It's all connected through conspiracy theories, and the fact that the mechanisms used to attempt to justify them are always the same, and always both intellectually inauthentic and logically indefensible.
The conspiracy theorist starts from a conclusion "I've decided that this is the case", and then either doesn't even attempt to support this assertion, or else attempts to support it by seeking out selective evidence divested of context, or quotes from carefully selected experts (or "experts"), and disregards any evidence (often the vast majority of evidence, and the vast majority of experts) that doesn't support this pre-decided conclusion.
The posts above about population control are a good illustration.
Unsupported conclusion: "Of course the elite care about people dying in the name of depopulation, why did they etch out the Georgia Guidestones then"
I then supplied charts detailing the actual data and actual trends in population change across the world over the last 60 years.
To which the response is... what? The response is nothing, because the conspiracy theorist does not accept the data I've shared, because it doesn't fit his pre-decided conclusion. Therefore the evidence I've shared is either ignored, or is dismissed as fake in some way (without, of course, supplying any evidence to support the claim that it's fraudulent).
Covid lockdowns saved lives, the evidence, as I've shared many times, is perfectly clear. Anyone who chooses to dismiss evidence without good reason is misleading themselves.
Anyone who was against lockdowns, against social distancing, against masks... is against these things from an ideological perspective, not from a reasoned perspective based on a genuine consideration of the data.