically treated some students like the weren't legitimate participants in the class discussion. (would go as far as ridiculing people, and then shooshing them at the end and saying "I get the last word, one more peep comes out and you get detention"...thereby making them sit there and seethe)

When the "class clown" snuck their wallet out of their jacket pocket the one day, and that wallet found it's way into the fish tank...

While taking someone's wallet when they're not looking and tossing it in the fish tank, as stand-alone behavior, is something we would've found "not cool" in normal circumstances, when it happened to that particular teacher, there was something oddly satisfying about seeing that happen to a teacher (and how upset they got) who would make you so mad you'd grit your teeth, feel so frustrated, and want to put your fist through a wall.

I posit that the same sort of dynamic is happening with Trump and his die-hard supporters.

The establishment (particularly the left leaning establishment -- academia, entertainment, etc...) is the "condescending teacher who talks down to them and tells them they have to shoosh and just sit there and take it because their not legitimate participants in the discussion"... Trump is the guy who grabbed the wallet when they weren't looking and tossed it in the fish tank. So those folks cheer Trump.

Perceived condescension has a way of evoking a certain visceral (illogical) reaction in ways that simple name-calling and superficial insults don't.


Quite possible that it's a little bit of both... I won't even try to pretend that there aren't a percentage of people who simply would cling to whatever narrative they heard just to justify trying to prevent a black president from being viewed as legitimate. There's some "old racism" that deeply embedded in certain parts of the country. But I think it'd be a mistake to pretend that was "most of it" for some of the types of folks we're talking about.

Both percentages are concerning. If we had 43-72% of people believing bigfoot was real, we'd see that as a major failure.
(for the record, to split the difference, 54% of Americans believe some varying level of conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination)

Anti-establishment based conspiracy theories seem to be "easier" to "catch on" for lack of a better way to put it.

That means that people have a certain level of distrust in their government and institutions.

Which brings us back around to my original question, of why is that?

I noted before, among those types of people, "anti-establishment" has become viewed as a stand-alone "credential"...merely the fact that someone disagrees with most of their peers on something becomes seen as a "good thing" by default in the eyes of those folks.

Evidence of that are the "Obama-Trump" voters, and then the "Sanders-Trump" voters. There were a substantial number of people who originally supported Sanders, but when he got knocked out of the primary, voted for Trump in 2016. We're talking about two guys who are pretty far apart on a lot of issues (both economic and social). Yet, they voted "anti-establishment"...and didn't seem to particularly care who it was or what the policies were, only that they were "outsiders"

How does that happen? lol

There is a bit of that in Trump's appeal. He was the first Republican who fought back.
Bush never did. He felt that the president was above that. He didn't defend himself against the attacks, he didn't argue.
Trump fought back. Democrats, reporters, hecklers, it didn't matter he got the last word in.
That was part of his appeal. He also listens to people. In between the ridiculous and stupid things he says, he talks about things that the average person cares about.
The economy, inflation, bringing jobs back to America. I don't understand his uncanny ability to say things that would end the careers of other politicians and not lose support but maybe it is because he's the class clown.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There is a bit of that in Trump's appeal. He was the first Republican who fought back.
Bush never did. He felt that the president was above that. He didn't defend himself against the attacks, he didn't argue.
Trump fought back. Democrats, reporters, hecklers, it didn't matter he got the last word in.
That was part of his appeal. He also listens to people. In between the ridiculous and stupid things he says, he talks about things that the average person cares about.
The economy, inflation, bringing jobs back to America. I don't understand his uncanny ability to say things that would end the careers of other politicians and not lose support but maybe it is because he's the class clown.

There is a certain appeal to a "counter puncher" who otherwise wouldn't be appealing in normal circumstances.

Heck, the 1980's was full of the "high school movies" that were of the genre of "condescending uppity jerk finally gets theirs in the end", and people were happy to see it.

I'd call it the "Kick Billy Zabka's butt" appeal for those who know that name lol.

For reference, Billy Zabka was the 80's actor who played the "person people love to hate" characters in just about every movie he was in (he was the "bad kid" in Karate Kid, he was the school bully in "Just One of the Guys", etc...). Nobody felt bad seeing him get punched in the face and his nose bloodied...in fact, quite the opposite, it was portrayed as a "satisfying moment".


So while I don't personally subscribe to the Trump appeal, I can certainly understand it. If I felt that I was being talked down to and condescended to by a bunch of elitist 20/30-something "I went to college, you didn't...go sit over at the kid's table while us educated people decide the way things should be" know it all types, I'd probably be inclined to cheer for whoever agitated them the most.

 

[BPPLEE]

There is a certain appeal to a "counter puncher" who otherwise wouldn't be appealing in normal circumstances.

Heck, the 1980's was full of the "high school movies" that were of the genre of "condescending uppity jerk finally gets theirs in the end", and people were happy to see it.

I'd call it the "Kick Billy Zabka's butt" appeal for those who know that name lol.

For reference, Billy Zabka was the 80's actor who played the "person people love to hate" characters in just about every movie he was in (he was the "bad kid" in Karate Kid, he was the school bully in "Just One of the Guys", etc...). Nobody felt bad seeing him get punched in the face and his nose bloodied...in fact, quite the opposite, it was portrayed as a "satisfying moment".


So while I don't personally subscribe to the Trump appeal, I can certainly understand it. If I felt that I was being talked down to and condescended to by a bunch of elitist 20/30-something "I went to college, you didn't...go sit over at the kid's table while us educated people decide the way things should be" know it all types, I'd probably be inclined to cheer for whoever agitated them the most.

Zabka’s a good guy now (sort of) on the Netflix series Cobra Kai

 

[KCfromNC]

In the case of COVID vaccines it didn’t help that you could take two vaccinations and a booster and still get COVID. Of course they tell us that it would be a lot worse if we were unvaccinated, but how can they prove that?

By showing that rates of serious cases and death goes down as vaccination rates go up.

Back to the idea of spreading misinformation, think back to where ever you first read this "vaccinated people still get COVID" and ask why the source didn't mention that the rates of infection go way down for people who are vaccinated. Why didn't they, and what might their motivations be for spreading information which might mislead people into not getting vaccinated against a deadly disease?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Back to the idea of spreading misinformation, think back to where ever you first read this "vaccinated people still get COVID" and ask why the source didn't mention that the rates of infection go way down for people who are vaccinated. Why didn't they, and what might their motivations be for spreading information which might mislead people into not getting vaccinated against a deadly disease?

I know that was a response to another user, but I can chime in...

I think that was largely due to playing to the anti-establishment/anti-authority sentiments of the people who thought the lockdowns and restrictions were an overreach.

I think there's a desire among people to want to have something they can use as a point of discussion or something to "justify their original position". ...as well as avoiding saying/doing anything that may make it look like they weren't really believing their original position.

When public discourse allows for zero nuance, you'll see those sort of entrenched positions where it becomes more about "not letting the other side think they were right"

With regards to the covid & covid vaccines:

If the people who said "It's no big deal, it's just a cold, the government shouldn't be imposing any shutdown or lockdowns", ran out and publicly proclaimed they got vaccinated, they know that the opposing side would pounce with something to the effect of "A ha! See, you were afraid of covid... I see you got vaccinated, what happened to Mr. ItsJustACold...looks like we were right all along and it was super serious!"

(for whatever it's worth, I actually personally know two people who lied about NOT getting the vaccine...my uncle still gets brags about 'no way I was gonna let the government test an experimental jab on me'...yeah, he got the Moderna vaccine the week after it became available, my aunt told me...she was the one who drove him to the Walgreens location two towns away to get it)


Same way people on the opposing side pounced when they heard that Pelosi went to a hair salon without a mask on, or when Newsom hosted a dinner gathering. It was immediately used as fodder "See, deep down they don't believe covid is a big deal!"


When nuanced positions become targets of ridicule, that's when you can tell that the conversation has gone off the rails and drifted more into the realm of "it's the principle of the thing, we can't let the other side think they were right about something"

That's how you ended up with bizarre displays like Trump saying "I took the vaccine, I know you've got your freedom, but I hope all my people take the vaccine, we made 3 great vaccines" -- and then gets booed at his own rally for saying it.

Or like when one of the members of The View said (via webcast, because they wouldn't let her on-set) that she had just recovered from covid, held up an antibody test showing strong immunity, and said that her physician told her there's no need race out and get the vaccine if she'd just recovered from the virus, and they all mocked and made eye-roll gestures cracked jokes to get a cheap laugh from the audience.

Those were basically two reasonable, nuanced positions...
"Hey, I respect your freedom to not take the vaccine, but they're great and they help, so I hope you do"
"Look, I believe covid is real, it can be serious, but I just recovered from the actual virus a few weeks ago, I don't think there's a need to rush out and get vaccine if my antibody tests are showing a titers score of over 900"

Looking at it today, when everyone's calmed down a bit, neither of those positions should've gotten someone "booed" by their own tribe.

This SNL sketch actually did a pretty good job of summing up the absurdity of the discourse everyone was entrenched in at that time period.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Asked during a news conference here [in North Carolina] about whether [he, Trump] is harming the recovery effort after a man was arrested for threatening federal relief workers this month, Trump responded by repeating falsehoods, including those the suspect said motivated him. Trump did not offer any concern for the workers’ safety or a denunciation of violence.

“Does that mean that if they’re doing a poor job, we’re supposed to not say it?” Trump said on Monday.

Many elected officials in the state, including Republicans such as Sen. Thom Tillis and the Rutherford County commission chairman, have said such misinformation makes it harder to provide relief to people in need.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How a conspiracy-fueled group got a foothold in this hurricane-battered town​

Over the course of 11 days, a supermarket parking lot became a snapshot of the chaos that can unfold in some corners of post disaster-America.

LAKE LURE, N.C. — It started with hot coffee.
Hurricane Helene had just cut off this already isolated foothill town from everything: power, water, information. Paralyzed, the only thing that residents Carin Harris and Hilary Yoxall could think to do was post up outside their Ingles supermarket and hand out something warm. Soon, donations began to pour in, and a makeshift supplies distribution center emerged from a parking lot off the main two-lane road.

Then everything got more complicated.
A group called Veterans on Patrol showed up in Rutherford County late on the night of Oct. 11, just four people with no supplies. But their leader, Lewis Arthur, came with a lot of promises and a big vision, which he said was sent from God: a three-year plan to help this lakeside community and others around here bounce back, according to Yoxall and Arthur.

At first, it did seem like a Godsend, Yoxall, Harris and other residents said.

[But then] “There’s something wrong here,” she told another longtime resident and fellow organizer.

What she and others didn’t know yet was that Veterans on Patrol is an anti-government group steeped in conspiracy theories and that ... the group was motivated to come to this small town because its members believed that the government was using the hurricane to move people here off lithium-rich land and stop them from getting it back, according to the group’s posts on Telegram, the messaging service.

On Sept. 29, an X user suggested that the supposed presence of lithium provided a motive for someone to “modify” the storm, to steal access to the mineral.

Groups such as Veterans on Patrol soon picked it up. “Isn’t it ironic how much lithium is available in the areas targeted by Helene?” the group asked in a Sept. 30 Telegram post.

[On Oct. 3, the group called for volunteers] “if you are willing to mobilize with North Carolina families and remove FEMA from North Carolina.”

[Ultimately, Harris, Yoxall and the supermarket asked the group to leave, which they did "of their own volition" according to local police monitoring the situation.]

“Misinformation has always been the bane of disaster response,” said Andy Carvin, managing editor of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, but with Helene “we’re seeing this additional layer of craven politicization about the federal disaster response itself.”

And it’s had consequences. Armed threats at the Ingles parking lot and elsewhere caused snags in FEMA’s work and that of other federal agencies on the ground, according to federal officials. For at least 48 hours, workers and contractors doing an array of jobs such as clearing trees and inspecting homes stopped working.