A son spent a year trying to save his father from conspiracy theories(npr.org)
npr.org
A son spent a year trying to save his father from conspiracy theories
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/g-s1-50605/conspiracy-theories-politics-family-alternate-realities
95 comments
Having some degree of personal experience with this situation myself, I don't see why you'd ever sever a relationship over something like this. Like sure, maybe his beliefs are insane, but why would you let that affect your personal relationship with someone you're close to? Just talk about something else.
> "Why am I going to abandon the truth?" he insisted. "I can't abandon the truth."
In a way, that's actually kind of an admirable attitude, it's only sad in this case because he's so wildly wrong about what the truth is, and because some members of his own family decided to abandon him over those beliefs.
> "Why am I going to abandon the truth?" he insisted. "I can't abandon the truth."
In a way, that's actually kind of an admirable attitude, it's only sad in this case because he's so wildly wrong about what the truth is, and because some members of his own family decided to abandon him over those beliefs.
Because the paranoia will worsen, and one day he will accuse you (or your siblings/wife/his siblings) of doing harms to him, even though it's pure paranoia.
Examples include trying to steal assets from him, belittled him with offhanded comments, or betrayed him even though he helped you in some distant past.
>In a way, that's actually kind of an admirable attitude, it's only sad in this case because he's so wildly wrong about what the truth is.
I totally agree. It is indeed admirable that someone can be so convicted in his beliefs. There is a certain beauty in that.
Examples include trying to steal assets from him, belittled him with offhanded comments, or betrayed him even though he helped you in some distant past.
>In a way, that's actually kind of an admirable attitude, it's only sad in this case because he's so wildly wrong about what the truth is.
I totally agree. It is indeed admirable that someone can be so convicted in his beliefs. There is a certain beauty in that.
The situation described in the article isn't schizophrenia or bipolar disorder; or at least it doesn't seem to be. His father just started believing online conspiracy theories
True. It would be wonderful if the decades of gradual-but-major mental changes in his father somehow stopped progressing...
> Just talk about something else.
You can try to set boundaries like this, but typically the beliefs are so deeply held this isn’t possible. Sure the son could try to base the relationship totally on their shared loved of Ohio football, and make it clear he doesn’t want to discuss other things. But the chance the father doesn’t make snide comments or try to convince his son to buy gold is near zero. His beliefs are more important than anything, certainly more important than trivial things like boundaries set by loved ones.
It becomes exhausting to love someone when they are constantly choosing to be annoying or hateful. At a certain point it becomes a betrayal of your beliefs as well. If the father in this piece keeps bringing up bigoted views, it’s a betrayal of the author’s sister to keep a (negative) peace and not confront him on them.
You can try to set boundaries like this, but typically the beliefs are so deeply held this isn’t possible. Sure the son could try to base the relationship totally on their shared loved of Ohio football, and make it clear he doesn’t want to discuss other things. But the chance the father doesn’t make snide comments or try to convince his son to buy gold is near zero. His beliefs are more important than anything, certainly more important than trivial things like boundaries set by loved ones.
It becomes exhausting to love someone when they are constantly choosing to be annoying or hateful. At a certain point it becomes a betrayal of your beliefs as well. If the father in this piece keeps bringing up bigoted views, it’s a betrayal of the author’s sister to keep a (negative) peace and not confront him on them.
I agree it's one thing to hold different beliefs, and another thing to be constantly starting arguments over them and refusing to discuss anything else.
Maybe that was happening, but if it was then the article completely omits that very important piece of context.
Maybe that was happening, but if it was then the article completely omits that very important piece of context.
What is “some degree” and why does that make you think that’s relevant experience? The author didn’t sever the relationship, the wife and daughter did. The wife who had to live with him far beyond “some degree” and the gay daughter whose very identity the father rejected, years after the rest of the family knew.
I'm not going to go into the details of my relationships with the people I'm close to here. And yes, I'm specifically talking about the wife and daughter when I say that some members of his family decided to abandon him over his beliefs.
Maybe there was more going on that the article didn't discuss, so I'm not going to judge the people involved in that specific situation, but severing relationships with your family over an intellectual disagreement that has close to zero direct impact on your everyday life is rather petty in my opinion. If you really love someone, it ought to take more than that to damage your relationship.
Maybe there was more going on that the article didn't discuss, so I'm not going to judge the people involved in that specific situation, but severing relationships with your family over an intellectual disagreement that has close to zero direct impact on your everyday life is rather petty in my opinion. If you really love someone, it ought to take more than that to damage your relationship.
> but severing relationships with your family over an intellectual disagreement that has close to zero impact on your everyday life is rather petty in my opinion.
The issues being discussed are not intellectual disagreements that had close to zero effect on the lives of the people involved, though.
The issues being discussed are not intellectual disagreements that had close to zero effect on the lives of the people involved, though.
The gold example the author mentioned is a good indicator.
Would you agree, that in a marriage, that money in a shared account is property owned by both husband and wife? And yet, because of the father's belief, he took the money out and converted them into gold without telling his wife. Is this a mere intellectual disagreement, or is this a physical betrayal rooted from his belief? The trust has been broken and the disagreement is no longer on purely hypothetical ground.
Realize that today the money became gold bars, next time the money might become a donation to a far-right group in Montana. Can the wife trust him after this?
Would you agree, that in a marriage, that money in a shared account is property owned by both husband and wife? And yet, because of the father's belief, he took the money out and converted them into gold without telling his wife. Is this a mere intellectual disagreement, or is this a physical betrayal rooted from his belief? The trust has been broken and the disagreement is no longer on purely hypothetical ground.
Realize that today the money became gold bars, next time the money might become a donation to a far-right group in Montana. Can the wife trust him after this?
How so? The article doesn't give any indication of that. It just says they disagreed.
> It just says they disagreed.
Uh, no, it says that, e.g., for the wife it involved a significantly altered home life, spending, and stockpiling in the home on which she was not consulted and which her concerns about were ignored. And while it doesn't discuss the details of the impacts, treating the daughters sexual orientation as both a choice and a wrong choice is not a mere intellectual disagreement, and certainly did not have trivial impacts.
The only person who the "intellectual disagreement that has close to zero impact on [...] everyday life" description might even approximately work for (and even then it is a stretch) is the son, who...is the only one who didn't sever relations.
Uh, no, it says that, e.g., for the wife it involved a significantly altered home life, spending, and stockpiling in the home on which she was not consulted and which her concerns about were ignored. And while it doesn't discuss the details of the impacts, treating the daughters sexual orientation as both a choice and a wrong choice is not a mere intellectual disagreement, and certainly did not have trivial impacts.
The only person who the "intellectual disagreement that has close to zero impact on [...] everyday life" description might even approximately work for (and even then it is a stretch) is the son, who...is the only one who didn't sever relations.
Maybe. I guess it depends on how much of an impact that had; the article doesn't go into detail. Was this just an unusual hobby that his wife didn't like? Or was it completely consuming their life and financial resources?
But you're right, saying it had zero impact is an exaggeration. It does seem like it had a small impact, at a minimum.
But you're right, saying it had zero impact is an exaggeration. It does seem like it had a small impact, at a minimum.
Just want to call out, totally fine to not want to share the details of your relationship online, but if that's the case, you can't really make the appeal to "being in a similar situation" if you can't back that up in some meaningful way.
It reads as being willfully misleading. It seems apparent to me from your other comments that your situation is not really like the one described, because you're not really familiar with the hallmarks of it. But it doesn't matter one way or another since you're just asking the question 'why would you sever a relationship like this?'
Which is a fine question to ask on its own without making the appeal to "I've been in this situation", which you don't want to verify.
It would honestly make your first comment more solid if you just asked the question instead of alluding to being in similar situation, and then backing off from it here.
It reads as being willfully misleading. It seems apparent to me from your other comments that your situation is not really like the one described, because you're not really familiar with the hallmarks of it. But it doesn't matter one way or another since you're just asking the question 'why would you sever a relationship like this?'
Which is a fine question to ask on its own without making the appeal to "I've been in this situation", which you don't want to verify.
It would honestly make your first comment more solid if you just asked the question instead of alluding to being in similar situation, and then backing off from it here.
The person I was replying to did exactly the same thing: "Without going too deeply, I sympathize with the writer on an extremely personal level." If you want to say I'm lying just because you disagree with my take on the issue then okay; I'm not going to expose intimate details of my life just to win an online argument. Just sharing my experience.
Communicating is hard, this is intended to be helpful and informative and I genuinely hope you take it that way. I'm being a little barbed with some of my feedback below, because you're engaging defensively, and I'm just trying to help because I was initially interested in having a different conversation with you based on your first comment.
Really importantly, I'm not saying that you're lying. I was offering some constructive feedback on what you said, because I was interested in your experience given that you've clearly reached a different conclusion from me. I was disappointed you weren't willing to talk about it, because I suspect if you're experiencing this and this is your advice you're just earlier in the process than I am. But if this isn't the case, I (and others clearly) were interested in this experience. I don't have a solution to this problem, and I came to this article looking for other ways people were navigating this experience.
> Just sharing my experience.
But you're explicitly not sharing your experience. You're just saying that you have experience, and then asking why someone would make a decision in this situation. In my response, I can either talk to:
1. Why someone would make a decision in this situation
2. You about your experience.
If you don't have experience in the situation, #1 makes more sense. If you do have experience in the situation, then I'm much more interested in the #2 conversation but to do that we have to be a little bit more willing to share some broad strokes about how things have fallen apart.
I shared my situation in response to this without making anything too personal/revealing about the family members involved. You'll notice I didn't make an appeal to having personal experience. I just described the experience, because I'm looking to have a conversation about what others have tried that has worked for them.
> The person I was replying to did exactly the same thing: "Without going too deeply, I sympathize with the writer on an extremely personal level."
2 things:
1. This is the age-old "if people on the internet jump off a bridge you'd do that too?" My initial response was trying to give you the tools to be better at this, and you're just being defensive here for no reason. I thought your question was still worth responding too, I'm just calling out to you that it's stronger without the appeal to experience that you're not backing up in any way.
2. This is a disclaimer on their own partiality towards one party in the original story. This is actually achieving the exact opposite of what your comment goes towards. It reads much more as "I am stating my bias and what I'm partial towards up front, but I think there is a difficult choice to make here and I'm not certain what the right path is."
By contrast your statements taken together read as "I have experience that tells me there's no reason to ever sever a relationship and you just have to take me at my word." But your initial statement could have been "Why would you consider severing the relationship?" and it would've led to less confusion from people interested in the experience.
Really importantly, I'm not saying that you're lying. I was offering some constructive feedback on what you said, because I was interested in your experience given that you've clearly reached a different conclusion from me. I was disappointed you weren't willing to talk about it, because I suspect if you're experiencing this and this is your advice you're just earlier in the process than I am. But if this isn't the case, I (and others clearly) were interested in this experience. I don't have a solution to this problem, and I came to this article looking for other ways people were navigating this experience.
> Just sharing my experience.
But you're explicitly not sharing your experience. You're just saying that you have experience, and then asking why someone would make a decision in this situation. In my response, I can either talk to:
1. Why someone would make a decision in this situation
2. You about your experience.
If you don't have experience in the situation, #1 makes more sense. If you do have experience in the situation, then I'm much more interested in the #2 conversation but to do that we have to be a little bit more willing to share some broad strokes about how things have fallen apart.
I shared my situation in response to this without making anything too personal/revealing about the family members involved. You'll notice I didn't make an appeal to having personal experience. I just described the experience, because I'm looking to have a conversation about what others have tried that has worked for them.
> The person I was replying to did exactly the same thing: "Without going too deeply, I sympathize with the writer on an extremely personal level."
2 things:
1. This is the age-old "if people on the internet jump off a bridge you'd do that too?" My initial response was trying to give you the tools to be better at this, and you're just being defensive here for no reason. I thought your question was still worth responding too, I'm just calling out to you that it's stronger without the appeal to experience that you're not backing up in any way.
2. This is a disclaimer on their own partiality towards one party in the original story. This is actually achieving the exact opposite of what your comment goes towards. It reads much more as "I am stating my bias and what I'm partial towards up front, but I think there is a difficult choice to make here and I'm not certain what the right path is."
By contrast your statements taken together read as "I have experience that tells me there's no reason to ever sever a relationship and you just have to take me at my word." But your initial statement could have been "Why would you consider severing the relationship?" and it would've led to less confusion from people interested in the experience.
My point is that the article doesn't give any concrete reasons _why_ this man's family cut him off other than that they disagreed with him. It doesn't explicitly say he was ruining them financially, or that he refused to talk about anything other than politics, it just says he started believing online conspiracy theories and the author was unable to convince him otherwise.
I have some personal experience with that situation, and I find it unconscionable that his family would leave him under those circumstances. That's all I'm trying to say. If that comes off as "willfully misleading" to you, then so be it.
Now maybe there was more going on with this guy which would explain his family's extreme response, but if so the article doesn't explicitly say so. Re-reading your other response to my initial post, the reason I didn't feel a need to respond was because I felt like I had already addressed it in a reply to another comment. Your situation includes additional factors beyond what was described in the original article; that's totally fair. "It's one thing to hold different beliefs, and another thing to be constantly starting arguments over them and refusing to discuss anything else."
I have some personal experience with that situation, and I find it unconscionable that his family would leave him under those circumstances. That's all I'm trying to say. If that comes off as "willfully misleading" to you, then so be it.
Now maybe there was more going on with this guy which would explain his family's extreme response, but if so the article doesn't explicitly say so. Re-reading your other response to my initial post, the reason I didn't feel a need to respond was because I felt like I had already addressed it in a reply to another comment. Your situation includes additional factors beyond what was described in the original article; that's totally fair. "It's one thing to hold different beliefs, and another thing to be constantly starting arguments over them and refusing to discuss anything else."
The concrete reason that I've stated here and in other places, is that the way conspiracy theories grow they eventually consume all of the topics you can discuss with a person. I'm guessing this hasn't been going on long. My situation started with 1 or 2 conspiracy theories that my dad kept mostly private and we only ever discovered because conversation landed there on accident. Had it stayed there, I doubt I would've cut him off. But we got to the point where the only safe things to talk to him about that wouldn't lead to a conspiracy-fueled tirade were food and the weather. And then he started on a diet that fit into the web, and suddenly we couldn't talk to him about food (what to eat/what we like to eat) without it being a part of the wider web of conspiracy conversations. At that point, I could've tried to find new things to talk about, but I could also just accept that I didn't really want to talk to my dad, because there were no interesting topics of conversation that didn't lead into a conspiracy web I wasn't always prepared for. <- This is why it becomes reasonable, and I hope in your case it never reaches this point. If it does maybe you'll come up with a better solution than I did, and think of this comment and come respond. I would really like to hear how you reach a better solution. For now, it seems like you're not to this point yet, and so I hope you never get there.
Spending $10000 on this bet is not an indicator of making decisions that could lead to financial ruin? The son states that's a lot of money for them. They also literally explicitly state he's spending money from a joint bank account on stockpiling things they don't need. They're not giving the amounts, but like, they tell you he's doing questionable things with money, and you can extrapolate from there as a reader. I'm guessing you've been raised around money differently, because I know you've had this conversation in a few other places, and haven't actually engaged with how problematic this is. But especially in today's economy where things are expensive and money can be tight, making solo financial decisions with joint money is absolutely cause to cut someone off.
Separately, I will say, there's not a lot of middle-ground for spending time with someone who believe's you're just wrong for being who you are. So the Daughter's decision as one of self-preservation, feels equally reasonable, and I think if the mother has to hear about how her daughter is a sinner all the time, or character attacks on her children a lot, then that could lead to needing to cut off the father as well.
Spending $10000 on this bet is not an indicator of making decisions that could lead to financial ruin? The son states that's a lot of money for them. They also literally explicitly state he's spending money from a joint bank account on stockpiling things they don't need. They're not giving the amounts, but like, they tell you he's doing questionable things with money, and you can extrapolate from there as a reader. I'm guessing you've been raised around money differently, because I know you've had this conversation in a few other places, and haven't actually engaged with how problematic this is. But especially in today's economy where things are expensive and money can be tight, making solo financial decisions with joint money is absolutely cause to cut someone off.
Separately, I will say, there's not a lot of middle-ground for spending time with someone who believe's you're just wrong for being who you are. So the Daughter's decision as one of self-preservation, feels equally reasonable, and I think if the mother has to hear about how her daughter is a sinner all the time, or character attacks on her children a lot, then that could lead to needing to cut off the father as well.
It’s not an “intellectual disagreement” and viewing it in that lens is part of why the family abandoned him. They’re not debating the merits of Wittgenstein.
In my experience, people talking about "truth" are rarely talking about the truth. They escalate to the highest epistemological levels in order to avoid talking about the fact that they are Just Plain Wrong.
People who talk about the things, talk about things. Talking about "truth" often seems to be a deflection.
People who talk about the things, talk about things. Talking about "truth" often seems to be a deflection.
> Having some degree of personal experience with this situation myself, I don't see why you'd ever sever a relationship over something like this
The reasons were explicitly given in a written piece: the daughter severed herself because it hurt her when her dad insisted that she was lying to him. His wive was hurt because it is very hard to plan your retirement with someone who is convinced that the world would change in a year.
Note that the son stayed connected and the actions of his dad never explicitly hurt him. Made him feel sad and disconnected, but never hurt.
The problem wasn't that the others never accepted his believes or weren't considerate of them; the problem was explicitly the dad who decided that he knew better about his daughter sexuality and shared house budget, without taking anyone views on the things the rightfully belonged to them (their thoughts and the money that partially belonged to the wife).
It is hard not to sever relationship with a person when they decide that they have a right to choose for you. Either you pretend that they have this power over you or hurt them when you make your own choices, making them feel betrayed and powerless.
The reasons were explicitly given in a written piece: the daughter severed herself because it hurt her when her dad insisted that she was lying to him. His wive was hurt because it is very hard to plan your retirement with someone who is convinced that the world would change in a year.
Note that the son stayed connected and the actions of his dad never explicitly hurt him. Made him feel sad and disconnected, but never hurt.
The problem wasn't that the others never accepted his believes or weren't considerate of them; the problem was explicitly the dad who decided that he knew better about his daughter sexuality and shared house budget, without taking anyone views on the things the rightfully belonged to them (their thoughts and the money that partially belonged to the wife).
It is hard not to sever relationship with a person when they decide that they have a right to choose for you. Either you pretend that they have this power over you or hurt them when you make your own choices, making them feel betrayed and powerless.
The problem is sometimes people can't help but share their ish with you. Getting a text at random hours saying that you're a dumbfuck, for thinking X, from someone you still love, because if only they share this one post with you, you'll finally be convinced, and join their side, gets tiresome.
> I don't see why you'd ever server a relationship over something like this.
I don't know more about your situation, so I can't help you with what you're missing. What I can say is that I have been in the same situation, and it seeps into every interaction. It starts off as one thing, and it becomes all-consuming, until you can't have a normal interaction with the person that doesn't get pulled into the conspiracy web.
I used to have a list of topics I would avoid around my Dad. What was truly devastating was watching all of the things I could relate to my dad about slowly get consumed into that web of topics that were all connected. What was more devastating was that my dad is a smart guy, and he's painfully effective at making the leaps he wants to make from where he's at. If you brought up any topic on the list, he would immediately run you around all of the topics on his list, and any time you make a substantiated claim on one thing, he'll jump to another thing, just to argue.
This story was devastating to me, because I wanted them to find a way to make this work out. And I was hopeful the father was going to be willing to believe that he was wrong given that he brought up the idea of the bet in the first place. But the giveaway to me was that when they discussed the stakes, the dad wasn't really considering losing as an option.
I considered that list and thought to myself "Yeah, I would take all of these bets, and yeah, if I was wrong about all of these I'd be willing to tell the person I was seeing something wrong about the world." But it was clear from the bet setting that there was no world where the father could believe he was wrong. He just wasn't anywhere in the same world as the rest of the world, and honestly, that's what scares me the most.
It feels like we have this incurable disease that makes people believe things irrationally, and there's a risk that anyone can catch this disease just by spending enough time online. What truly scares me about the 'cutting them off' piece here, is that it's a measure to protect yourself and it also represents giving up on the person.
When I cut my dad off, I explained to him my concerns that led to the decision, as well as that I was willing to talk again if he was willing to work on this and at some point I called in to check on how he was doing, and if he was making any progress, and the most baffling thing to me was that he didn't even register the part of my communication (written down) that explained I'd be willing to talk to him if he worked on this. Like, working on this wasn't even something he would consider doing to salvage the relationship, which was pretty devastating because of how long I spent trying to fix this relationship and make it work.
I don't know more about your situation, so I can't help you with what you're missing. What I can say is that I have been in the same situation, and it seeps into every interaction. It starts off as one thing, and it becomes all-consuming, until you can't have a normal interaction with the person that doesn't get pulled into the conspiracy web.
I used to have a list of topics I would avoid around my Dad. What was truly devastating was watching all of the things I could relate to my dad about slowly get consumed into that web of topics that were all connected. What was more devastating was that my dad is a smart guy, and he's painfully effective at making the leaps he wants to make from where he's at. If you brought up any topic on the list, he would immediately run you around all of the topics on his list, and any time you make a substantiated claim on one thing, he'll jump to another thing, just to argue.
This story was devastating to me, because I wanted them to find a way to make this work out. And I was hopeful the father was going to be willing to believe that he was wrong given that he brought up the idea of the bet in the first place. But the giveaway to me was that when they discussed the stakes, the dad wasn't really considering losing as an option.
I considered that list and thought to myself "Yeah, I would take all of these bets, and yeah, if I was wrong about all of these I'd be willing to tell the person I was seeing something wrong about the world." But it was clear from the bet setting that there was no world where the father could believe he was wrong. He just wasn't anywhere in the same world as the rest of the world, and honestly, that's what scares me the most.
It feels like we have this incurable disease that makes people believe things irrationally, and there's a risk that anyone can catch this disease just by spending enough time online. What truly scares me about the 'cutting them off' piece here, is that it's a measure to protect yourself and it also represents giving up on the person.
When I cut my dad off, I explained to him my concerns that led to the decision, as well as that I was willing to talk again if he was willing to work on this and at some point I called in to check on how he was doing, and if he was making any progress, and the most baffling thing to me was that he didn't even register the part of my communication (written down) that explained I'd be willing to talk to him if he worked on this. Like, working on this wasn't even something he would consider doing to salvage the relationship, which was pretty devastating because of how long I spent trying to fix this relationship and make it work.
Are you not being a little simplistic, and wholly presumptuous, here? This is a sad story and, from your armchair, you can explain it all? The man has beliefs; they might be slightly nutty, but he seems unlikely to bite your legs off. He's not a dog. What's your justification for believing that he has any sense that "everything in the world is trying to cause harm to him"? There's no evidence of that in the original post. What make you think that "these paranoia thoughts gradually overwhelm him"? Again, not supported unless you turn your head and squint a little (lot). If you dropped all the paranoia/trauma/threat threads, maybe you could weave a whole cloth from something you do know.
This is a story of a man becoming radicalized. He is prioritizing these radical beliefs above his marriage, friendships, and relationships with his children.
I will drop an observation here that many perpetrators of mass casualties were seen in retrospect to go down a similar path. Friends and family knew something was up, but nothing could be done.
My view is that there is a straight line from this guys story to a catastrophe where this guy harms himself and others. At a certain point he has lost everything that matters and will be consumed by this paranoia
I will drop an observation here that many perpetrators of mass casualties were seen in retrospect to go down a similar path. Friends and family knew something was up, but nothing could be done.
My view is that there is a straight line from this guys story to a catastrophe where this guy harms himself and others. At a certain point he has lost everything that matters and will be consumed by this paranoia
> He is prioritizing these radical beliefs above his marriage, friendships, and relationships with his children.
Was he? Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any indication of that in the article. Unless by "prioritizing these radical beliefs" you mean he wasn't willing to just abandon his sincerely held beliefs because his family was threatening to leave him if he didn't? I actually think that's an admirable quality. You shouldn't ignore reality just because it would be convenient for you personally. (In this case he's wrong about what reality is, but that's a separate concern.)
Was he? Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any indication of that in the article. Unless by "prioritizing these radical beliefs" you mean he wasn't willing to just abandon his sincerely held beliefs because his family was threatening to leave him if he didn't? I actually think that's an admirable quality. You shouldn't ignore reality just because it would be convenient for you personally. (In this case he's wrong about what reality is, but that's a separate concern.)
He was wagering $10k of the family's funds to back his predictions. And spending money on gold and survival supplies. Those aren't necessarily bad things, but you should definitely talk over it with your spouse to make sure they are in agreement. I don't completely disagree with his decisions, storing some food and water is common sense. It depends on the severity of his actions.
To you, it might be admirable. To others, it's just a constant reminder of existential threats. Kudos to you if you can handle it, but it's not anyones place to say just how much is too much to cut them off.
I mean, people are obviously free to choose to associate with who they wish. But let's be clear: if a person decides to cut someone off merely because their beliefs are different, then they're the one "prioritizing their beliefs above their marriage, friendships, and relationships with their parents", not the other way around.
The problem is that you're viewing this as a tragedy of untrue sincere beliefs. These beliefs are not sincere, they are a mask for an emotional desire. I do blame them for valuing their own emotions over the well-being of their family. It is a massive and shameful failure of character.
So your position is that he placed a $10,000 bet on something he didn't actually believe in? That he's lying and doesn't really believe in those things, and is just claiming he does because he has an "emotional desire" for... something? Something that matters more to him than his family?
That's a pretty wild claim; do you have anything to substantiate it?
That's a pretty wild claim; do you have anything to substantiate it?
If a seemingly intelligent person goes against all reason to do something stupid, they're not stupid, they're a liar if they know it or not. At this point he would rather lose his family and die than admit he was played, so he's going to keep playing his role in the conspiracy theory until he does.
There's no straight line. It's true that, "many perpetrators of mass casualties were seen in retrospect to go down a similar path", but it doesn't work faultlessly in reverse. Lots of people on that "path" cause no casualties at all, some of them don't even do harm, even to themselves. They're just a little bit off beam.
Per the story, the father has immersed himself into the beliefs and convictions of a widespread social movement that we're all familiar with. While his beliefs seem it has pulled him away from his everyday relationships, they've brought him in ideological alignment and community with many, many others.
Perhaps that social movement is dangerously paranoiac and may even lead to violence and conflict in society, but it's a meaningfully different thing to become part of a community that pulls you away from your prior relationships than it is to be lost in your own idiosyncratic fantasies of violence or threat as you seem to be implying. Conflating the two means conflating what their root causes are and how they might be addressed.
Perhaps that social movement is dangerously paranoiac and may even lead to violence and conflict in society, but it's a meaningfully different thing to become part of a community that pulls you away from your prior relationships than it is to be lost in your own idiosyncratic fantasies of violence or threat as you seem to be implying. Conflating the two means conflating what their root causes are and how they might be addressed.
Painful to read. I have had similar conversations with my own father, though nothing quite extreme. There is no moving them from their warped reality.
I have theorized some root causes:
- They cannot differentiate between well-meaning friends and high quality information i.e. there is a fallacy of "this person is honest, hence this forward they just sent me is true".
- Starting from at least my generation (born in late 80s), there is an understanding of "echo chamber effects", personalizing newsfeeds for engagement etc. There is some inoculation against content meant to trigger/resonate with specific sub-groups. I have found this to be completely lacking in discussions with my parents/their generation.
All these make it hard to move them out of the dis-information locus they fall into.
I have theorized some root causes:
- They cannot differentiate between well-meaning friends and high quality information i.e. there is a fallacy of "this person is honest, hence this forward they just sent me is true".
- Starting from at least my generation (born in late 80s), there is an understanding of "echo chamber effects", personalizing newsfeeds for engagement etc. There is some inoculation against content meant to trigger/resonate with specific sub-groups. I have found this to be completely lacking in discussions with my parents/their generation.
All these make it hard to move them out of the dis-information locus they fall into.
> Painful to read. I have had similar conversations with my own father, though nothing quite extreme. There is no moving them from their warped reality.
Perhaps you just haven't registered them doing so, but every day, people of all ages who feel clear and confident in their own convictions say the same thing about others of all ages: their peers and coworkers, their children, their elders, the youth.
For most people, it's just the nature of conviction to believe that you believe what you believe for good reason and the people who disagree with you are misinformed, stubborn, or both.
While you might be able to find surveys and polls that show some nominal bias about purported "wrong thinking" when segmented by this demographic or that one, the differences are always relatively marginal, with whatever "wrong think" worht investigating almost always slicing throughly through all segments in a substantial way. Susceptibility to "wrong think" is not meaningfully generational, and nobody's especially immune -- it seems to be just part of life that different people get convinced of different things and can sometimes be quite stuck to their convictions.
It's tragic when entrenched disagreement divides families and communities, as in this story, but it's something we can identify throughout all of history and there's no particular evidence to suggest we're likely to escape it any time soon. It may not even be wise to aspire towards it, as deep and stubborn conviction almost certainly has great merit of its own.
Perhaps you just haven't registered them doing so, but every day, people of all ages who feel clear and confident in their own convictions say the same thing about others of all ages: their peers and coworkers, their children, their elders, the youth.
For most people, it's just the nature of conviction to believe that you believe what you believe for good reason and the people who disagree with you are misinformed, stubborn, or both.
While you might be able to find surveys and polls that show some nominal bias about purported "wrong thinking" when segmented by this demographic or that one, the differences are always relatively marginal, with whatever "wrong think" worht investigating almost always slicing throughly through all segments in a substantial way. Susceptibility to "wrong think" is not meaningfully generational, and nobody's especially immune -- it seems to be just part of life that different people get convinced of different things and can sometimes be quite stuck to their convictions.
It's tragic when entrenched disagreement divides families and communities, as in this story, but it's something we can identify throughout all of history and there's no particular evidence to suggest we're likely to escape it any time soon. It may not even be wise to aspire towards it, as deep and stubborn conviction almost certainly has great merit of its own.
You're quite right. We all develop a bias about the world, and even as I say that I'm pretty good at "critical thinking", there's no telling whether I actually am. Anyone at any level of knowledge, experience, or culture can plausibly come to an implausible belief. It's easy to think ourselves correct and others, if they disagree, incorrect. Always keep that in mind. I am not the beginning. I am not the end. I have my views and my veracity will be perceived diversely by others with their own rich worldviews.
Science is a thing for a reason. Reality isn't the blind toss up you imagine. We're not all equally wrong.
> We're not all equally wrong.
For sure, but I think GP's point (certainly mine) is that the opposite end of the spectrum is also a commonly trod landmine. The world is not split into, say, people who believe global warming is completely bunk and people who are fully informed on the best forecasts of global warming. There are levels to the information people have, and then to how people perceive that information, and then to how people communicate that information, and so on. Science is generally the correct tool for most jobs, but it would be a mistake to say that our implementation and realization of science is necessarily correct. And that's without mentioning what people then do with their knowledge.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I hereby appeal to the guidelines. Comments like mine or GP, that may come off as controversial or offensive (which is a function of the reader), should be read and responded to with time to breathe. Considering the topic of this thread, even more so. Anyone's immediate interpretation relies on more primitive modes of cognition that are generally more emotionally saturated. I'm not bashing science or whatever. I know some people do (on here?). I want to say that intellectualism is a journey and a struggle. If the truth was easy to come by, only malicious people would be an obstacle. But people aren't generally malicious, just hurt and confused.
Here I'm saying your interpretation of my comment is wrong. You can be wrong. And as you're reading this, keep in mind that I can be wrong. I'm not just including myself to let you save face or something. I mean it. The core of intellectualism is not doing science or whatever, not in practice at least. A rational agent has no stubbornness. But as humans, having humility and self-awareness is necessary.
For sure, but I think GP's point (certainly mine) is that the opposite end of the spectrum is also a commonly trod landmine. The world is not split into, say, people who believe global warming is completely bunk and people who are fully informed on the best forecasts of global warming. There are levels to the information people have, and then to how people perceive that information, and then to how people communicate that information, and so on. Science is generally the correct tool for most jobs, but it would be a mistake to say that our implementation and realization of science is necessarily correct. And that's without mentioning what people then do with their knowledge.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I hereby appeal to the guidelines. Comments like mine or GP, that may come off as controversial or offensive (which is a function of the reader), should be read and responded to with time to breathe. Considering the topic of this thread, even more so. Anyone's immediate interpretation relies on more primitive modes of cognition that are generally more emotionally saturated. I'm not bashing science or whatever. I know some people do (on here?). I want to say that intellectualism is a journey and a struggle. If the truth was easy to come by, only malicious people would be an obstacle. But people aren't generally malicious, just hurt and confused.
Here I'm saying your interpretation of my comment is wrong. You can be wrong. And as you're reading this, keep in mind that I can be wrong. I'm not just including myself to let you save face or something. I mean it. The core of intellectualism is not doing science or whatever, not in practice at least. A rational agent has no stubbornness. But as humans, having humility and self-awareness is necessary.
The scientific method is currently our best method to try to remove our biases and move towards the truth. It's certainly not perfect (funding can introduce systemic biases and can direct research away from certain topics), but it's so much better than the alternatives.
There's also the issue of people/scientists not being willing to adjust their beliefs when presented with new information. Science advances funeral by funeral
There's also the issue of people/scientists not being willing to adjust their beliefs when presented with new information. Science advances funeral by funeral
There are degrees of things. The father from this story wants all Democratic presidents of the last 35 years prosecuted for treason. For "murder" apparently as well. I mean, that's pretty far out by any standard. Never mind adjusting his entire lifestyle towards his political views (buying precious metals, survivalist gear, separating from his wife and becoming estranged from his daughter).
Everyone has "negative" impulses of all sorts. Most of us are an asshole sometimes. That's not great, but, you know, people are people. But some people are an asshole most (or all) of the time. That's not the same thing at all than being a flawed human being.
Everyone has "negative" impulses of all sorts. Most of us are an asshole sometimes. That's not great, but, you know, people are people. But some people are an asshole most (or all) of the time. That's not the same thing at all than being a flawed human being.
I don't think it is far out that every U.S. president in the last 35 years has had serious abuses of power, many authors argue this point eg Whitney Webb
I don't know who Whitney Webb is, but I think we both know this is not about the general trend and problems in US politics and the office of the presidency, but bollocks like Vince Foster, Benghazi, "but her emails", Barack HUSSEIN Obama from KENYA etc. etc. etc.
I listened his This American life episode on Monday morning and had to compose myself before my stand up.
It is heartbreaking what happened to a generation of men.
It is heartbreaking what happened to a generation of men.
>It is heartbreaking what happened to a generation of men.
Uh-huh. Which of these predictions made in 2015/2016 came true by 2020 when Donald Trump left office?
* Donald Trump will cause a stock market crash.
* Donald Trump will start WWIII.
* Donald Trump will kill or jail journalists, leftists, and members of the LGBTQ community.
* Donald Trump will ban all Muslims from entering the country.
* Donald Trump will never allow another election to occur as he will become dictator for life.
* Donald Trump will create internment camps for immigrants.
* Donald Trump will outlaw gay marriage.
* Donald Trump will ban abortion nationwide and institute a Handmaid's Tale-type dystopia.
The answer? None of them. I await the replies that these aren't the same thing and they all Really Happened or are Totally About to Happen:
>"I'm going to admit I was wrong about the timeline on all 10 things," he assured me.
>"See how you prefaced it?" I said. "You're just saying that you're wrong about the timeline."
>"Why am I going to abandon the truth?" he insisted. "I can't abandon the truth."
You can also see the mirror-image of Q-anon currently alive and fermenting at /r/somethingiswrong2024 on reddit.
This isn't a male issue (or female) or a right wing (or left) issue or a social media (or mass media) issue. It's a perennial human issue. It preceded mass media. It succeeded mass media. It will succeed social media.
One apocalypse or another has been at hand for more 2,500 years, always heralded by mouth-foaming prophets with dire predictions of imminent disaster. And their failure to materialize always blindly waved away by certain demographics of the earnest and gullible. And there's always a Qoholeth to every Jeremiah shouting as loudly "Nothing ever happens."
Babylon didn't fall for centuries after its prediction of imminent destruction. Jesus didn't come back in that generation's lifetime. The Mashiach is absent. The Mahdi is missing. Capitalism is still around and the Proles still in chains. There has been no Malthusian Great Starvation. There are still snows on Kilimanjaro. Obama remains an American citizen. Trump remains an American rather than Russian liability. JFK Jr is still dead. Kamala Harris still lost.
If there's one lesson to be perennially learned, it's that there's nothing perfectible about humans and their relation to culture. The delusional will always be with us and they'll always claim it's really the other side that is deluded, akshually.
Uh-huh. Which of these predictions made in 2015/2016 came true by 2020 when Donald Trump left office?
* Donald Trump will cause a stock market crash.
* Donald Trump will start WWIII.
* Donald Trump will kill or jail journalists, leftists, and members of the LGBTQ community.
* Donald Trump will ban all Muslims from entering the country.
* Donald Trump will never allow another election to occur as he will become dictator for life.
* Donald Trump will create internment camps for immigrants.
* Donald Trump will outlaw gay marriage.
* Donald Trump will ban abortion nationwide and institute a Handmaid's Tale-type dystopia.
The answer? None of them. I await the replies that these aren't the same thing and they all Really Happened or are Totally About to Happen:
>"I'm going to admit I was wrong about the timeline on all 10 things," he assured me.
>"See how you prefaced it?" I said. "You're just saying that you're wrong about the timeline."
>"Why am I going to abandon the truth?" he insisted. "I can't abandon the truth."
You can also see the mirror-image of Q-anon currently alive and fermenting at /r/somethingiswrong2024 on reddit.
This isn't a male issue (or female) or a right wing (or left) issue or a social media (or mass media) issue. It's a perennial human issue. It preceded mass media. It succeeded mass media. It will succeed social media.
One apocalypse or another has been at hand for more 2,500 years, always heralded by mouth-foaming prophets with dire predictions of imminent disaster. And their failure to materialize always blindly waved away by certain demographics of the earnest and gullible. And there's always a Qoholeth to every Jeremiah shouting as loudly "Nothing ever happens."
Babylon didn't fall for centuries after its prediction of imminent destruction. Jesus didn't come back in that generation's lifetime. The Mashiach is absent. The Mahdi is missing. Capitalism is still around and the Proles still in chains. There has been no Malthusian Great Starvation. There are still snows on Kilimanjaro. Obama remains an American citizen. Trump remains an American rather than Russian liability. JFK Jr is still dead. Kamala Harris still lost.
If there's one lesson to be perennially learned, it's that there's nothing perfectible about humans and their relation to culture. The delusional will always be with us and they'll always claim it's really the other side that is deluded, akshually.
These things all seemed like possibilities, but not certainties. And some of them did at least partly come to be: there was an attempted Muslim travel ban, and abortion was banned in vast swaths of the US. The internment camps are definitely being talked about seriously.
Further, the 2016 list wouldn't have possibly guessed "will badly mishandle a pandemic, turning the US into one of its worst victims", but that is indeed what happened. He didn't outlaw gay marriage, but he did ban trans people from the military.
We did benefit from one important thing: his incompetence prevented him from accomplishing much of anything in his term. He has now had time to prepare -- or rather, the right-wing think tanks have had time to prepare. He's implementing their priorities as fast as he can.
Further, the 2016 list wouldn't have possibly guessed "will badly mishandle a pandemic, turning the US into one of its worst victims", but that is indeed what happened. He didn't outlaw gay marriage, but he did ban trans people from the military.
We did benefit from one important thing: his incompetence prevented him from accomplishing much of anything in his term. He has now had time to prepare -- or rather, the right-wing think tanks have had time to prepare. He's implementing their priorities as fast as he can.
Very informative, but painful to read. Hopefully neither of the children inherited their father's mental issues.
Something that I was quite surprised not to see in this story were questions about mental illness. There’s obviously a huge modern tendency to medicalise things, but the link to the grandfather made me wonder. What we call mental illnesses like depression, schizophrenia, anxiety are all obviously extremes on a continuum. (I’d love to see evidence to the contrary, but seizures or infarcts are probably one of the few binarized events related to the brain and even those have micro-versions.)
Very sad, have some of these types in my own family. I agree with the assessment that this is a form of emotional coping. All of these conspiracy theories are strangely comforting, despite how apocalyptic they might seem. Not only can you externalize all blame, they are fun to think about, they have a very sticky epistemology, and a high degree of consistency that lets you feel superior to the non-believers. It's actually very hard to debate someone that's really into flat earth, since there is always some esoteric argument about physics, and the conspiracy always goes deeper. You find this type of thinking everywhere, but somehow we've gotten the most comically extreme versions as mainstream beliefs now.
Well said. I have an aunt that is into this. And I think your point about a superiority complex has merit. She uses it as a psychological instrument to disparage other people in her family who don't share her views. Every conversation it comes back to "I just hope I can reach him/her [with bogus views] before it's too late".
What's interesting is her choice of bogus views. She's never gone flat earth, but she thinks radio waves cause all health issues. And satellites started wildfires, and the gov controls the weather, and drops chem trails. And the vaccine makes everyone sick. It's remarkable how anti-science it really is. She doesn't care about inverse-square law of radiation. If I did a blind test with 10 trials of a wifi transmitter on/off behind her back, she would fail the test and still not be deterred. She wants to believe the vax caused every single sickness people have, but doesn't acknowledge the source of sickness before the vax. Finally, I know the sources she follows have a massive amount of anti semitic tropes, yet she is Jewish. I know she's seeing people in these communities blame Jews, yet she ignores it and still consumes the conspiracy. Nothing would convince her that she is wrong.
What's interesting is her choice of bogus views. She's never gone flat earth, but she thinks radio waves cause all health issues. And satellites started wildfires, and the gov controls the weather, and drops chem trails. And the vaccine makes everyone sick. It's remarkable how anti-science it really is. She doesn't care about inverse-square law of radiation. If I did a blind test with 10 trials of a wifi transmitter on/off behind her back, she would fail the test and still not be deterred. She wants to believe the vax caused every single sickness people have, but doesn't acknowledge the source of sickness before the vax. Finally, I know the sources she follows have a massive amount of anti semitic tropes, yet she is Jewish. I know she's seeing people in these communities blame Jews, yet she ignores it and still consumes the conspiracy. Nothing would convince her that she is wrong.
Michael Lewis' (author of Moneyball, The Big Short) podcast Against the Rules had an episode about why we question experts, this was during the tail end of COVID. He asked, I'm paraphrasing from memory here, why is it we don't have people who argue that you could jump off bridges and tall buildings and lived, but so many people arguing that you don't need the vaccine. Perhaps because no one had jumped off tall structures and lived, but there are lots of stories about how someone who got the vaccine died anyway, or didn't get the vaccine, got COVID, and is still alive and thriving. There's also a lot of "Dad was a pack-a-day smoker and lived to be 95", "Every year that I got the flu shot, I got the flu, this year I said the hell with it and skipped the shot, no flu." Every time I hear that I desperately want to correct the person, but nobody wants to hear the "akshually ... there's no correlation" bit. I don't want to be "that guy". But the more these pithy sophism are said and heard, the more it becomes ingrained in the aggregate of common beliefs. There's not even a scientific nuance there, it's utterly wrong. To erase those beliefs one has to wipe away years of repeated exposure and reinforcement to this casual sort of ignorance. No one has the time to do that. In this story, the son also exposed the father to ChatGPT hoping it can overcome his father's beliefs with an overwhelming amount of facts, and it didn't work.
Sometimes a hot stove must be touched. If I were the son, I would ask the father to double down for another $10K, or even $20K. I believe that somewhere deep inside the father, there is a ghost of an understanding where the line of reality exists. He's just so deep into his world that he can't see where he mixes up the hope that these things will happen, vs the belief that these things will happen. But if you ask him to put real stakes on the line, say, even $100K if he has it, he will not be so unwavering in his belief.
Sometimes a hot stove must be touched. If I were the son, I would ask the father to double down for another $10K, or even $20K. I believe that somewhere deep inside the father, there is a ghost of an understanding where the line of reality exists. He's just so deep into his world that he can't see where he mixes up the hope that these things will happen, vs the belief that these things will happen. But if you ask him to put real stakes on the line, say, even $100K if he has it, he will not be so unwavering in his belief.
the problem with engaging with them using tests is they can deny the results. they can say X politician was killed, but was replaced by a body double. A flat-earther, or holocaust-denier, or moon-landing-conspiracist will always have another counter-claim to whatever challenge they accept. There's always an out, due to the number of "variables in the equation", or the number of theories and posts online. One quote I read here (regarding flat-earth) was "If you engage them, you've already lost". :(
In answer why arguments like jumping or falling off something fatally high don't really exist in any serious form, is for the simple reason typically there's an easily recognised clear starting and end point, where chances of fatality can faithfully derived from extrapolation and correlation of injury due to falling from various heights, as well as statistics of previous incidents from similar heights. On the other hand more fluid situations generally, such as if a vaccine or some substance works to a suitable effectiveness, in reality have no clear firm starting point, more often a blurred end point and wide range of exceptions in between. However there are those who think the starting point is fixed ... or close to fixed with or without caveats -- exempting really old people in poor health for example.
Trying to explain to the naysayers were hard if not near impossible when it came to vaccinating for covid in my locale. Eventually I ended up on simple little fictional story of whether to stay put in a small boat, or evacuate from the coast inland from a large few hundred foot tidal wave, to demonstrate that someone's starting point wasn't all that clear and could not be taken for granted
Oh yes on the people who whine they still got a bit of the flu, the jab didn't work ... that's the other thing about vaccines that few people (even well educated) have understood well, is that a vaccine is not a force field that pushes or repels, it's actually more an opportunity for the body to get some practice, develop the proper weaponry to counter with when the problem arrives ... but not everyone's body is that good at creating a sufficient defence, and a lot of factors come into play. Some people need more practice to get it right.
The last paragraph on denial ... and deep down. When it comes to gambling with life, yes, I think to some extent we've witnessed it with the ivermectin cure BS. I know for instance that when it was used to treat heart worms in dogs, a small percentage did not react that well to the normal dosage. Humans tolerate iirc a little bit better and have a similar percentage of reaction to a normal dosage but no where near as severe. At 6 times the rate, the product crosses the blood brain barrier to a point that in those dogs that were accidentally dosed incorrectly, most survived but it was touch and go, they were for a time afterwards unable to walk and then had staggers until eventual recovery. We do not hear any real reports of any person getting even a few multiple of the regular dosage ... except for the wordsmithed papers giving that impression of really high dosage rates, but digging deeper, they were in fact actually not receiving an at once dose but a number of small doses over a few days minding ivermectin's half life. I had calculated regular cattle /horse rated ivermectin would need 100x dosage to achieve the level that was said to stop covid ... a Canadian hospital examined how much imvermectin was active from the oral product they used to treat humans and the amount of dose required to achieve the mythical level to stop covid was approx just 55 times the regular dose. We, the world, never heard any certified instances where it was used at 50x regular dosage rates ... in fact, when the BSers were nailed down, they instead claimed the regular low dose must have worked so there ... if only I could get away with only paying a dollar for every 50 or 100 I owed.
Trying to explain to the naysayers were hard if not near impossible when it came to vaccinating for covid in my locale. Eventually I ended up on simple little fictional story of whether to stay put in a small boat, or evacuate from the coast inland from a large few hundred foot tidal wave, to demonstrate that someone's starting point wasn't all that clear and could not be taken for granted
Oh yes on the people who whine they still got a bit of the flu, the jab didn't work ... that's the other thing about vaccines that few people (even well educated) have understood well, is that a vaccine is not a force field that pushes or repels, it's actually more an opportunity for the body to get some practice, develop the proper weaponry to counter with when the problem arrives ... but not everyone's body is that good at creating a sufficient defence, and a lot of factors come into play. Some people need more practice to get it right.
The last paragraph on denial ... and deep down. When it comes to gambling with life, yes, I think to some extent we've witnessed it with the ivermectin cure BS. I know for instance that when it was used to treat heart worms in dogs, a small percentage did not react that well to the normal dosage. Humans tolerate iirc a little bit better and have a similar percentage of reaction to a normal dosage but no where near as severe. At 6 times the rate, the product crosses the blood brain barrier to a point that in those dogs that were accidentally dosed incorrectly, most survived but it was touch and go, they were for a time afterwards unable to walk and then had staggers until eventual recovery. We do not hear any real reports of any person getting even a few multiple of the regular dosage ... except for the wordsmithed papers giving that impression of really high dosage rates, but digging deeper, they were in fact actually not receiving an at once dose but a number of small doses over a few days minding ivermectin's half life. I had calculated regular cattle /horse rated ivermectin would need 100x dosage to achieve the level that was said to stop covid ... a Canadian hospital examined how much imvermectin was active from the oral product they used to treat humans and the amount of dose required to achieve the mythical level to stop covid was approx just 55 times the regular dose. We, the world, never heard any certified instances where it was used at 50x regular dosage rates ... in fact, when the BSers were nailed down, they instead claimed the regular low dose must have worked so there ... if only I could get away with only paying a dollar for every 50 or 100 I owed.
That cursive is perfectly legible. One bit of particular note is the father bet $1000 in cash for each prediction, while the son would owe him $1000 in "podcast services."
I wonder if that part is covered in the podcast, it could be a father unwilling to take money from his son or a man trying to gain a platform to further spread his views.
I wonder if that part is covered in the podcast, it could be a father unwilling to take money from his son or a man trying to gain a platform to further spread his views.
"Multiple generators?" (later says two).
Given the age and family history described, I wouldn't rule out dementia.
Given the age and family history described, I wouldn't rule out dementia.
Two generators could be pretty rational. I've got two generators, one an automatic standby generator that covers the house, and another portable generator for my well (because it's on a different meter). We just had a ~ 30 hour utility outage this week, and it's nice to be able to take a shower. There was a longer outage a few months ago.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to have two generators if you have frequent outages, and the generators might need maintenance during an outage. Of course, most people buy generators, ignore the maintenance, don't have frequent outages, and then the generator won't start when they need it to. Having a second generator doesn't help with that, because it's likely if you don't maintain one, you don't maintain the other either, or you only ever run the primary and never the secondary, and it doesn't start when you need it to either. I've got to start and run my portable generator once a month; it doesn't like to start if you let it sit two months, and I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't get it to start without rebuilding the carburetor if it sat for three months. (My 1981 VW has fuel injection, not sure why small engines from 2020s don't have it :P) I'd love to replace my portable generator and a vehicle with a replacement vehicle that can power the well, but I'm waiting for the invisible hand of the market to figure out that I'd buy a hybrid/PHEV single cab truck with a 240v/30a output if it's available.
All that said, age related mental decline affects a lot of people, even before it becomes clinical dementia. :(
It doesn't seem unreasonable to have two generators if you have frequent outages, and the generators might need maintenance during an outage. Of course, most people buy generators, ignore the maintenance, don't have frequent outages, and then the generator won't start when they need it to. Having a second generator doesn't help with that, because it's likely if you don't maintain one, you don't maintain the other either, or you only ever run the primary and never the secondary, and it doesn't start when you need it to either. I've got to start and run my portable generator once a month; it doesn't like to start if you let it sit two months, and I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't get it to start without rebuilding the carburetor if it sat for three months. (My 1981 VW has fuel injection, not sure why small engines from 2020s don't have it :P) I'd love to replace my portable generator and a vehicle with a replacement vehicle that can power the well, but I'm waiting for the invisible hand of the market to figure out that I'd buy a hybrid/PHEV single cab truck with a 240v/30a output if it's available.
All that said, age related mental decline affects a lot of people, even before it becomes clinical dementia. :(
Fair enough. I guess the original post doesn't give that amount of background. You're discussing the hard details about managing a farm of generators, the original article suggests something more like generator hoarding.
That was a well-written piece, very moving.
It is so strange to me that some people find this revolting and other people think it’s quite nice. I wonder if the audience roles would be reversed if the subject roles were reversed.
That's really tragic. Mental health.
Emotional intelligence is not something we're born with. Sounds to be like the guy, the father, knows he feels things but then quickly equates them to the intellectual IRL truth. That's where emotional intelligence can come in and say well no these are just feelings.
Super tragic that the whole family had to push him away from themselves, because of the guys intolerable behaviors.
Counseling can be pretty helpful, though the people going to it need to want to go, otherwise counseling is a no-go.
Emotional intelligence is not something we're born with. Sounds to be like the guy, the father, knows he feels things but then quickly equates them to the intellectual IRL truth. That's where emotional intelligence can come in and say well no these are just feelings.
Super tragic that the whole family had to push him away from themselves, because of the guys intolerable behaviors.
Counseling can be pretty helpful, though the people going to it need to want to go, otherwise counseling is a no-go.
Often the need to be right is a sign of a hurt ego overcompensating.
Here's a thought process: Dad was trying to make sense of things that did not make sense to him. These things that did not make sense to him were seen by him as ultimately dangerous, even to his own family. That compelled him to seek to find the truth about whether they are real threats. Along that journey, he became convinced that they were in fact real. He sought out the long term implications and those implications became his 10 predictions.
As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?
There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.
Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.
I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.
As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?
There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.
Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.
I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.
Very sad to read (I think the grandfather isn't relevant to conspiracy theories though, it was IMO a different though similar problem of feeling alienated with a perspective certain people (institutions, authorities, local govt, health dept, etc) were not there to help him.)
Much of this emerging problem of conspiracy and BS mania the last decade IMHO is psychological manipulation capitalising on a less well educated / informed population than it was in the 70s, and the older population now more often not being as sharp as they once were or not equipped to deal with the information overload that the near endless News in various forms can be.
Roughly summing up, for the many people dealing with a family member who has gravitated to news items and other stories that have a very different narrative: more often it's the appeal of a seemingly simple answer all wrapped up as being some person or group's is to blame, any logic pointed their way is met with denial, cognitive dissonance or wishful thinking syndrome. (What I've experience with my own father it's most often in the form of they don't like ... anyhow, this validates it.)
I refer to the psychological manipulation more often as zombie grooming and less sheep grooming which aims to slowly transform the more vulnerable into zombies / sheep that'll do their bidding even if it's the lowest level, it still counts to their greater aspirations and motivations which are 99% political or involving the big money end of town. People are quick to blame the net / web / online crapfest but I see the problems starting more in certain tv and radio media areas which can expand to other more reputable news if folks there haven't engaged their thinking caps.
One would think the manipulation would be easily spotted and dealt with when a stitch saves nine, but much is designed to fly well under the radar, what most of us might disregard as some poorly informed news team, is actually something aimed just for their targeted audience they plan to groom.
The problem is akin to saturating the air with alarm bells or sirens a person is familiar with, and that the faint voice nearby saying it's just some DH with their finger on a button doesn't seem at all important or relevant.
Much of this emerging problem of conspiracy and BS mania the last decade IMHO is psychological manipulation capitalising on a less well educated / informed population than it was in the 70s, and the older population now more often not being as sharp as they once were or not equipped to deal with the information overload that the near endless News in various forms can be.
Roughly summing up, for the many people dealing with a family member who has gravitated to news items and other stories that have a very different narrative: more often it's the appeal of a seemingly simple answer all wrapped up as being some person or group's is to blame, any logic pointed their way is met with denial, cognitive dissonance or wishful thinking syndrome. (What I've experience with my own father it's most often in the form of they don't like ... anyhow, this validates it.)
I refer to the psychological manipulation more often as zombie grooming and less sheep grooming which aims to slowly transform the more vulnerable into zombies / sheep that'll do their bidding even if it's the lowest level, it still counts to their greater aspirations and motivations which are 99% political or involving the big money end of town. People are quick to blame the net / web / online crapfest but I see the problems starting more in certain tv and radio media areas which can expand to other more reputable news if folks there haven't engaged their thinking caps.
One would think the manipulation would be easily spotted and dealt with when a stitch saves nine, but much is designed to fly well under the radar, what most of us might disregard as some poorly informed news team, is actually something aimed just for their targeted audience they plan to groom.
The problem is akin to saturating the air with alarm bells or sirens a person is familiar with, and that the faint voice nearby saying it's just some DH with their finger on a button doesn't seem at all important or relevant.
This resonates with me heavily, except it's my entire family. Much worse.
It helps to stop seeing it as a conspiracy but as a projected inebt negotiation of people ready to defect on civil society.
Its not a THIS will happen , but a "if we do not renegotiate a not working social contract, to be more fair, something like THIS will be happening, brought on by my fellow defectors. We might not have cultural air superiority , but frankly what have we to loose. It cant be worse than THIS."
And defect they did. In germany the youth basically mass seceeded from liberal democratic society during the last vote. If you refuse to negotiate and compromise in a society, you fight and society ends- with digit number signs to come.
Its not a THIS will happen , but a "if we do not renegotiate a not working social contract, to be more fair, something like THIS will be happening, brought on by my fellow defectors. We might not have cultural air superiority , but frankly what have we to loose. It cant be worse than THIS."
And defect they did. In germany the youth basically mass seceeded from liberal democratic society during the last vote. If you refuse to negotiate and compromise in a society, you fight and society ends- with digit number signs to come.
Its unconscionable to me that the author would take $10,000 from his own father who is clearly not only mentally vulnerable but not rich as the author states. The father is very much at fault for what happened here, but something is deeply wrong with American society normalizing the annihilation of what should be sacred familial bonds over political matters. As somebody who generally aligns with the left, the last 10 years of overzealous liberal woke-scolding has done nothing but further increase this alienation of others that results in a complete mental split between families.
The son being an NPR correspondent and the mother moving out of their room on the day after Trump's election is highly indicative of this. To the author's credit, he is somewhat aware of this and mentions it in the article.
The son being an NPR correspondent and the mother moving out of their room on the day after Trump's election is highly indicative of this. To the author's credit, he is somewhat aware of this and mentions it in the article.
What about the familial bonds the other way? No respect for the wife’s opinion on how to spend the family money? Telling the daughter her lifestyle is wrong/immoral. The daughter should suck it up?
I'm hearing conspiracy theories all the time now from many of my liberal friends. I'm wondering how we finally stop all of it.
Any top ones you might like to share? I have not seen far-right-level of belief and sticking to false predictions even when proven wrong among people who might be called far-left.
Read their other comments. You may not like the list of conspiracies, if they reply at all.
This is a really sad story.
Frankly I’m shocked the conspiracy theorist paid up. Him then immediately doubling down and finally killing his marriage isn’t a shock.
I both admire and detest the son for sticking with his Dad, the other family members being done is probably a more healthy approach.
Frankly I’m shocked the conspiracy theorist paid up. Him then immediately doubling down and finally killing his marriage isn’t a shock.
I both admire and detest the son for sticking with his Dad, the other family members being done is probably a more healthy approach.
Wouldn't you say that the approach taken by the son is what we need as a society though? polarization and parallel-universes do not seem to be helping at all.
"I may be early, but I'm not wrong."
Tthat's exactly what a good friend of mine said when predictions from 2021 - 2024 failed to materialize. I do care about him a lot but its getting harder over time because nothing seems to change the convictions.
Smugly dismissing all conspiracy theories is as stupid as believing them all. Epstein didn't kill himself. And he didn't work for himself either.
> Epstein didn't kill himself.
You sound quite certain here, how come?
You sound quite certain here, how come?
An intelligence asset whose job was to blackmail the rich and powerful dies in his cell before he can testify when cameras stopped working and both guards fell asleep. Come on.
The "cameras stopped working" thing is not true, but often repeated. People really don't want to do their homework and just repeat what they've already heard elsewhere.
From the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51053205
A letter filed by Assistant US Attorneys Jason Swergold and Maurene Comey said "the footage contained on the preserved video was for the correct date and time, but captured a different tier than the one where Cell-1 was located", New York City media report.
"The requested video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors."
And from NPR:
After first reporting that the video had been preserved, prosecutors told the court that further investigation shows "the MCC inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier within the MCC."
As a result, the pertinent video "no longer exists," prosecutors wrote.
Are you saying this is untrue? Or is this an "akshually it was a data entry error not a malfunction" type of thing?
A letter filed by Assistant US Attorneys Jason Swergold and Maurene Comey said "the footage contained on the preserved video was for the correct date and time, but captured a different tier than the one where Cell-1 was located", New York City media report.
"The requested video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors."
And from NPR:
After first reporting that the video had been preserved, prosecutors told the court that further investigation shows "the MCC inadvertently preserved video from the wrong tier within the MCC."
As a result, the pertinent video "no longer exists," prosecutors wrote.
Are you saying this is untrue? Or is this an "akshually it was a data entry error not a malfunction" type of thing?
Please don't post trashy articles from trashy media, government funded.
I know there are weirdos everywhere, but not much related to "Hacker News"
I know there are weirdos everywhere, but not much related to "Hacker News"
Shame on the author for writing a nationally syndicated article belittling his own father, regardless of how much they disagree.
I disagree. It's a way to talk about fear which is not a little thing. We're all afraid. We're humans. It's a great skill, to be afraid, because it allows us to avoid so many dangers. There's no shame in being a human. :-)
The point is the father is afraid to die. And he's coping with it by spending a lot of energy thinking about other things that he thinks he can control. He simply factually wrong in this case but the work effort, the strength that he's exerting is admirable. He's got his list, it's 10 things, he's organized $10,000, he says he's thought about this, "a million times".
I think it's actually pretty useful and helpful as an article. A cautionary tale in some ways. Plus it seems factual.
They are not saying that the father is little, or belittled. They're saying that the father's perspective is rigid. And that it causes external problems when changes happen around that father.
Q: Am I overlooking something in the article? Did they actually say, "my father is worthless etc etc?"
Eg When the daughter needs to talk about the part of her identity that she's been hiding for decades, the father doesn't want to hold that conversation, which proves to be an insurmountable amount of distress for the daughter as she needs support, so she has to separate. And This rigid rejection is because of the issues that are discussed in the article.
In a way it's interesting to see how a functioning family can fall apart. In that way it's a cautionary tale: Don't expect the way that you relate to your father or your father relates to you will remain a stable constant throughout their lives. People change.
Fear of death is pretty distracting and devastating for many.
The point is the father is afraid to die. And he's coping with it by spending a lot of energy thinking about other things that he thinks he can control. He simply factually wrong in this case but the work effort, the strength that he's exerting is admirable. He's got his list, it's 10 things, he's organized $10,000, he says he's thought about this, "a million times".
I think it's actually pretty useful and helpful as an article. A cautionary tale in some ways. Plus it seems factual.
They are not saying that the father is little, or belittled. They're saying that the father's perspective is rigid. And that it causes external problems when changes happen around that father.
Q: Am I overlooking something in the article? Did they actually say, "my father is worthless etc etc?"
Eg When the daughter needs to talk about the part of her identity that she's been hiding for decades, the father doesn't want to hold that conversation, which proves to be an insurmountable amount of distress for the daughter as she needs support, so she has to separate. And This rigid rejection is because of the issues that are discussed in the article.
In a way it's interesting to see how a functioning family can fall apart. In that way it's a cautionary tale: Don't expect the way that you relate to your father or your father relates to you will remain a stable constant throughout their lives. People change.
Fear of death is pretty distracting and devastating for many.
How is he belittling his father? The piece is incredibly emphatic to his father.
If anything, the author’s fault is agreeing with his father too much, to the possible exclusion of the rest of his family. I doubt his sister and mother will let him hang out in the middle ground forever.
If anything, the author’s fault is agreeing with his father too much, to the possible exclusion of the rest of his family. I doubt his sister and mother will let him hang out in the middle ground forever.
This is playing out in a whole lot of families, and has been for some years. Collective recognition of this illness, an understanding that we’re not alone in struggling with it, reflections on how to cope with or reverse it or at least eke out a few decent moments with these once-normal people (even if it’s just things that didn’t work) are very much needed.
I imagine the story is likely accurate (conservative father adopts increasingly bizarre right-wing conspiracy theories and family becomes alienated - is it dementia or something else?) and it also may fit NPR's editorial angle. To me it does seem like something of an invasion of privacy, particularly if it was published without permission.
At some point, you have to make a decision- do you continue to maintain a relationship with your father, or do you choose to sever your relationship like most people he knew.
If you choose the former, then you will accept that he will never change, and some day he will even harm you, if he has to choose between you and his beliefs. It's not that your father is out to do bad things- an aggressive dog does not intentionally try to bite your legs off. It's just doing what it believes is best for itself. You will have to learn to accept it, hard as it might be.
If you choose the latter, then realize that your father spent decades of his best life holding behind his beliefs to raise you, and that the least you can do is to make sure he doesn't die alone.
From my armchair research, this kind of change stems from a deep-seated sense of paranoia/threat, that was seeded by childhood traumas. A schizophrenic sense that everything in the world is trying to cause harm to him. When the person was young and was trying to make a living, he can keep those thoughts away. But as he gets older and can see the end of his life, these paranoia thoughts gradually overwhelm him. Having all the sudden free time post-retirement doesn't help either.