3 ms·

^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse these days? I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable discourse. I guess the former is easie

by yters 8y ago

^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse these days? I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable discourse. I guess the former is easier. Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength.

wtallis 8y ago
> Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength. You only see mass shaming because there are large populations that are publicly rejecting the articulate and even-handed communication that they've been receiving for their entire lives from their doctors and the CDC. To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational discourse you pretend isn't being attempted.
- bArray 8y ago
  > To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage > with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are > almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational > discourse you pretend isn't being attempted. Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Something is very wrong when we decide to give up on our fellow humans.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    > Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Last time I checked, all the experts are still providing the same expert advice to get vaccinated. The shaming has not displaced any of that, and most of the shaming seems to take the form of telling people that they're doing a bad thing by rejecting the advice of their doctor or encouraging others to do so.
    - yters 8y ago
      Experts used to unanimously give the same expert advice to perform eugenics, apply leeches, identify moral character from head bumps, etc. Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        > Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts. The patchy history of expert advice from the days before science was routinely used in medicine is not particularly relevant here. Today's expert advice about vaccination has a far stronger foundation of evidence than any of the superstitions you named. If we were talking about dietary recommendations or even psychology then it would be a lot less ridiculous to bring up leeches or phrenology, but in the context of vaccination you're being dishonest by implying any sort of equivalency.
bArray 8y ago
> ^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse > these days? Given the negative internet points on my comment, apparently everything, although no strong argument in the comments. Take from that what you will. > I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable > discourse. I guess the former is easier. I argue with friends and family on social media because I care about them, in the same way some religious person may try to convert you because they are concerned for your soul. We seem to be suffering a lack of empathy, at least in these comments. > Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the > weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed > communication signals great strength. Not only this, but negative reward without reason and "de-platforming" in my opinion are more likely to lead towards doubling down. If we kick all the anti-vaxxers off Facebook, they will likely all go to a forum where they receive only counter arguments in the form of trolls and use the fact they were removed as "evidence" of conspiracy.

by yters 8y ago

wtallis 8y ago

> Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed communication signals great strength. You only see mass shaming because there are large populations that are publicly rejecting the articulate and even-handed communication that they've been receiving for their entire lives from their doctors and the CDC. To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational discourse you pretend isn't being attempted.

bArray 8y ago
> To a large extent, anti-vaxxers are only willing to engage > with the issue in an emotional, irrational way and they are > almost by definition unreceptive to the kind of rational > discourse you pretend isn't being attempted. Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Something is very wrong when we decide to give up on our fellow humans.
- wtallis 8y ago
  > Maybe you are correct, but I don't think it's reason to stop trying. Last time I checked, all the experts are still providing the same expert advice to get vaccinated. The shaming has not displaced any of that, and most of the shaming seems to take the form of telling people that they're doing a bad thing by rejecting the advice of their doctor or encouraging others to do so.
  - yters 8y ago
    Experts used to unanimously give the same expert advice to perform eugenics, apply leeches, identify moral character from head bumps, etc. Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > Certainly there must be some room for reasonable disagreement even if the experts are unanimous, given the patchy history of experts. The patchy history of expert advice from the days before science was routinely used in medicine is not particularly relevant here. Today's expert advice about vaccination has a far stronger foundation of evidence than any of the superstitions you named. If we were talking about dietary recommendations or even psychology then it would be a lot less ridiculous to bring up leeches or phrenology, but in the context of vaccination you're being dishonest by implying any sort of equivalency.

bArray 8y ago

> ^ This! What is wrong with having reasonable discourse > these days? Given the negative internet points on my comment, apparently everything, although no strong argument in the comments. Take from that what you will. > I most often see mass shaming instead of reasonable > discourse. I guess the former is easier. I argue with friends and family on social media because I care about them, in the same way some religious person may try to convert you because they are concerned for your soul. We seem to be suffering a lack of empathy, at least in these comments. > Mass shaming, at least to me, signals the shamers have the > weaker argument. Whereas articulate and even handed > communication signals great strength. Not only this, but negative reward without reason and "de-platforming" in my opinion are more likely to lead towards doubling down. If we kick all the anti-vaxxers off Facebook, they will likely all go to a forum where they receive only counter arguments in the form of trolls and use the fact they were removed as "evidence" of conspiracy.