The Hyperreality rightturds inhabit, as explained by the Chatbot,
Copilot 🤖. These are replies to queries submitted by me 🥸.
🥸 It seems there is an entire ecosystem out there that peddles in "alternative facts" as per the Kellyann Conway term. This includes many people with scientific backgrounds who argue that "everything you know is wrong". I think it makes them feel special. They know the "real truth", while "normies" are living in a "hyperreality" created by the lies of the PMC.
🤖 You've put your finger on something important: what you're describing is essentially the counter‑elite knowledge economy. It thrives on the idea that mainstream institutions (universities, governments, media, medical regulators) are not just mistaken but deliberately deceptive, and that only those who "see through the veil" have access to the *real* truth.
➡️ Why this ecosystem feels compelling.
Status inversion: Instead of being marginalized, contrarian thinkers frame themselves as the *only* ones who aren't duped. That creates a sense of superiority and belonging.
Identity reinforcement: Believing "everything you know is wrong" becomes a badge of honor. It marks insiders as enlightened and outsiders as "sheep". [or "normies"]
Scientific credentials as armor: Even a tenuous connection to science (a degree, past employment in pharma, etc.) is leveraged to give fringe claims legitimacy.
Narrative simplicity: Complex realities (like vaccine risk/benefit trade‑offs) are collapsed into stark binaries: poison vs. cure, truth vs. lies. That's emotionally satisfying compared to nuanced uncertainty.
🌀 The "hyperreality" angle.
You mentioned *hyperreality*, which is a
Baudrillardian idea: when signs and symbols replace reality itself, people live inside simulations of truth. Conspiracy ecosystems exploit this by claiming that mainstream science is the simulation, while their "hidden knowledge" is the authentic reality. Ironically, they're constructing their own hyperreality -- complete with alternative websites, jargon, and "expert" figures -- so adherents feel like they've escaped the matrix, when in fact they've just entered another one.
➡️ Why it persists.
Distrust of elites (PMC, professional managerial class): Many people feel excluded or disempowered by technocratic authority. Rejecting "official science" is a way of reclaiming agency.
Community and identity: Forums, blogs, and subcultures provide belonging. Being part of the "truth‑seekers" is socially rewarding.
Information overload: In a world of endless data, contrarian narratives offer clarity and certainty -- even if false.
I think your instinct is right: it's less about the facts themselves and more about the *psychological and social function* of claiming special access to hidden truth. It's a ritual of distinction.
🥸 On the "experts" who are cited to bolster rightturd claims that the science everyone else accepts is actually wrong. (This is a restatement of a query as a header).
🤖 I see what you're getting at -- and you're right, this dynamic shows up across many domains: medicine, climate science, economics, even history.
Why credentialed figures appear in "alternative fact" ecosystems.
Authority signaling: A PhD, MD, or professorship carries weight. Even if someone’s current claims are fringe, their credentials are used rhetorically to suggest legitimacy.
Minority voices amplified: In any scientific field, there will be dissenters. Alternative‑fact communities highlight those dissenters disproportionately, creating the impression that the consensus is shaky.
Narrative power: "This highly decorated expert says the opposite of what mainstream science claims" is a powerful storyline. It makes followers feel they've uncovered hidden truth.
The difference between credentials and consensus.
Credentials ≠ correctness. Science isn't about who has the most titles; it's about reproducible evidence and peer review.
Consensus is built collectively. Climate science, vaccine safety, or epidemiology are based on thousands of studies across decades, reviewed by independent bodies. One or two credentialed voices don’t outweigh that.
Dissent is normal. Science thrives on debate, but dissenting claims need to meet the same evidentiary standards. When they don't, they remain minority views.
🥫 Why this resonates with audiences.
Distrust of institutions: People skeptical of governments, corporations, or media find it easier to believe a lone “truth‑telling” expert than a faceless consensus.
Psychological appeal: It feels empowering to think you’ve found the one doctor or professor who sees through the lies.
Echo chambers: Social media algorithms amplify contrarian voices because they generate engagement, further magnifying their reach.
So when you see someone like
Robert Clancy or a climate skeptic with impressive credentials being cited, it's not that their background is fake -- it's that their minority position is being leveraged to construct an alternative reality. The quotation marks around "expert" are about that rhetorical use, not about denying the person's career.
🥸 On the quack doctor
John Cambell🦆 citing
Ignaz Semmelweis as evidence that his crackpot theories about the covid vaccines will be proven correct (the same as Semmelweis was proven correct). Note that John Campbell holds a Ph.D. in nursing and has taught health sciences. He has a doctoral degree, but is not a medical doctor.
🤖 That's a very revealing rhetorical move, and it's worth unpacking carefully.
Why Campbell invokes Semmelweis.
The martyr analogy: Semmelweis was dismissed by his peers but later vindicated. By citing him, Campbell positions himself as a misunderstood truth‑teller whose ideas will eventually be proven right.
Emotional resonance: The story of Semmelweis appeals to audiences who distrust institutions -- it suggests that "the establishment" always resists new truths.
Authority borrowing: By linking himself to a famous medical pioneer, Campbell tries to elevate his own dissenting claims into the same category of revolutionary science.
🥫 Why the analogy is misleading.
Semmelweis had reproducible evidence. Mortality rates in his wards dropped dramatically when doctors washed their hands. The data were clear, even if the mechanism (germs) wasn't yet understood.
Campbell's claims lack that kind of evidence. Global data from millions of people show mRNA vaccines reduce severe illness and death. The risks are far lower than the risks of COVID itself. His interpretations often rely on selective reading or misrepresentation of studies.
➡️ Being dismissed ≠ being correct. Many scientists have been dismissed and later proven wrong. Vindication requires evidence, not just contrarianism.
Consensus vs. lone voice: Semmelweis's ideas were later confirmed by Pasteur, Koch, and the rise of microbiology. Campbell's claims have been repeatedly contradicted by large‑scale studies and regulatory reviews.
🥫 The rhetorical pattern. This is a common trope in "alternative fact" ecosystems.
Step 1: Find a historical figure who was ignored or ridiculed.
Step 2: Compare oneself to that figure.
Step 3: Conclude that dismissal today is proof of correctness tomorrow.
It's persuasive emotionally, but logically it's a fallacy. Dismissal doesn't guarantee vindication -- only evidence does.
So when Campbell cites Semmelweis, he's not offering proof. He’s offering a **narrative of martyrdom** that resonates with people who distrust mainstream science. The difference is that Semmelweis had clear, reproducible outcomes, while Campbell's claims don't stand up against the global evidence base.
🥸 Regarding the term "hyperreality", this blogger also uses the term "hypernormalized". For example, he wrote in a recent
blog comment, "lol! Neoracism has become hypernormalised. You're so racist that you don't even recognize racism against you". He means racism against me as a White male.
🤖 That's a good example of how terms like *hyperreality* and *hypernormalization* get borrowed from theory and repurposed in online discourse. Let me unpack both the original meaning and how your blogger is using them:
🌀 What "hypernormalization" originally meant.
Coined in Soviet context: The term comes from
Alexei Yurchak, a Russian anthropologist. He used it to describe late Soviet society, where everyone knew the official ideology was false, but they still acted as if it were true because there was no alternative.
Expanded by Adam Curtis: In his 2016 documentary
HyperNormalisation, Curtis applied the idea to Western politics -- suggesting that governments, corporations, and media construct simplified versions of reality that people accept because the complexity of the real world is overwhelming.
Core idea: A false or distorted reality becomes so pervasive that it feels "normal", even though everyone knows it's artificial.
🥫 How the blogger [Minus FJ] is using it.
He's applying *hypernormalization* polemically: claiming that "neoracism" (his term for anti‑White bias) has become so normalized that White people don't even recognize it.
In his framing, society has created a distorted reality where racism against White people is invisible or denied, and that distortion has become "hypernormalised".
This is a rhetorical inversion: he's taking a concept originally meant to critique state propaganda and applying it to identity politics, casting himself as the one who sees through the distortion.
🌀 The connection to "hyperreality".
Hyperreality (Baudrillard): Reality and representation collapse -- simulations feel more real than reality itself.
Hypernormalization (Yurchak/Curtis): A distorted reality is accepted as normal because it's pervasive.
In the blogger's usage: Both terms are deployed to argue that mainstream narratives (about race, vaccines, etc.) are false realities that people accept without question, while he positions himself as the skeptic who sees through them.
🥫 Key takeaway.
The blogger is not using *hypernormalization* in its original academic sense. He's appropriating it as a rhetorical weapon: "society has normalized a false reality, and you're trapped in it". In this case, he's applying it to race, claiming that White people are victims of racism but don’t recognize it because the distortion is "hypernormalised".
🥸 Conclusion.
It is Minus FJ who is residing in a hyperreality. The
rightturd hyperreality. Note that the description of myself as a "hypernormalized normie" in my byline is sarcastic.
