Inoculation ( conspiracy )

submitted by Mylon

I want to discuss a theory that I've been forming over a while. The concept of inoculation. The concept is that an idea is formed into a shape so vile and repulsive and shoved down the throats of the public that they reflexively gag and reject the idea, making it impossible for a moderate position to be be taken on the issue.

A classic example is the SJW. SJWs have become a polarized caricature that, to many people here at voat, are completely ridiculous and the concept of finding one out in the wild is almost absurd. A good self-aware example of this is South Park Season 19: SJWs become the enemy and are slaughtered in mass. Yet PC Principal stays around. South Park itself is surprisingly socially diverse and respectful on these issues, but most importantly it's not PC about it.

For a real world example we can look at trans bathroom rights. The concept of passing a law to allow transgendered people to use a particular bathroom is ridiculous. Not because trans people don't deserve respect, but because passing a law is completely the wrong tool to accomplish this. No one is groping anyone at bathrooms to make sure they have the right parts and thus this law is completely unenforceable. It is a complete charade designed to whip people up into a frenzy and polarize them into camps. Except by using a ridiculous case (passing a law, some say to protect little girls from perverts or whatever), it frames the narrative in a way as to slant the polarization.

Inoculation is like polarization but control of the media allows one side to be portrayed in nothing but a negative light. And when this kind of technique is employed against groups looking to do good it only servers to make people more guarded and distrustful of their neighbors because now anything they see someone do might not be genuine altruism but some form of virtue signaling. This is a kind of divisive can subvert nearly any progressive movement (see the term "regressives") and sow distrust in a way that would be a wet dream of the people that created the Stranger Danger campaign.

Even voat seems to be a victim of inoculation: By spamming the forum with racist and hateful remarks, the general population would supposedly dismiss it and reject the idea, returning back to more controlled forms of media.

There's many more examples, but I wanted to put for this idea to see if I'm onto something.

can_of_wurms

I was in a pyramid scheme for 9 months, and let me tell you, they use this tactic all the time to retain their "recruits". First is the inoculation against your family members' criticisms, then friends, then actual businesspeople, then other pyramid schemes. They tell you what these people are going to tell you, and how that SHOULD make you feel. Then when these caring people in your life voice their concern about how you've been changing, you can comfortably and nonchalantly brush them off.

varialus

What I take from what he's saying is not that nasty words should be forbidden, but that people should know what effect those nasty words have, and also be aware that those nasty words can be weaponized by the opposition to keep regular people away.

I agree that the nastiness of voat can keep regular people away. The question is whether it's being used by the opposition to keep people away from Voat. I don't know of any way to really determine that other than dissatisfied shills leaking information about what they're being paid to do, along with proof of some sort. I know there are paids shills on the Internet, but I have no idea of the extent of the problem.

Mylon

I'm saying that voat was attacked. It was seen as a threat and thus inoculation was used as a method to paint voat as a hostile environment. By educating more people to the methods used, perhaps we can be better at spotting them and addressing them when they happen. Using voat itself just happens to be an example of the method in action.

This isn't about babying people and creating safe spaces, but about an underhanded tactic used to smear voat as well as attack other venues or ideologies. Just because you wear voat's smear with pride (as do I to some degree) doesn't change the fact that it appears to have been an astroturf movement to damage voat. Discussing hurt fee fees is getting distracted and missing the entire point except perhaps to say you were one of the polarized people and you like being manipulated.

Mylon

I'm not saying racist and hateful remarks should be taboo, but they clearly are perceived as such and those remarks can be used to steer people away from voat. I suspect during incidents where there were large migrations there were huge spikes in racist/hateful comments beyond what you might expect from normal users and this was a hostile action taken to discredit voat.

Alias_Unknown

Seems like you're really onto something. I can think of countless examples that this could fit, right off the top of my head. Hell, one could even say that Amalek is an example of this. (Although he probably doesn't intend to be.)