A son spent a year trying to save his father from conspiracy theories
95 comments
·February 27, 2025guardiangod
Ajedi32
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.
guardiangod
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.
Ajedi32
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
generj
> 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.
Ajedi32
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.
throwup238
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.
Ajedi32
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.
arp242
> Just talk about something else.
My experience is that this is very hard with people like this, as all they want to do is "enlighten" you and/or rant about "the truth".
xracy
exactly, there is nothing else. And worse, everything becomes a part of the 'enlightenment' or 'the truth'
jfengel
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.
lesostep
> 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.
fragmede
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.
xracy
> 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.
kayo_20211030
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.
mingus88
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
Ajedi32
> 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.)
kayo_20211030
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.
swatcoder
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.
yathaid
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.
swatcoder
> 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.
vacuity
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.
skygazer
Science is a thing for a reason. Reality isn't the blind toss up you imagine. We're not all equally wrong.
arp242
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.
15charlimitdumb
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
ProcNetDev
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.
gosub100
What do you mean men? It's not confined to one gender.
nataliste
>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.
jfengel
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.
bell-cot
Very informative, but painful to read. Hopefully neither of the children inherited their father's mental issues.
ckemere
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.)
zeroCalories
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.
gosub100
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.
devchix
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.
gosub100
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". :(
anenefan
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.
boomboomsubban
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.
cranky908canuck
"Multiple generators?" (later says two).
Given the age and family history described, I wouldn't rule out dementia.
toast0
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. :(
cranky908canuck
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.
louwrentius
That was a well-written piece, very moving.
binary132
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.
ncr100
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.
Without going too deeply, I sympathize with the writer on an extremely personal level.
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.