UKC

Looking for tips on how to deal with long time friends who have reached their mid 50's and are turning increasingly right wing and (in my view) a bit bonkers. For example I have friends on Facebook who believe that Covid was a conspiracy. The BBC is the devils work. Bill Gates is evil. Global warming is a myth. You know the stuff....

Obvious solution is to turn off Facebook or block them, but I'm not sure this is what I want to do. When I confront them they just dig in deeper and won't accept argument or reason and just present more bullshit internet sourced facts.

Any ideas?

The best thing you can do, for your own sanity, is ditch them. That's not always possible, if say it's a colleague. In this instance the ball's in your court, you could noncommittally agree with them (for a quieter life), enter into a debate (impossible to win probably, because their illusions are so heartfelt and strangely intricate), or... and most satisfyingly, fire a few "theories" back, but from the opposite perspective. For example I once told a chap that I believed we'd been to the moon (and other planets!) more often than the elite are prepared to let on.

It's infuriating I know, but remember, everyone has a back story, often a sad one.

Are they particularly close friends? (I ask because you describe the ones that you've detailed, as "friends on Facebook")
I have an old acquaintance, basically someone I used to knock about with a little bit as an undergrad, which is around thirty years ago now, as a friend on Facebook. We met up for lunch in around 2016 as I was passing through London on my way home from an overseas work trip. 

In the past two months, she has been posting frequent cryptic nonsense which seem to indicate a major mental health breakdown, but I am not close enough to her to intervene. I've dealt with it by hiding her timeline. Hopefully people close to her will give her whatever help she needs. (basically she appears to be imagining that she had some dalliance with Elon Musk some time in the past 8 years and he's stolen her technology - she works in the field of wearable tech - and then it all goes properly bonkers with her and her family being "on the run" from Big Tech - whilst posting about it all on FB of course - and some incoherent rambling about Saudis controlling her). I know that's different to your examples but all I am saying is, if you're not that close to these people, just "turn them off". 

There's been a few threads on here about this sort of thing and general advice from people who can word things better than I can, is "you're not going to change their minds"...sadly. 

I share your pain - having more or less lost a long-term friend in a similar way.  I was leaving the contentious areas as "no go" but they were absolutely determined to try to convert me...would always raise the issues and push for my agreement.  Then we had the matter of sources - once people write off the BBC, the judiciary, and peer-reviewed science in high-impact journals as part of the conspiracy there's not much common ground left.

I don't think there's a way to rescue them as individuals.  And as a society the safeguards against misinformation are weakening not strengthening.  I've no idea how TikTok and Instagram became more credible than the Chief Medical Officer.

Interestingly, their view is that I'm close-minded and haven't put the effort in to find the truth that "is out there"; a sheeple!

Cold comfort I'm afraid, but you're not alone

If it's really close friends it might be worth talking about it. But even then it probably won't make any difference.

I’ve had a few family/friends/colleagues go down this route in the last few years.

I haven’t found any way to help them out of the insanity, and I fear my face is more expressive than I’d like it to be which tends to cut things short.

Yup.  When you do painstakingly lead someone away from the conspiracy in baby steps they can agree to, at the end of the journey they just flip back to square 1.

My general plan is to cut off contact before things degenerate to a proper barney so I’m still a last resort for them to call on if/when things degenerate to the point they realise they’ve been had and want a sympathetic ear.  Hasn’t happened yet, and in one case rather publicly spiralled towards medical intervention.

It’s ugly stuff, and it’s by no means all incidental.

One close friend who now lives on the other side of the country so most of our communications are now through Facebook.

Thanks all for the advice. 

Interestingly the Facebook posts are now, and have been for a while, receiving only one or two likes from other friends, and always the same people. Looks like I now need to follow most others and ignore the nonsense.

This is very true, from a personal perspective, I've only been aware of this specific (and troubling) phenomena / mental health issue for as long as social media algorithms have been around.

I once read an article on BigThink ( https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov ) that reported how the KGB actively demoralise entire nations by exploiting those vulnerable to alt-truths in psyops campaigns. Even this is an out of date perspective already, as we're only too aware that anyone with an agenda and money can exploit whatever demographic they like these days.

Edited to include link.

I read a good book on this recently, the title has momentarily slipped my mind though. Their conclusion on how to deal with this situation was to not challenge them. Maintain the friendship, but just avoid contentious subjects. Keep trying to steer them onto neutral ground and the things you do agree on - the reasons why you are friends. You will not change them, but these people do go through phases and some come back to reality of their own accord. If they do, be ready to welcome and encourage them.

My sister is an anti-vaxxer, from way before COVID. I'm not going to change her, but if she ever asks for a scientific answer I'm there to provide it.

Just let it go. You have no control over what other people think. And that thing about how you can't reason people out of a worldview that they didn't use reason to get into.

Also, consider deleting some or all of your social media accounts. If you're really friends with those people then you'll probably stay friends -- it just requires a bit of work, like it used to. If you're not actually friends then nothing of value will be lost.

I'm not a fan of cutting people off who have different views to mine, doing so isolates then further, potentially feeding their ignorance. Having a well rounded person like yourself within their close circle might just possibly keep them from going too far down that rabbit hole, or give them a rope to climb out by once they see sense. 

It sounds like challenging their views is pointless, so just ignore those and only interact with posts that are non confrontational. If they are/were a good friend no need to lose that unless they go completely bonkers. 

My parents had a recent incident when visiting a friend who was staunchly pro Brexit and commented that they were the only people she knew who voted remain. They politely told her she was the only person the knew who voted leave, so it was agreed by all to just stear clear of that one subject area for the day. 

I've been reading up a bit on this to try to get a better understanding of the process whereby they go down the rabbit hole.

As far as I understand it (which possibly isn't very far), the problem is the way social media works. In order to generate maximum cash, the SM platforms need to show things that people will look at, so they can show them advertisements at the same time, etc.

It turns out that the things anxious people tend to want to look at either are the things which can confirm their anxiety (someone is out to get me), or things which confirm any views they may have which are publicly deemed unacceptable (racism, violence etc). Social media detects those needs with highly optimised viewing algorithms, and then feeds them incessantly with reinforcing material.

They start out as normal people with normal worries, but by the time they're finished with FB and the like, they've been radicalised, or traumatised.

I guess the only thing you could do is to tell them that social media is actually harming them, urge them to switch it off permanently, and if necessary seek help. Most likely, your advice will have little effect.

It makes me think of the poor people in the last century who went to live in communes, and had to be rescued and de-programmed by their relatives.

Yuval Noah Harari deals with this a little in Nexus. He can be a little random, but I always find him interesting - although I do shout at his books a lot
 

Point them at this site: https://www.debunkbot.com/

I have a flat earth friend, so asked it about that and it produces a gentle coherent conversational tone, with reasoning as to why it's an [expletives delete] daft idea. I also ran the Kennedy assassination through it and it provided some info I wasn't aware of, (not that I believe that JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, just for clarity .

Of course they'll reason that it's just an AI cover up, but you can at least counter that by asking them how they know that their source of information isn't an AI cover up. Or imagine that we're in the simulation and they're just NPCs developed to antagonise you.

Well put.  This is like dealing with someone who is in a cult - less extreme (hopefully - there is definitely an overlap!), but otherwise just exactly the same.  It doesn't matter how bonkers the beliefs are you can't change their mind by trying to explain to them that they're wrong, by presenting them with evidence or anything like that, and any attempt to pull them out will only push them in further.  (And push them away.)

Your only hope is to stay in touch, don't judge them, don't argue with them, bide your time and hope they'll be ready at some point.  Incredibly hard if it's someone you love, and almost certainly not worth the cost to your own wellbeing it if it isn't.

I listened to an excellent, but chilling, series of BBC radio programmes about this a wee while ago, and there's a tv programme too.  "A Very British Cult" - worth checking out perhaps.

Radio (8x half hour episodes): https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001kvf8
Telly (1 hour documentary): https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001krb2/a-very-british-cult

"Doppelganger" is an excellent book for this

No 1 son and his now-wife came up the answer to her conspiracy-theory-loving prepper step-father one Christmas in Louisiana (could it get much worse?).

They decided on a drinking game - drink to be consumed whenever a conspiracy theory was aired.  Glasses to be refilled as soon as empty.  They got wrecked.  Afterwards, the step-father insisted that they all went outside 'to shoot stuff' and make a little dent in his 10,000 rounds of ammunition.

No 1 and wife have just got the heck out of Trump Louisiana and are in non-Trump Washington State, where it is now -21 degrees C

If you can ditch them over stuff like this, they're not real friends. 

If you would seriously think of cutting off your relationship with someone just because, say, he didn't believe the moon landings were real, then I'd question the value of your relationship in the first place.

And where do I stand with my wife, FFS? I'm more or less an atheist, brought up as such, yet I've been married for for forty four years  to a woman who loves our local church and is very much involved in every aspect of it. 

If I'm going to ditch my mate for being sceptical about the moon landings, surely there's a lot more justification  for getting shut of a woman who believes in God, Jesus and the rest of it. 

With friendly acquaintances it's a fairly simple matter of disengaging and distancing. With real friends it's not so easy. I have one very good friend whom I thankfully don't see often. They've shown their true colours over the past year in ways which don't sit well with me at all, including believing unsubstantiated rubbish to support their own very significant prejudices. But this is someone who is a genuinely very dear friend who has been there for me in the worst of times like few others, so I'm not dumping them. But it is a weird thing when the affection you have for someone is inverse to the respect you have for them. 

It’s very specific to an individual situation, isn’t it?  

It depends what the issue is, and how inwards/outwards facing they are about it etc.  The closer someone is the more you’re going to want to put it aside, but perhaps sometimes some distance is a saving grace if they’re prone to aggressively pushing toxic nonsense.  Save what’s left for when then need it.

If you’re both chill about it, surely it’s not an issue?  

But when it comes to conspiracy theorists they’re often new converts and - just as with religion - new converts are often much more vocal and forwards in their belief than those raised in it.  Stark differences in theological belief has never come between me and a close acquaintance, but a sudden and vocal case of the blithering insanity over a conspiracy theory can be quite different and much harder to handle gracefully.  

I find this paragraph quite confusing. The 2nd sentence seems to contradict the 1st.

Read it again. It doesn’t. It supports it. 

You don't need to block them, just unfollow them. Out of sight but not unfriended 

I'd bin anyone off who went total conspiracy. 

Modern CT is no longer harmless. It's often,  if not always, fueled by bad actors online and almost always leads to alt/far-right leanings and support of Trump or Reform. 

I have no headspace or tolerance for any of this any more.

I find this whole thread very sad and baffling. You can tell instantly when someone speaks to your opinion about something and they have no interest in listening or understanding you as a person, but are starting from the position of wanting to help you understand that you are wrong and they are right. It stands out a mile, and I suspect that's why you have not had any luck in "dealing with them".

I think one of the difficult things for people who end up being influenced by online content in the way you describe, is they find out that their friendships are conditional on their beliefs and not based on any shared meaningful connection with another person and that isolates them further. We have lost all tolerance for people who don't share our world view, on both sides. People don't have the space to air their thoughts in public without the fear of being outcast and rejected, so they do it in private, risk becoming radicalised and the world becomes ever more divided.

Your OP reads like someone who has been appointed by a higher power to distribute their wisdom and show people the correct way to think about things. No wonder they don't listen!

80 years ago very normal men dragged pregnant women out of their houses and shot them in the back of the head. We are all fallible in the way that we form beliefs. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we spent more time questioning our own beliefs, than those of others.

Very normal men are doing that this morning. I've been listening to normal people saying abnormal things all my life. It didn't used to matter so much. Now it matters again. Some of the beliefs of others are going to get us all killed. But worse than that, they are going to kill our souls.

Apparently if you wait 6 months it becomes fact.

I can understand your views about this but unfortunately we dont live in an ideal society any more.

Conspiracies are no longer just harmless views on moon landing skepticism or whether the earth is flat.  Denying the existence of climate change or denying vaccines based on poor evidence causes lasting actual damage. Believing some weird 15 minute city coercion halts local progress. Spreading or not challenging great replacement theories or worse, propagating gang rape or murderous statistical falsehood slows integration and fuels suspicion or rioting. 6 people died directly or attributed to the Jan 6 riots, fueld by conspiracy by the spreader-in-chief at the top. 

And at a mico level, remember the conspiracies around Nicola Bulley, or the 'staged' Manchester Bombings or Sandy Hook shootings. The distress caused to those close was doubtless unbearable as the court cases won on the back of this heartache have proven.

We had checks and balances once, but we now have a thriving exploitative ecosystem successfully built on this stuff and now supported by the white house, its two presidents and the entire digital industry, which enables this at actual light speed.

Our own 10p Trump will, with Labours help it seems, win the next election based on net zero and immigration conspiracies, and he has the help from the richest person on the planet who only this week had to row back on claims of sending jonnies to the wrong Gaza. Yet how many people didnt see the Oval Office fact check or still dont believe it even after the correction?

Im an extreme example of conspiracy intolerance but if people want to gorge on this shit thats fine, but I dont have to listen or respect them for it.

I've been having the same issue as the OP, except my friend believes in open borders, that men can become women, and that Islam is a religion of peace. I took some advice in this thread and cut them off...

Did we really ever live in an "ideal society" or a time when conspiracy theories were all harmless? I think you are referring back to a time that didn't exist, although I would agree that the present technological/societal situation we find ourselves in presents challenges which weren't present to the same extent in the past. 

I don't disagree with the extent of the problem, I'm just not sure how your approach will fix it. To me it sounds like it is a continuation of the philosophy of division which will make things worse. Your post reads to me as much of a propaganda piece as the opposition, using phrases like "our own 10p Trump" and "its two presidents" for example. You don't sound like someone who is trying to bridge gaps, understand or build a stronger more united society, you sound like someone who has lost patience, made their mind up and given up on the idea of progress and resolution, which I can understand and sympathise with. It's worth pointing out that the posts you guys are seeing are also algorithmically chosen to inflame you and turn you against the people you used to call your friends. 

I would strongly draw the distinction between respecting the idea and respect for individual people, which reading through this thread one would be forgiven for thinking many have conflated these two things. You mentioned that many of these online views are propagated by bad actors and I would agree, I see this as a threat to not only national security but our way of life in general, societies collapse from the inside out. But I would put myself in the camp that is vulnerable to this outside influence rather than see myself as someone who is somehow immune or above it. I don't recognise a lot of humility or humanity in this thread.

I notice no one has used the example of the covid lab leak conspiracy, which was ridiculed, censored and used as a reason to ban people from social media but is now widely accepted as a credible theory. There is an arrogance that runs through the heart of this whole thread. 

You are lumping a lot of people together, picking out the most egregious and harmful forms of conspiracy theories which are believed by a minority, and lumping them together with everyone who voted for political parties you don't align with. 

You are making the case for political intolerance, which with the greatest respect, I view as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The like ratio on your post to mine doesn't fill me with hope. We love to hate, and that's as non-partisan as it's ever been. 

I'm with Sharp on this one.

The whole world would be in a better place if people made it a point of principle to persistently consume the content of those with opposing views.  It never used to be this way.  

On a purely personal note ... I also think everyone should be forced to read long form discussion of the topics of the day.  Vast majority of what we're all debating these days are complex, nuanced topics which have both pros and cons/shades of grey - none of them are black and white.  The economist, as an example only, does an excellent job of on long form content.  I recognize in advance that people don't want to read long form, and that it's difficult to read content you don't agree with and that, tbh, many don't want to accept that the hot topics of the day are complicated .. they just want their 128 chars & yes/no thinking.  Point conceded in advance that you can't force anyone to read anything.

The OP's post is inherently part of the problem:  "I am right by definition.  Anyone who does not agree with me is 'a bit bonkers'.  100% of how Covid was handled was good and anyone who questions the handling of Covid is a right wing, trump supporting extremist.  The BBC handles 100% of issues in an unbiased manner - anyone who questions how the BBC handled a specific issue is a right wing, trump supporting extremist.  The only way to mitigate the impact of human induced global warming is for the rich western countries to compensate the global south - this is now a settled issue and anyone questions this is a right wing, trump supporting extremist."

My world views actually align with the OP's .. but I deeply deeply disagree with the sentiment and underlying contempt for those who dare to disagree with them.

To the OP:  If your long term friend is an a55 hole ... do not be friends with them.  Life is too short to spend time worrying about a55 holes.  Let them go - move on with your life.  You will not lie on your death bed satisfied that you spent years of your life fruitlessly trying to convince the inconvincible of the virtues of your personal world views.  

But ... the world will be a better place when we all sit and really listen to why people, on the left and right, are developing these positions.  Acknowledge that governments of both the right and left are failing to meet the needs of their people and this is driving more extreme positions - left and right.  Recognize that everything you read has bias ... none of the news sources (none of them) are without bias - they are all seeking to influence you one way or another.  If you're a Tory voter .. force yourself to read the guardian.  If you a Labor voter .. read the Spectator.  Force yourself to read centrist news outlets that discuss the hot topics of the day in long form.

 https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/ratings

Just send them pictures of the ruling class: lizards. I think the one in the middle may be the late Duke of Edinburgh.

There’s a strong difference between rational opposing views and somebody who is down then nth level of an illogical conspiracy of contradictory nonsense.

I very much took the OP to be a case of the later.

I expect the OP is like most of us - interacts and enjoys interacting with with family, friends, colleagues and strangers who have different or opposing views, but struggles to maintain a cordial interaction with someone who is convinced that 5g telephony causes covid and who is determined to spread the word.

For sure.  I would argue it’s making people more vulnerable to external forces driving them to extremes.  These rabbit holes are there ready and waiting.

I thought most of the time the Royal family were legless lizards?

But you're right, I did see Prince Philip and his wife QE2 (named after a ship?) once, in person and they were both taller than the legless lizard in the picture.

He never did the lizard 2 foot long tongue flick or blinked slowly to reveal lizard eyes, not the whole time! nor did his other half. I thought that showed immense self control on their behalf and a real dedication to public service. They rose inestimably in my respect after that. 

You don't have the balls to stand up to the conspiracy theorists

There are opposing views just as valid as our own but not all views opposing deserve respect, some deserve pity (flat earth) or contempt (Holocaust denial).

I think to some extent you are probably right. Thankfully I dont see these posts now as I have long-since binned FB and Twitter but they did tweak me at the time and I spent far too much time debating things with probable bots, paid shills or people simply unable to view matters rationally. I did and have lost patience. The sideswipes about Farage and Trump/Musk are valid and if Starmer or Sanders were fuelling social distortion for polical gain as the former are, the latter would be criticised equally - I'm a fully paid up moderate equally comfortable criticising any political colour.

As someone who has built a dome around me I would consider myself immune and you're probably right that I struggle understanding when people aren't. This is definitely a failing on my part.

The difference is that, speaking personally, some of us would wait until the evidence was presented rather than jumping to the first theory as damage can be done in the meantime.

Millions believe antivax sentiment, millions voted for trump on the back of him being a 'victim' of lawfare and that he had won the 2020 election. These are not minority and fringe and we are two weeks in to a 4 year period which could have generational implications. Ironically, and tragically, the people who bought Brexit and voted Trump are the one's most likely to suffer.  

I dont think I am making a case for anything in particular other than in answer to the OP where I would distance myself from people who believed and discussed problematic ideas. I expanded on the wider political implications for society of conspiracies and lies and it seems that the far/hard-right seems to deploy them with greater frequency, probably to appeal to the socially disenfranchised, who appear to be more susceptible. I dont think this is a coincidence, but the implications affect us all whether we believe or not.

I think too many balls were part of the problem...

My orginal comment was, of course, in jest, as I presume yours was, and to present that an ideological stance was being taken by the OP, for which there was a clear opposite.

It has now been written much more eloquently than I could, but to me the idea that I would cut off a friend because they had opposing views to me is absurd. If they truly were going down a dangerous rabid hole, then they need support.

I'm right, you're wrong, we can't be friends. How progressive.

Just accept that you will never defeat emotions with facts. They are emotionally invested in whatever theory they have "discovered" (all by themselves!)* and your logic won't shift the dial.

* 2 semesters at the university of YouTube and a meta masters does the trick.

If you have Netflix, there is a documentary called Behind the Curve which is quite an interesting watch. 

It follows a group of flat earthers in the USA and it's done with empathy - the documentary team do a good job of listening to what this group had to say without shutting them down by overtly judging or disparaging them.

One of the things that came across to me was that many of the group were there because of the sense of community it gave them. From that perspective, I would agree with what many people said here about keeping communications open with your friends, even if you avoid contentious subjects - by pushing them away, you probably push them even further into their conspiracy community.

It was also interesting that there were a couple of times where you really think people are going to make the leap and consider that they are wrong - and then they talk themselves out of it. That chimes with what many people have said here, which is that when someone gets into this state you won't change their mind. The only way that will happen is if they want to change their minds.

I think it's a two way path. I have a mate (someone I see frequently in person and get on with fine around shared interests) who's absolutely steeped in and uncritical of far-right thinking, likely from birth knowing also his father. That inevitably leads to online conspiracy exposure but he's not evangelical about it in the way people who've gone the other way along that path often seem to be. I can challenge it, we can talk, reason and I often see a lightbulb come on. It goes out again eventually of course but there's always another day. I suspect it's the difference between incidental exposure to conspiracy BS and people finding it as their thing, that which differentiates them and gives them something to feel smart/special about.

jk

But sometimes they do.  I take my hat off to Pamela Hemphill, for her extraordinary strength of character.  (Which has unfortunately, inevitably, meant that she's had to endure a *lot* of abuse.)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvged988377o

On a lighter note, this never gets old:  youtube.com/watch?v=FzYd8j3l5Io&

Yes, I was talking specifically about individuals in the documentary that I referenced - but you are correct - of course sometimes people do change their minds and is an excellent example which does indeed deserve applause.

However, I would argue that we don't know the circumstances under which she changed her mind. I wouldn't be surprised if something happened to make her want to change her mind and that this was probably more profound than people simply telling her that they disagreed with her.
 

You could look at it like opportunistic bacterial infection; if someone doesn’t have a strong community around them, the conspiracies are waiting to plug that gap. So much of modern life can strip away at the time for healthy community building.

What hasn’t been discussed on this thread is the way people turn more to conspiracies perhaps with worsening mental health, and how their newfound interest can then further push on their mental health.  That can make it precariously hard to help, other than suggesting they recognise underlying issues.  

Yes, I see a lot of parallels with trying to help addicts. If someone admits they have a problem and wants help, it's possible to help them - but trying to help someone who doesn't admit they have a problem or doesn't want help is futile. I suspect many mental health disorders are similar in that regard, and I can absolutely see how poor mental health and conspiracy theories can get tangled together.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I take what you've written here at face value you appear to be arguing that were I somehow 80 odd years ago to be faced with* atrocity, I shouldn't be thinking "That's unconscionable, I should intervene" but instead should think "Perhaps that young girl and her foetus deserved it, maybe I just haven't thought about this right, I'll leave them to it".

*I presume from the date here you reference some Nazi atrocity, something we pretty much all until recently agreed was 'a bad thing'.

jk

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you're right about that!

I will caveat this in advance; I have significant respect for all your contributions here on UKC wintertree .. earned after your contributions during Covid.

We are in violent agreement.  

w.r.t. the OP - too many people believe that too many issues are "settled" - they're not.  Too many people believe that because they've made their mind up and because they have surrounded themselves with like minded people that everyone else is objectively bad, a failure, ignorant, unworthy and a lost cause - they are not.  This line of thinking is exactly what brought Trump to the Whitehouse and might well bring Reform into government at the next UK general election if Labour does not get their act together soon.  This line of thinking is exclusionary.  Exclusion works up until a point ... that point being when the excluded suddenly outnumber the included ... and then you get Trump.  I can see the same thing happening in the UK.  The objective should not be to exclude those you disagree with but to tackle these difficult conversations head on and win the argument.   (Those who choose the path of exclusion probably also have to accept that they might be part of the reason why we keep getting populist government's in the west right now .. )

I accept I might not be correct on this point .. but the right do a better job of making the case for their views than the left.  The left have a penchant for excluding those they don't like, defriending them or blocking them on twitter .. while the right are busy recruiting those to their cause often without a competing narrative at the table.  This, IMO, is a strategic failure of the left.

There is also an issue with more than one thing being true at the same time.

• BBC:  You can support the concept of a national broadcaster (I do) .. and simultaneously recognize that we have a funding problem with the BBC, an issue with tax funded/subsidized content competing with the private sector content on an unequal footing and that it is led by a too white, middleclass and southern leadership (which is also probably a proxy for being too liberal).
• Covid:  You can be entirely accepting of the fact that Covid was real (I am) ... and simultaneously believe that the handling of the pandemic left huge questions unanswered.  It is true (objectively) that there will have been a very small % of the population for whom the vaccine itself caused serious adverse events - it's okay to say that - it's true of all vaccines.   It is also true that the vaccines were overwhelmingly a massive success for 99.x% of the population.  (I am acutely aware from your posting during Covid that I am preaching to the converted when I say this to you.  )
• Bill Gates:  You can acknowledge BG's very admirable contributions to humanity in later life (I do) ... while simultaneously acknowledging his monopolistic business practices in the 1990's and questionable relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.  
• Global Warning:  You can absolutely be accepting of the fact that man-made global warming is real (I do) ... while disagreeing about how to deal with it.  By this statement I do not mean to suggest that the medicine is unclear - it is not.  Instead I mean to suggest that there is limited consensus about how to get the humans to take the necessary medicine without spitting it out and voting in populist governments that will give them what they want - which there appears to be a pattern developing for.  We're not going to be able to decarbonize the economy if in doing so we peruse policies so painful that the population vote out the government and vote in a populist replacement.  

None of these are "settled" issues.  None of them are clear cut.  All of them are nuanced.  All of these topics are worthy of ongoing debate.  

Again .. I enjoy your evidence and facts based contributions to UKC wintertree.

Reducing people losing friends to conspiracy rabbit holes, which often ultimately seems to change them as a person (and thus the 'meaningful connection' which is the basis of friendship, as you say) to a failure of toleration is really a huge oversimplification and puts the blame exclusively on those who don't want to see their friends get manipulated into a black hole of fear and hate modelled for them by the disinformation industry (yes it is an industry).

Saying it is a failure of toleration really reminds of the old classic preface, I'm not racist BUT... (=I can say whatever I want if I employ this get-out-of-jail-free card)... (I can say whatever I want if I blame your distaste on your lack of toleration).

Are any of those conspiracy theories? Doesn't a conspiracy theory require conspirators, a conspiracy, something that they conspired to do, and then did etc. Like, bill gates made up covid so he can put micro chips in vaccines, or the illuminati made up climate change, or the government puts mind control chemicals in your tap water, or 'international financiers' got together on epstein island and something something pizzagate (the ultra classic euro-american conspiracy, blaming a 'kabal' of jews for anything/everything). The English anti-semitic blood libel conspiracy is almost 900 years old, and  was mobilised (alongside many other things) to justify expulsion of jews in pretty much all european countries at some point (yes, England too). The conspirators, got together, decided to do a sneaky/wrong/disgusting/controlling thing, and then did it (and perahps now we need to punish/expel them for it... because the immigrants are eating cats and dogs).

I'm quite satisfied by the circularity of conspiracy theorists getting together to use a conspiracy theory to justify a political action (like expulsion). This is a conspiracy par excallance.

You're just talking about ethical/political stances not conspiracy theories.

Yes, I do realise you are probably just being edgy.

Lots of valid points, forgive me for only picking a few but I’ve written enough already…

Don't extend that respect too far - I put a *lot* of time and effort in to understanding and communicating stuff about Covid; I don’t (and  couldn’t!) devote that much time to anything else on here so I’m just another voice in the crowd.

One thing I followed during Covid were individuals and methods used to push outright lies as alternative views of the facts; the same people associated with Farage when he temporarily pivoted to their cause - and some had previous Brexit associations, and they’re associating with Trump as well.  None of this is happening in a vacuum.

I fully agree; what we’ve been seeing however is trumpian politics pushing those like minded people to such an extreme that engagement for others becomes ever more difficult.  I’d argue the same happened in the states with further left views over transgender politics.  Compassion in the UK is holding more of a bridge in place for now I think but that bridge is a target.  

>  We're not going to be able to decarbonize the economy if in doing so we peruse policies so painful that the population vote out the government and vote in a populist replacement.  

Totally agree, yet the existential and society shaping questions facing us as a species are slower than an electoral cycle; the answer to me lies in a compassionate, well educated society that has the time to vote based on what they’ve digested not what is shoved down their news by a media ecosystem that is almost totally compromised into political tools.

No, just looking for advice. I've even read yours.

I like to say 'Oh,  that's interesting.'

As others have said above, if the problem is just their FB posts, you can click on 'hide posts from' or whatever it's called. I've even done this with people I agree with! I have a friend I've known for 55 years, we rarely meet in person these days, but we're FB friends and fairly regularly chat by message. We have very similar views on life, politics etc. But his political posting, petitioning etc became really tiresome, sometimes posting up to a dozen times a day. So I hid his posts, problem solved.

My view is its often a sign of economic insecurity or malaise or social instability that people buy into conspiracy theories with people looking to find something that explains their position .

Only a personal view.  

I very much agree with your view, which I feel has not had enough airtime so far.

People who believe in something factually incorrect, like flat-earth and the various denial positions must by definition have a non-factual, emotional reason for doing so.

I suggest that the root emotion involved is fear.

People call it different names like anxiety and paranoia, etc, but that's what it is; especially, a fear of something that they can't quite identify or which they feel is unresolvable, which makes them seek for a way to reduce their fear. So attempting to persuade them that their Great White Problem-Solving Hope is false is very unlikely to work. As many people have pointed out, reassurance is probably the best thing you can do. Or alternatively, talk about Death.

Conspiracy is more tricky. It's still anxiety but with at least some acknowledgement that's it's in part a bit of fun, which helps to diminish the worry, distract their attention, and provides a ready-made peer group that they can at least have a conversation with, if not a particularly productive one.

Thanks for writing that response, I can understand where you are coming from and often feel similar. I didn't mean to imply that there was a duty to engage with people who hold extreme views and it seems like it's something you've thought a lot about. 

I can't disagree with that, it's a lesson I keep failing to learn. I listened to Brett Weinstein eloquently describe the lab leak theory early on in covid, and dismissed it as a conspiracy theory based on what I perceived to be a consensus. I brought it up because I think it's an interesting example, it shows my conspiracy radar is not well aligned, and I think that's probably true for many. There are plenty other recent examples.

I think it would be hard to evidence that point and it doesn't chime with my own experience, but then I think I am often guilty of focussing on the lies and failures of the left, perhaps because I have aligned more with the left on many issues and somehow believed this was inherently more virtuous. 

I was surprised that you drew that conclusion and I didn't really understand what you meant when I read it, I'm still not sure if I do, but my point was poorly mad and it was a poor choice of example. I was referencing the book Ordinary Men. Early on they are given the option to step aside and not take part in the executions and about 10 out of 500 took that offer. Around the same percentage (1-2%) of German's actively resisted the Nazi regime, and it is both had to stomach, and hard to argue against, that most of us would definitionally be in the 98%. 

It was a poor example, and I didn't expand on it enough for it to make sense to anyone but me! I have recently reread the book and it's on my mind given, as you say, the year. It's also the anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, and the accounts given in the Hague bear a troubling similarity to those recounted in that book. I've felt quite sad recently about the state of the world and the similarities between our place in history, and the many of these examples that stretch back as far as man kind has existed.

The point I was trying, and clearly failing to make, was that we are more fallible than we care to realise and the only way we can avoid repeating the mistakes of the past is to recognise our own vulnerability to being so terribly wrong. We are all susceptible to group dynamics and psychological errors and vulnerabilities. Whilst I recognise the worrying trends on the right as much as anyone else, I also see a striking arrogance from the left and an eagerness to lump large portions of people, such as "Trump voters" into one box labelled "idiots who have nothing of value to add to my world view" (that is a generalisation that isn't directed against anyone in particular). The problem to me doesn't present itself as a flaw in one side or the other, but rather two sides who have both decided (and been manipulated) into not listening to one another, and consequently becoming more siloed, extreme and polarised. I felt like the original post was an example of that, however on reflection, that was probably a bit harsh of a judgement to make on what was a short and casual post. 

I don't think I was reductionist in the way you describe, and that's a very selective quote in a post right beneath one that finished with "I have no headspace or tolerance for any of this any more"! 

The less tolerant we are as a society of having divergent opinions in our peer groups, the more susceptible we are to forming more polarised views. Societies and individuals benefit from being able to separate the belief from the believer. I remember friends in my youth with crazy views, they were either made fun of or vehemently disagreed with but loved all the same. I don't see this environment today, particularly amonst younger people. They often appear like they are their beliefs, and I don't think that's a good place to be. 

I don't understand the connection between that and saying you aren't racist whilst holding racist views. 

Just send them pictures of the ruling class: lizards.

Distracting the sheeple - a little thought and doing your own research will reveal the thinly disguised secret that it is cats that rule the world.

The moon landings are a good one. Must be true as we have access to alien technology, from a crash in 1957…

And then exploited by populist politicians who promise to fix these ills... Plenty of examples over C20 and C21 history, up to a recent election...

This bit of your post stuck in my head.

I think there’s so much bias on most of the press that reading widely just pours crap in from both sides; it doesn’t balance or cancel out but just corrodes.

Mainly I skim various papers of see how they’re presenting things to see what the agenda being pushed is.  A red top headline in the shop today boldly proclaimed the US VP was warning over retreating free speech in the UK, glossing over the horrific implications of his speech for various parts of European security.  That headline tells me all I need to understand how the readers are being radicalised for the bilge that they’re going to ramp up from Reform.  The other side of the press is little better; they can get stuck on an anti-Tory rut over genuine issues; this was clearest when it came time to finally wind down Covid control measures and a certain paper nearly lost its mind they were so stuck in criticising the tories on their past over hasty incautions.

I think of it like an averaging process or maybe better a trimmed mean.  Your point taken either way ... 

The US's statements over the wknd I find fascinating.  For the avoidance of doubt ... fascinating because I find myself wondering "what's really going on?".

On the one hand you could view developments at the wknd as "these guys are crackers ... they have no idea what they're up to .. and are hell bent on just taking a wrecking ball to everything and anything".  

On the other hand ... I can't help but feel like there's more to it.  (Here is where I get whacked on the UKC forums)  Trump was elected with a Mandate to end the war in Ukraine.  We can argue about the means that he's advancing to do that .. but he is definitely doing what he promised he would do.    Polling has, for a sustained period of time, shown that the US public favor a swift end to the war in Ukraine.  Most people in the US couldn't point to Ukraine on a map .. and can't understand why their taxes are being spent on a distant war in a foreign land .. and worse still that they are the dominant financial contributor by a long long way (US have sent something like 120bn so far .. vs .. EU institutions less than half of that).  Biden repeatedly asked European partners, politely, to start taking the lead on the war in Ukraine frankly because it was becoming a political problem for him at home to continue to have the US lead on it.  Perhaps I am giving the Trump team WAY more credit than they are due ... but I think they're creating leverage.  I think the US is planning to force Europe to start spending more on defense, force Europe to take a lead in Ukraine and force Europe to start taking a leading role in their own defense going forward.  I think their words were crafted specifically to create panic and shock Europe into action.   The fact that European leaders are having a crisis meeting in Paris today suggests that maybe it worked.

I think the US administration is hoping to bounce Europe into either A/ the creation of an army of Europe or B/ a massive uptick in European member state spending on defense ... and in return ... they'll offer compliant European member states a seat at the table in the negotiations with Russia. 

Point conceded in advance when you all tell me that I don't know I'm talking about. 

With the Trump administration, nobody knows what they’re talking about!

Hard to disagree with your train of thought, but I would note that the majority of US taxpayer money spent on Ukraine appears to go to US weapons manufacturers, and much of the rest is the value of old US weapons systems that were to going to be safely disposed of at considerable US expense, but are now being more cheaply expended against Russian forces.

Trump’s actions may push more European money through the European defence industry and less US money through the US defence industry. I think that’s great for Europe and reverses what was along standing US behaviour of usurping allies’ defence capabilities through US exports.  I don’t like the dramatic and precarious way it’s coming about.  I also don’t think Trump wants a weaker US defence industry and a stronger European one, it’s just he’s playing checkers not chess.

To my eternal shame, the only paper I buy on a  Sunday - and then only occasionally - is the Sunday Times. Because it does have the occasional investigative piece. It was for instance the ST that pursued Johnson's lock down shenanigans.

Many would probably not believe that is real, just AI generated!

Thank you. I will take that as a compliment!

The trouble here is that there are opposing views politically which is fair enough even if I disagree with some of them (i.e. left, right etc), and making sure you hear all of those does help your development of your own position, but then there's conspiracy nuttery and tin-foil-hattery like QAnon and COVID being a deliberate creation of our own Governments with the intention of controlling the population.  (The lab leak theory I've always thought plausible, though).  The real nuttery doesn't deserve much beyond being aware of it.

something did immediately come to mind

Does it really matter what your friends believe in? 

I have friends who are left, right, religious, non-religious, vegan, eat meat, believes in one or more conspiracy theories, or the other end of the spectrum where they don't believe in anything at all.

Each one of them, if they dug their heels in could fall out with another.

If someone tries to sell me what I believe to be a conspiracy theory, I'll just say "that's clearly bllcks". It doesn't need to get personal or impact relationships in any way. 

It would do if they tried to ram known lies down my throat as if they were the sacrosanct words of God inscribed on stone, and then went barmy when I had the temerity to disagree.

Do you actually have friends which do that? If so, my suggestion is simply not to associate with them any more. It's supposed to be fun.

If it's stuff like Q-Anon, that snorting bleach will stop COVID, or plenty of other stuff, then it matters for their mental and physical health, and, ultimately, democracy.

Some of us have friends we care about, and don't want to see them go down crazy rabbit holes; we're not prepared to discard them when it stops 'being fun".

 Their conclusion on how to deal with this situation was to not challenge them. Maintain the friendship, but just avoid contentious subjects. Keep trying to steer them onto neutral ground and the things you do agree on - the reasons why you are friends. You will not change them, but these people do go through phases and some come back to reality of their own accord. If they do, be ready to welcome and encourage them.

Lots of sensible views in this thread, including the above. 

The reason that Jehova's Witnesses go door to door with kids in tow isn't primarily to create more Jehova's Witnesses; it's to elicit rude, annoyed reactions from the people who answer the doors, which reinforces the idea in their heads that all non-Witnesses are rude, angry etc, and that the only place they will find good people is in their cult. 

If a friend goes fully down a rabbit hole, and when they speak to anyone about it other than their conspiracy-minded mates they get (from their perspective) told that they're an idiot and given the cold shoulder, this drives them all the more towards the always-welcoming, eternally supportive community of...well, whatever they've gotten into. This is particularly difficult when they've gone nastily right-wing.

With that said, I think there are exceptions. I've known one man who had gone down a few rabbit holes but was still capable of being pulled out by reasoned conversation; he was exceptional though, in more ways than one. Also, I realised that I had been influenced by online content to have a particularly poor take on a recent event (the shooting of Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione). It took a few words from a relative (done in a non-confrontational way) to make me see it. I've cut a few online spaces out of my life as a result of this (not UKC though, obviously, which is why I still believe the objective untruth that scratching up rimed rock rather than unrimed rock is somehow better. Go figure.).

The flabbergasted and offended look on their faces when you say "poor Neil Oliver seems to have lost in mind" is a signal of how deep the disease has gone.

I've got a mate that I've know for about 20 years through work, though not a close friend (live at different parts of the country, lots of mutual friends, so I suppose he's a facebook friend)

Lot's of rational, jokey, posts, and then every so often a lot of conspiracy nonsense.  Contrails, Covid, blah blah...and when asked for evidence the response tends to be a cryptic nod to "information being out there".

Recent example of a friend of his dying prompted him to post about "more and more people dying then there ever was, something is going on".  I tried to suggest that since we are both in our 50's it was fair to suggest that our pool of family and friends was also moving into that same demographic and unfortunately deaths are going to be a lot more likely than in a pool of 20 year olds.  

"Nonsense".

A lot of others chipped in to say that was a likely explanation.  All brushed off.

One person comments "they're all sheep mate, we know the truth" and get's a thumbs up.

It is sad to see an otherwise decent lad go down a weird rabbit hole.  I don't know whether it's inevitable that that rabbit hole will eventually lead on to more hardcore lunacy like alien shapeshifters, 20 foot tall Egyptian pyramid builders, Jews being in control of the world banking system, Royalty living off the blood of kidnapped children etc...but I'm willing to bet he's looked at websites concerning at least one of those topics.

On the plus side he's a massive Erasure and Depeche Mode fan and posts a lot of stuff about them,.  So swings and roundabouts.

Unfortunately the 'information being out there' is often the response. I have also seen ' you can't prove it doesn't' used when someone challenges a belief such as 5G caused COVID.

The Australian pholosopher Patrick Stokes summed it up well. To the statement that everyone is entitled to their opinion, he says, " You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”.

He does agree that anyone can hold any opinion about anything but if they want to have their view taken seriously then they must be able to support it.

I think we are all guilty to some degree of being more ready to accept something that accords with our own views, but there is also a lack of questioning of sources.

A recent caller to James O'Brien on LBC stated that under Sadiq Khan, Sharia Law was being used in three London boroughs. James O'Brien pointed out an investigation by Reuters had shown it to be false and he asked the caller where he got his information from to which the caller said, "It was in the Daily Mail."

Dave

Well there are Sharia councils in the UK which have no legal jurisdiction, perhaps both were confused.

Conspiracists are energised primarily by belief, with only a tenuous grip- if any at all - on anything related to fact. 

The worst of them seem to get stuck on a 'belief treadmill', getting uncontrollably faster and more intense, the more their views are questioned. That analogy holds, as it is impossible to voluntarily get off a speeding treadmill without injury (and humiliation, especially if others are watching) without a gradual slowing down.

In order to avoid factual information that potentially could cause serious injury, believers are driven towards the more comforting echo chambers of like-minded conspiracists, only too willing to reinforce their belief - like certain parts of press and social media. Media owners know this only too well, and purposely wave through such content to be the engine that drives highly lucrative returns. Thus the craziness gets way out of hand, even more outlandish, and immovably ingrained.

I have personally encountered quite a few conspiracists myself, and rather than bombarding them with reality and fact, it is best to just smile and gently change the subject. There's not much else you can do.

No I do not. However there are a couple of people I am "acquainted with", who have somewhat "entrenched" views.

I make a point to either be busy, need to speak to someone else, or if all else fails have an "urgent need for the loo". I think they're getting the idea.

I think that Sharia Courts (no idea what the correct title is) are recognised in the UK as an acceptable form of arbitration if both parties previously give their consent.

Certainly Jewish rabbinic courts have this status and operate in this way.

Awards from these forms of arbitration are enforceable through "normal" civil courts.

A recent caller to James O'Brien on LBC stated that under Sadiq Khan, Sharia Law was being used in three London boroughs. James O'Brien pointed out an investigation by Reuters had shown it to be false and he asked the caller where he got his information from to which the caller said, "It was in the Daily Mail."

Was he the one who called it Shakira Law?

Yes, I think so.

Dave

Very true and it is very difficult, and probaly sometimes impossible, to counter something based on belief without facts.

I don't know if there is a way to engage with conspiracy theorists though I have read a reply to someone stating a CT could be, "Why do you believe that?" as being a less controversial way of talking about it.

Dave

It looks as though some wag had posted on social media about Khan introducing Shakira Law, and the caller attempted to quote from it at some stage during the interview.

I bet Ms Twain feels a bit left out and not impressed overmuch by all this.

Thanks to everyone for the advice on this. All has been read and digested.