Discovering my Family are Conspiracy Theorists

Faith & Science Conversation
112

Let’s be clear on a couple of issues to start off. My point is that the OP’s concern cannot be resolved by science because there are two propaganda streams battling for market share, carefully selecting their facts, ignoring other facts, spinning narratives (virtual realities) primarily about the evil of the other side and the pure beauty of their own hearts and perspective, content to spread lies if the truth is not sufficiently useful to them. Let’s be clear about this: there are two sides doing this. That’s my thesis. The OP’s parents are trusting one side, but far too many people may be trusting the other. If one side is right about covid issues, it’s not because they care! It’s because it helps them push their narrative.

I’m not going to discuss covid here and who is right or wrong, because I think the more serious disease is infection with propaganda, which leads to the wide-spread problems with trust. I think the folks on each side are correct about generally distrusting the other side, but wrong about generally trusting their own side.

One of the problems pointing this out to either side is “they” then think you’re coming from “the other” side. It’s amazing to me that a Bernie supporter friend of mine and I can talk about this more easily than I can talk with either Trump or Biden supporters.

Secondly, and we’re going off into the weeds here, @Christy stated

Then the article linked made the bald-faced assertion that Christian troll sites in Kosovo and Macedonia were somehow tied to Russian disinformation campaigns when they had literally – literally - zero evidence. I find that far too common on both sides! I can accept that Russian sites are echoing the suspicions of some, but those suspicions would not be any weaker if those sites did not even exist.

I’ll engage briefly with the WSJ article: they are reporting what has been reported by the State Department. Put that in perspective with quotes from the article: “the outlets’ readership is small” and they “didn’t provide specific evidence.” This also does not rise anywhere near to the level of Christy’s statement. Note also that dozens of “experts” asserted with great confidence that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian disinformation campaign. The politicization of everything continues unabated.

Exactly. This is exactly how the propaganda wars work: “factspin” only reports on the errors of one side, working hard to make you distrust that side, and by ignoring other ugly facts they let their side look above reproach. But neither side is trustworthy.

I agree these are dumb. However, in my wanderings around sites on both sides, the claim that the “other side” believes X Y Z stupid thing is far more common than the belief in it on the other side.

Someone said “Truth is the first casualty of war” and the propaganda wars are no exception. I believe we will not solve this if we do not cure the underlying disease. JMO.

1 Like
113

It may be the case that a somewhat more nuanced approach is required. And there may be some beliefs (the vaccine being all about injecting microchips, or covid being caused by 5G) that are pretty much parodies these days. But there are a lot of anti-vax beliefs about covid and vaccines that are both very, very common and totally unrealistic. The death toll being exaggerated, the risks of the vaccine outweighing the benefits, the vaccine being insufficiently tested, and masks being ineffective are examples.

6 Likes
114

Let’s take your both sides argument:

You take it as an equivalency that both sides are doing science and altering/doctoring it for market share

  • yet you do not demonstrate that both sides are doing this or even the similarity and then complain about zero evidence cases (demonstrate peer reviewed research with open data for the anti-vaccine side)

  • you make an assumption that regular people just want their narrative to “win” (I took both vaccines, socially distance, and wear masks to reduce the likelihood that I will cause or suffer harm and many on your “both sides” wish the same)

  • “Inducing fear and loathing and panic about the unvaxxed is no better than singing the praises of Ivermectin.” Not sure what media you are relying upon but mine does not induce that. It is merely sadness at the human and resource cost of not being vaccinated and of taking ill-supported treatments.

  • As for media cancer, it has always been cancer. My media and government were in cohesion to avoid reporting on residential schools and the horrors that awaited the children for over 100 years. They did not talk about it, but they knew. This site does not want to go into pure politics but certain foreign policy adventures were justified because: "Why do they hate us?’ They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” - said by some dude

  • Media and scientific literacy are important skills for all citizens. Not all people can become experts on everything, but where free speech is allowed and dissidence is favoured by some, it is on institutions, governments, and the population to navigate those arenas. Unless you are going to put in some vetting process for all information channels and real world consequences for misinformation with retraction, and even with this the spin will never end.

Lastly, apologize for wall of text, but why do you keep over-simplifying this into a 2-sided issue. More appropriately it is ‘n’-sided with incredible diversity and nuance.

7 Likes
116

That is a very good article.

4 Likes
117

Let’s try again, Marty.

If we cannot come to any agreement about reliable sources of information regarding COVID vaccines and treatments, how can we hope to have any meaningful discussion?

The only possible outcome of a failure to agree on reliable sources would be a shouting match. But you do not want that outcome, and neither do I. So let’s see if we can make progress on reliable sources, shall we?

Pax Christi,
Chris

1 Like
118

Your thesis reflects the fact that you’re conflating two very different things: political groupings (which in the US basically means one of two ‘sides’) and science. Even if it is true that there are two propaganda streams going out (which is at best debatable), what does that have to do with settling issues with science? Unless you think that scientists themselves are part of one of the propaganda streams, look at what the scientific studies are saying.

When it comes to COVID-19, vaccination, treatment, etc, there are lots of questions to which scientific studies have provided clear answers, while others are still very much open. It’s not clear exactly how immunity from vaccination compares with that from prior infection, for example; the answer may depend in detail on the particular situation. On the other hand, it is completely clear that vaccines are safer than COVID-19 for almost everyone, for another example, and that they are very good at preventing serious disease. Those are true statements regardless of which of your sides says them, and denying them is false regardless of who says it.

Looking at the OP, science can indeed say whether vaccines make your arm magnetic, or whether hydroxychloroquine is useful for treating COVID-19, or whether masks work. Science can answer them (and has), regardless of what some politician or newspaper said about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

11 Likes
119

Thank God for legislation. As in France. Only 60% of health workers were vaccinated up to the summer. It was then vaccinate or take a step back, regardless of how many antibodies you had. It’s now 99% We’ve just done that here now, even tho’ we’re at 90%+. Good.

2 Likes
120

It’s just tough. I have never had any luck talking someone out of such a belief system once it’s well established. I’ve seen people diverted on their way in but never once it’s “set”.

At root, it’s an emotional position, a commitment to see the world through a certain lens. There are many benefits that derive from such beliefs. The satisfaction of not being outsmarted by the rich and powerful. The sense of self righteousness that derives from seeing oneself as a victim. And of course the social support, the sense of belonging to an enlightened group. Only when there’s an underlying emotional shift can people start to ask the hard questions they’ve been dodging.

My advice, FWIW, don’t challenge, don’t confront but set boundaries. Make it clear that you do not want to discuss it with them and will not tolerate any interference in your child raising. .

7 Likes
121

Good advice, though I have a hard time adhering to it with friends. I had a friend ? and fellow deacon at the church post that vaccines were worthless despite date from the Republican controlled state of Texas showing that the death rate among the vaccinated is 20 times (2000%) less that among the us-vaccinated. I had to comment on his Facebook post that he was wrong and people were dead because of that misinformation, even though he had already gotten a lot of attaboys from his fans.

6 Likes
122

It’s somewhat different when the information is being given out to the public. One has some kind of civic duty to not let it go unchallenged, IMO.

But yes, it’s very tough on personal relationships. I have managed to keep only one friend with whom I differ profoundly on such matters. Most can’t keep it in their pants and have to set me straight.

1 Like
123

Conspiracy theories can indeed cause great harm. When one comes unmoored from the facts there are no checks on the strength of one’s convictions and the most terrible things may seem justified.

Conspiracy theories have induced more than one genocide. Personally, in the middle of the 19th century, a member of my family was accused in a blood libel and executed.

4 Likes
124

A minor point but FWIW: 1/20 the rate is 5% of the rate, or 95% less.

2 Likes
125

Thanks, I was mistakenly going the other direction. Vaccinated has 5% of the deaths, unvaxxed 20 times more.

3 Likes
126

All this talk about two equal yet opposite sides, each with its own experts and facts, and oh my, we don’t really know whom to believe, etc. is SO reminiscent of the Tobacco companies some time ago. Big Tobacco avoided regulation for years by recruiting a handful of friendly scientists to their cause and creating doubt and confusion about the harmful effects of smoking. They were so successful that other industries interested in avoiding regulation borrowed from their playbook, casting doubt about things like acid rain and global warming. See the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes or the documentary by the same name. It’s kind of like the “Teach the Controversy” idea of Intelligent Design–which should be called “Teach the Manufactrovery”

5 Likes
127

I keep coming back to this as a very insightful, succinct description. Of course, I have the plank in my own eye in many areas–but thanks for this.

3 Likes
128

It’s the same playbook that Big Tobacco used. It’s an ancient script.

2 Likes
129

Consider if someone here started to argue that “the science is settled around skin color and the genetic differences between humans is too trivial to matter, therefore there are no social problems around skin color”(!). They would probably be banned!

Not as severe as this example, but that’s what many here are saying about covid and the vaccines: “since the science is settled there is no social problem.” Yet tens of millions of people have lost trust in the system. I’m disappointed that many here continue to suggest this is just about science, or just about covid.

Loving your neighbor isn’t only a requirement for other Christians. It’s also for everyone here to look with compassion and ask, “How did we get here?” “Othering” the people who are skeptical or frightened or distrustful is of no value in finding real solutions.

If you’ve got a better idea, please put it forward. But I challenge anyone who has argued “it’s just about covid vaccines and the science” to tell me you spend significant media or relational time outside your comfort zone. If you did, I’m convinced you wouldn’t be so dismissive.

And after much thought, I have some thoughts for @DaughterOfEve: First, listen and ask questions, engage with their world view. Find what’s true in what they say (!), don’t try to engage directly with what you think is false. Agree with what’s true. Practice James 1:19. Can you see anything in the list of statements you quoted that you can find some truth in? Tell us what you see.

130

I think you should also acknowledge that some of us have spent a year or more investing significant relational energy outside our comfort zones in this area, only to watch people slide deeper and deeper into all kinds of nuttiness. Nobody has infinite patience and empathy.

6 Likes
131

Yes, that’s what I said. Scientists friendly to any cause that would cause regulation are usually from The George C. Marshall Institute, This institute was founded originally to counter communism. Even today we hear charges that vaccine mandates are communist. (Or fascist!)

1 Like
132

@Christy all due respect for those who have! Thanks. Perhaps I overstated on that one point, because I know some here have tried. But some, I’m convinced, have not.

I’m just trying to make the point that the science is clearly not the issue.