6 ms·
I maybe wrong in thinking about this way, but in the 1970s people were debating over topics that were debatable. Vietnam for example, an argument can be made it
by matwood 7y ago
I maybe wrong in thinking about this way, but in the 1970s people were debating over topics that were debatable. Vietnam for example, an argument can be made it was the right move to get involved. And, an argument can be made it was a mistake. Same with socialism vs. capitalism and a myriad of other large, complex topics.
Now the divide is around the basics of the scientific method. People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help. They think that hydrochloroquine is a wunderdrug and Bill Gates is suppressing its use so he can make more money. I see disagreements that are not arguable on any merit.
I pointed out to someone on social media the other day that the post they were sharing was objectively fake news (with links to proof). They responded that they didn't care because they believed it anyway. Is that a divide that can even be crossed?
- zepto 7y agoDon’t we just hear about that now because of the internet? In the 1970’s we just didn’t know what people were thinking.
- rootsudo 7y agoDoesn't make it different, so now we have feedback and people who aren't experts having a voice where fifty years ago people were vetted, from personal networks before they went live on TV and say anything. Less filters, and no governance.
- beervirus 7y ago> Now the divide is around the basics of the scientific method. People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help. They think that hydrochloroquine is a wunderdrug and Bill Gates is suppressing its use so he can make more money. I see disagreements that are not arguable on any merit. The number of people who believe stuff like this is vanishingly small. They're just vocal in their ignorance.
- Animats 7y agoThe number of people who believe stuff like this is vanishingly small. Unfortunately, it's not.[1] [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-05-08/poll-1-in-4-americans-say-they-will-not-get-a-coronavirus-vaccine https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-05-0...
- matwood 7y agoI hadn't seen that, thanks for depressing me even more on a Friday. Looking at the downvotes to my post, some of those 25% are also on HN.
- forgotmylogin2 7y ago24% of people choosing not to get a vaccine that doesn't even exist yet is significantly different from what was alleged in the parent comment, which was: > People think that vaccines have killed more people than they help A lot of people would choose not get a vaccine simply because they don't like needles, not because they think the vaccine is likely to kill them.
- curtis3389 7y agoI'd like to believe that. Is there any evidence to support the assertion that number of Americans that believe provable falsehoods is "vanishingly small"?
- benrbray 7y agoThey're vocal because social media encourages them to be. They tweet out their crazy views and by dinnertime it's all over CNN and millions of people are suddenly listening to them.
- matz1 7y agoEvery topics is debatable, on the basis that no everyone think the same way, even scientific method. You would think mathematical statement such as 1+1=2 is obviously true, the absolute truth ? No, its still very much debatable, people can argue how to define '1','2','+', what axiom to use, etc.
- kvnnews 7y agoThis is exactly the point. What's happening today is that discussion of any topic of consequence is considered taboo. The main stream is largely shutting down debate by labeling people without ever actually addressing the claims made by those same people. If their claims are so ridiculous you should be able to make a cohesive argument against them without resorting to personal attacks or other logical fallacy arguments.