You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
21 points

Exactly, the same mindset that takes you to “The entire geophysical establishment is wrong/lying about the shape of the Earth, so I’ll listen to this Youtube crank who says it’s a disc instead” will also lead you to things like “The entire medical establishment is wrong/lying about the effectiveness of masks & vaccines, so I’ll listen to this podcast crank hawking horse dewormer instead.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

There’s always an implied “them” hiding the conspiracy as well. It’s just a couple of short steps from flat earth to “jews will not replace us”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

To be fair, the medical establishment did lie about it, but not because of some weird “big mask” or “big pharma” conspiracy, but because they have a tangible impact when used by large groups and overselling them would have better outcomes than underselling them.

It’s a classic problem those in power have to deal with: tell the truth and get an underwhelming response, or oversell and get a better response.

Don’t take horse dewormers though, that’s just dumb.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Overselling something that is true is not the same as flat out lying about the efficacy of a random pharmaceutical. Not even in the same neighbourhood.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You can surely at least understand the mindset there. Basically, when party A is obviously lying, a party B that calls them out appears more trustworthy, and it’s easier to overlook the obvious flaws in party B’s alternative. Here’s the logic, specific to vaccines:

  1. group A claims vaccines are effective against contracting a given disease
  2. group B points to evidence of actual effectiveness, which vastly falls short of what the public thinks
  3. group B proposes an alternative to the vaccine, implying it’s effective and that group A doesn’t want others to know about it
  4. group A attacks group B’s alternative

This creates an us vs them situation, so if you already distrust group A somewhat, it’s easy to side w/ group B, assuming you have no actual knowledge to parse the available information. The same logic works with anything, you just need a little bit of distrust w/ some authority, evidence of false/misleading statements, and a seemingly credible alternative.

The trick is to not lie/be misleading in the first place so you don’t break the trust. Trust takes years to build and a moment to break, so you need a very good reason to break the trust.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Don’t need a podcast when the president at the time was telling them to take the horse dewormer.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Greentext

!greentext@sh.itjust.works

Create post

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you’re new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

  • Anon is often crazy.
  • Anon is often depressed.
  • Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

Community stats

  • 8.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 866

    Posts

  • 33K

    Comments