Covid denialism as a PR stunt

baker

Those who work in advertising know that people's fears and insecurities can be manipulated, and most of all, monetized.
Crises are times when some people see a lot of opportunity to make a lot of money.

Last night, a group of covid deniers stormed the studios of Slovenian national television. They didn't do any damage and the police quickly apprehended them. Two things are peculiar about this: 1. the timing, 2. who benefits from this incident.

1. The timing: The covid deniers group has been protesting in front of the studios of Slovenian national television for some four months, demanding to be heard, but nothing came of it. So why now?
The Slovenian government has announced several days ago that there will be new epidemiological measures, but it has put off announcing them for days. Maybe they'll announce them today, and possibly the measures will be extreme.

2. The covid deniers certainly don't benefit from this incident. But who does benefit from this incident and how:
1. The government who came to the rescue and who now has the chance to make itself look very good.
2. The official simplified, scientistic, politically correct covid social narrative and those who support it.
3. The pharmaceutical industry (on account of the above two).
4. Anyone else who sees an opportunity to make money or gain power from this covid crisis.

The ones who distinctly do not benefit from such indicents are the legitimate, scientific critics of governmental measures during the pandemic and of the popular social narrative around the pandemic. Because incidents like the one at the national television studios yesterday help to portray in the public eye all skeptics, all critics as belonging into the same category: the bad and the crazy, ie. the dismissable.

The positions of extreme covid deniers and other woo-woos always struck me as so absurd that I find it impossible to believe that someone could genuinely hold them. And that if they do seem to hold them genuinely, they must be either pretending, or they were manipulated into holding those stances.

So I surmise that the most plausible explanation for covid deniers and the woo-woos is that they are a PR stunt engineered by the stakeholders in the pandemic.

Thesis: If you want to control the situation, create an extreme opposition to yourself that you can control, and this will help you to control the legitimate opposition. This is how a totalitarian system can rise to power: not by destroying the actual opposition, but by creating an extremist artificial one and controlling it.

Cuthbert

So I surmise that the most plausible explanation for covid deniers and the woo-woos is that they are a PR stunt engineered by the stakeholders in the pandemic. — baker

Another explanation could be that they are not mad, insincere or brainwashed or a PR stunt. It is that their views differ from yours and that it is possible to hold their views whilst being sane, sincere, unmanipulated, intelligent and uncorrupted. In exactly the same way, it is possible for you to hold your views whilst being completely sane, etc.

tim wood

it is possible to hold their views whilst being sane, sincere, unmanipulated, ~~intelligent~~ and uncorrupted. — Cuthbert

Or were you being ironic and it went over my head? That seems more likely.

Cuthbert

For every person who says "Anti-vaxxers must be brainwashed conspiracy theorists" there is another who says that "Vaxxers must be brainwashed establishment stooges." Neither is correct. It is laziness to hold that the people who disagree with you must be crazy or sub-rational in some other way. The laziness consists in its avoidance of dealing with others as rational beings and listening to what they say - whatever side turns out to be right or wrong.

That seems more likely. — tim wood

It's the same problem as above. Just as the anti-vaxxers 'must be' crazy, then I 'must be' insincere (or ironic) in failing to say so.

Seppo

It is that their views differ from yours and that it is possible to hold their views whilst being sane, sincere, unmanipulated, intelligent and uncorrupted. — Cuthbert

For most forms of extreme vaccine/covid denial, this is manifestly untrue: it is impossible to believe things so absurd and so clearly and verifiably wrong, while also being unmanipulated and intelligent.

For every person who says "Anti-vaxxers must be brainwashed conspiracy theorists" there is another who says that "Vaxxers must be brainwashed establishment stooges."

You've got the numbers wrong. For every one of the latter, there's several of the former. And in many of these cases, "conspiracy theorist" isn't a pejorative but an accurate description. If you believe Bill Gates is using covid vaccines to implant mind control chips (or one of the many other variations), you're a conspiracy theorist.

It is laziness to hold that the people who disagree with you must be crazy or sub-rational in some other way.

Only when you're lacking an abundance of evidence that they are ignorant, being manipulated, unintelligent, etc.

You know what is laziness, in all instances? Ignoring the evidence or specific factors in favor of lazy bothsidesism where you blindly assume/posit equivalencies or symmetries that don't exist. which, oh look, is exactly what you're doing here.

James Riley

↪Seppo

:100:

I don't know how interesting this question is, but does it matter if someone is right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons? I'm not sure if it matters at the end of the day. I don't even know if I want to go down that road.

But I can say this: I vaxed for the same reasons that many conservatives honor those who sign up for military service, not really questioning the war or their commanders. Just stepping up because their country asked them to. It's interesting that many of those conservatives are now war protesters, spitting on the front line troops, and attacking their POTUS and government in a time of war.

This leads me to believe it's more political than anything. Sure, there might be a few people out there who have thought this through and decided not to get on board. But, in my opinion, they are the minority.

I just hope that, next time the MIC and their fully-owned-and-operated bitches in the Legislature and White House decide to spin up a war with some foreign nation or non-state actor, they check their hatred of the hippies and anti-war protesters. Maybe check the yellow ribbons (which many of the troops hated) and quit wrapping themselves in the flag, claiming to be patriotic, and stop with all the "love it or leave it" "you're un-American" fucking bull shit.

If I'm too fucking stupid to see the conspiracy behind big pharma, the vax and whatever, then they are most definitely too fucking stupid to call themselves Americans to the exclusion of others who don't agree with them. But

↪Seppo

is right. The reasons and the numbers are on the side of this war.

P.S. When it comes to conspiracy theories, what about Occam's Razor? Maybe the government wants you to vax because they are trying to help. After all, they've been asking nicely for fucking ever. I would have rolled out the dystopian nightmare for you "rebels" a long time ago. Quit your crying.

tim wood

↪Cuthbert

Except that I have encountered no respectable-in-any way general argument for not getting vaccinated, and plenty of more-than-reasonable argument for.

unenlightened

Belief systems tend to have high priests, and here are a couple for you.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02989-9

There is no way the charge of stupid can fit here. These are high-ish flyers, qualified doctors.

On the other hand, the mass of the faithful are suffering from a generalised paranoia brought on quite justifiably by the habit of lying that prevails in commercial medicine and politics and the media and authorities in general. When you cannot believe what you are told, you are reduced to superstition and complete gullibility, such that negating the official line, and getting ejected from the establishment has become a mark of credibility. These are dangerous times. There is no one immune from this gullibility, because no one is even competent in most fields of knowledge, and even in those areas that they are expert in, they have learned their expertise from potentially dishonest sources.

In these circumstances, there is no basis to make a reasonable decision. What is needed, and what is lacking, is trust. Trust is the liquidity of the knowledge economy, and of society in general.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — W.B.Yeats

James Riley

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — W.B.Yeats

Or as some other wag put it: Those who know are full of doubt, while those who don't know are full of confidence. It seems to me, most experts are full of doubt and they say get the shot. Others, like Tucker Carlson, who don't know shit, are full of confidence.

ssu

Last night, a group of covid deniers stormed the studios of Slovenian national television. — baker

Sorry baker, but I'll have to ask this.

Were they really "covid deniers"?

To myself a "covid denier" would be someone who denies that millions of people have died of COVID-19. Not people that are against the policies implemented to fight the pandemic.

Were these really people who don't accept that there has been a pandemic?

Thesis: If you want to control the situation, create an extreme opposition to yourself that you can control, and this will help you to control the legitimate opposition. — baker

Well this sounds like a counter-insurgency tactic!

If you have an insurgency that has a) popular support, b) sound reasoning behind it, c) possibility to gain outside acceptance and justification, then this is the way to go. Create a group that is so bananas, so insanely crazy, and make them to attack the reasonable (actual) insurgents.

Worked in Algeria!

NOS4A2

Could it be possible that some folks would rather err on the side of caution when being coerced into injecting biological agents into their body?

Apollodorus

Last night, a group of covid deniers stormed the studios of Slovenian national television. — baker

I think the fact that it happened on television means that it could be some kind of PR stunt including by the state. But you would need more info than that to decide either way.

Speaking of which, China seems to be making lots of money from selling face masks, protective suits, ventilators, and other Covid-related stuff. Could it be that it created and released the virus for some hidden agenda?

James Riley

Could it be possible that some folks would rather err on the side of caution when being coerced into injecting biological agents into their body? — NOS4A2

No. That can't explain it. First, they aren't being coerced. They are being asked, pleaded with, bribed.
Second, those same folks don't exercise such caution when injecting other biological agents into their body (usually through their Trumpette mouths). Must be something else.

Cuthbert

...where you blindly assume/posit equivalencies or symmetries that don't exist.... — Seppo

Not at all. The evidence for trusting vaccination is far stronger than any reasons for mistrust. As you say, anti-vaxx is minority and my 'for every person..' is a manner of speaking only.

And of course some people are manipulated, dim, brainwashed etc. But we cannot assume that because some view seems absurd then the person holding it 'must be' brainwashed or sub-rational in some way. They may or may not be. You cannot tell in general. I would say you need independent evidence of brainwashing etc, aside from the holding of an opinion.

Another example is the resurrection of the dead. 'We look for the resurrection of the dead,' goes the Creed. People who expect the dead to rise could be classed as mad in the same unthinking way as vaxxers and anti-vaxxers sometime class one another. But perfectly sane, rational, unbrainwashed, unmanipulated people hold this view and announce it publicly every Sabbath. Of course there are also crazy people who believe it. But you cannot deduce craziness or other sub-rationality from the opinion alone.

James Riley

But perfectly sane, rational, unbrainwashed, unmanipulated people hold this view and announce it publicly every Sabbath. — Cuthbert

I disagree. I think such people have been brainwashed and manipulated; often starting at an early age.

baker

Last night, a group of covid deniers stormed the studios of Slovenian national television.
— baker

Sorry baker, but I'll have to ask this.

Were they really "covid deniers"? — ssu

Their stance is that the covid virus does not exist.

Thesis: If you want to control the situation, create an extreme opposition to yourself that you can control, and this will help you to control the legitimate opposition.
— baker
Well this sounds like a counter-insurgency tactic!

If you have an insurgency that has a) popular support, b) sound reasoning behind it, c) possibility to gain outside acceptance and justification, then this is the way to go. Create a group that is so bananas, so insanely crazy, and make them to attack the reasonable (actual) insurgents.

Are you familiar with the series Person of Interest? There, a group of people, Samaritan, who wanted to control the world by IT surveillance techniques engineered its own opposition, called Vigilance who were directly and violently opposed to such surveillance. Vigilance's opposition and use of violence made Samaritan look legitimate and necessary, and just the kind of organization the government should hire.

If the misinformation on the internetz can be traced back to a relatively small number of sources, this is suspicious and smells of sabotage.

baker

I think the fact that it happened on television means that it could be some kind of PR stunt including by the state. But you would need more info than that to decide either way. — Apollodorus

Indeed, but I don't think it will ever be possible to discover the truth about this incident.

Speaking of which, China seems to be making lots of money from selling face masks, protective suits, ventilators, and other Covid-related stuff. Could it be that it created and released the virus for some hidden agenda?

Awww. The China paranoia! Well, China is making lots of money from lots of things, so there's that.

It's certainly convenient to blame China, in order to divert the public attention from the horrible treatment of animals all around the world, from the exploitation of the natural environment, from the fact that Western governments handled the pandemic so poorly from the onset.

baker

In these circumstances, there is no basis to make a reasonable decision. What is needed, and what is lacking, is trust. Trust is the liquidity of the knowledge economy, and of society in general. — unenlightened

Indeed. And politicians and the medical establishment have been working hard for decades to destroy people's trust in politics and medicine.

ssu

If the misinformation on the internetz can be traced back to a relatively small number of sources, this is suspicious and smells of sabotage. — baker

Yes. If it is so.

But notice the other options:

a) For Media programs it's great for ratings to get the most extreme views to be declared on the program, even that a fight starts (perhaps even a physical one). Moderate views and boring experts that argue about complex details, yet understand or respect others viewpoints hardly makes a good show for basically an audience that wants more entertainment than actual information.

b) It genuinely is possible that a cabal of crazies do something as absurd as storm the TV in Slovenia. Slovenia is a small country (very beautiful, btw) and I assume they aren't security obsessed there.

Basically you really have to find links that would approve that there's a conspiracy and not options a) or b) would be likely.

Are you familiar with the series Person of Interest? — baker

Are you familiar with the history of the Algerian civil war?

James Riley

↪ssu

:100:

baker

Basically you really have to find links that would approve that there's a conspiracy and not options a) or b) would be likely. — ssu

Well, proving a conspiracy can be next to impossible, or entirely impossible, that's the whole point of a conspiracy.
It's hard to know what is really going on, and there seems to be no way to find out. It's an insecurity that is hard to live with.

Are you familiar with the history of the Algerian civil war?

Only vaguely. It seems very complex. Are you referring to the roles of Les éradicateurs and Les dialoguistes?

ssu

Well, proving a conspiracy can be next to impossible, or entirely impossible, that's the whole point of a conspiracy. — baker

Actually not.

Start with finding people who have absolutely no connection and focusing on totally different aspects noting the conspiracy. Learn the history. Above all, real conspiracies do leave traces.

Then think it through yourself. Does Slovenian politics resort to such antics? Who would artificially create this pseudo-group? Slovenia is a very small country. What goes around comes around.

Only vaguely. It seems very complex. Are you referring to the roles of Les éradicateurs and Les dialoguistes? — baker

Basically about the role of the GIA in that conflict.

There are many accusations that the Algerian government helped the GIA and even posed as GIA members when committing atrocities. Then there is the history that basically the group was more interested in attacking the islamists and the AIS, the major insurgent alliance. When the islamists wanted to get France to act as an mediator in the conflict, the GIA suddenly made a terrorist attacks in France (and France started to back the Algerian government). And then when the peace deal was made...poof! The GIA simply evaporated. Later Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb denounced the actions of GIA in indiscriminately killing of civilians.

I remember reading from a memoir of an ex-islamist radical that had turned informer how deep disagreements erupted at these activist cells about the actions GIA was taking in the fight (for example massacring whole villages).

And there's simply many references on just how GIA worked for the government:

The GIA was widely reported to have been infiltrated by state agents who tried to cause divisions within the Islamist camp. Analysts argue that the army’s manipulation of the GIA was a key factor preventing the development of a unified rebel front. Unlike the other armed groups, the GIA carried out indiscriminate attacks against civilians, abducted and killed foreigners, planted bombs in public spaces and committed massacres across the countryside. In 1995, the GIA declared all Algerians to be takfir, or apostates.

The last sentence sounds absolutely bizarre, but it's true. Algerians weren't worthy of them!

Of course this is sidestepping the actual topic, but I'm trying to make the point that if there is really a conspiracy, then there will be real traces of it. Nonexistent events don't leave them.

unenlightened

if there is really a conspiracy, then there will be real traces of it. Nonexistent events don't leave them. — ssu

Sometimes the work of the invisible hand looks a bit like a conspiracy.

Hanover

these circumstances, there is no basis to make a reasonable decision. What is needed, and what is lacking, is trust. Trust is the liquidity of the knowledge economy, and of society in general. — unenlightened

But truth does have an annoying way of eventually coming out, which will either be when the vaccinated start having all sorts of mysterious symptoms or the when unvaccinated start dying. It seems the latter is happening. The glee I now have in saying "told you so!"

unenlightened

But truth does have an annoying way of eventually coming out, which will either be when the vaccinated start having all sorts of mysterious symptoms or the when unvaccinated start dying. — Hanover

It won't annoy the dead, or the self-righteous living, but it annoys me now that I cannot trust what I am told, and but expect to be told "told you so" whenever I have been misinformed, which I suspect is all the time.

jorndoe

And politicians [...] have been working hard for decades to destroy people's trust in politics — baker

Voters empower politicians, hire politicians to do a job. Pick untrustworthy people to do a politician's job, and you've shot yourself in the foot. If this fellow once said 2 questionable things, and that fellow 22 questionable things, then it's easy to dismiss both equally without getting into what they said (+ context).

And [...] the medical establishment have been working hard for decades to destroy people's trust in [...] medicine — baker

Right, to an extent anyway. It's hardly a black-and-white thing. Antibiotics, insulin, antihistamines, covid-19 vaccines, etc, are (justifiably) trusted enough. Some are called out.
_{• Meet the guy behind the $750 AIDS drug (Sep 22, 2015)

• The rise and fall of Valeant Pharmaceuticals (Mar 14, 2017)

• Pharma CEO jacks drug price 400%, citing “moral requirement to make money” (Sep 11, 2018)

• These Senators Received The Biggest Checks From Pharma Companies Testifying Tuesday (Feb 26, 2019)

• Democrat Katie Porter accuses pharma CEO of inflating drug prices and 'lying' to patients and policymakers — all with the help of her whiteboard (May 18, 2021)}

Some would argue that (free) supply and demand capitalism can drive what works.
Maybe there's a question of how ethics fit into all that.
Are (more) campaigning/advertising/accountability rules then warranted?

TheMadFool

What I find both interesting and lamentable is that COVID-19 isn't the first pandemic the world has faced - there was the black death, cholera, and the influenza pandemic to name a few - and I never heard of any pandemic-deniers during those global catastrophes. This is a novel phenomenon. What relevant events occurred between 1918 (influenza pandemic) and 2019 (COVID-19) that could explain it?

AJJ

↪TheMadFool

The answer to this seems to be that this pandemic isn’t really like the ones you mention and is more akin to the 1968 flu outbreak. No measures then of the sort we’ve seen this time around were implemented, presumably because they were seen as being out of proportion to the problem. People don’t like being confined to their homes or coerced into receiving medical treatments; so if the basis upon which these things are enforced seems questionable then it’s understandable if they become inclined to deny it fully.

jorndoe

COVID-19 isn't the first pandemic the world has faced — TheMadFool

(y) It seems though, that some don't learn from history.

There have been crazies all along for sure.
Some forms of vaccination were used a millennium ago in China, but it didn't really take off until much later, the 1800s then the 1900s in particular.
Religious and other anti-vaxxers have pretty much followed suit, as far as I can tell.

Tom Storm

What relevant events occurred between 1918 (influenza pandemic) and 2019 (COVID-19) that could explain it? — TheMadFool

The era of mass media, News Limited, the internet and some big political scandals like Watergate. Crackpots, the paranoid and the haters have a ready source of community and information all around the world in ways inconceivable in 1919.

Well, proving a conspiracy can be next to impossible, or entirely impossible, that's the whole point of a conspiracy. — baker

That's why any old shit can be spun into a perfectly fine conspiracy. I'd add to this that disgruntled people seem to embrace conspiracies that confirm their exisiting biases. Anti-semites talk of banking conspiracies, nationalist libertarians talk of post-modern Marxist conspiracies, etc...

James Riley

↪Tom Storm

:100: Don't forget Ronald Raygun and "government is the problem" mentality.

Covid denialism as a PR stunt

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions