4 ms·

I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon

I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!

gorgoiler 6y ago
Have you used this in real life, and how did it go?
- wintorez 6y ago
  I actually did. Not for the moon landing though. It basically frustrates the person to the point that they begin questioning their own conspiracy theory. Sometimes you need to hold a mirror in front of people to see themselves.
  - slazaro 6y ago
    But from their point of view, were you totally serious, or was it obvious that you were just taking an absurd stance for the sake of an extreme counter-example, tongue in cheek?
    - wintorez 6y ago
      I had to sound serious. I argued the whole night that New York is not a real city, and is a fictional place created by Marvel, like Gotham is created by DC. Nothing would convince me otherwise. Satellite images? Fake! Maps? Obviously fictional, like maps of middle earth. Videos? All filmed in Toronto!
      - wintorez 6y ago
        In case you were wondering why? My aim was to make the other person do some actual “research” to prove to me that I was wrong. Once you learn how to do that, you will find your way out of your own conspiracy theories as well.
rafaelreinert 6y ago
I will try it next time haha - the earth is flat! - what earth ?!
moksly 6y ago
The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen.
- wintorez 6y ago
  I agree, that would be a better way. This is more like fighting fire with fire.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. That's probably the most succinct description of rhetoric using the Socratic method I have seen to date; highlighting the way its used in effective discourse is as a guide to a conclusion rather than an argument. Very well put. > Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen. Agreed. But even in Plato's time this was rare, too. Which is why The Republic was written the way that it was: a Philosophical discourse approached with this method in mind told via (hypothetical?) dialogue(s) amongst other Philosophers and eventually members of the State to reveal a premise that most could arrive on their own with enough inquiry as to the onerous Nature of the State--even in it's ideal portrayal of the coming Golden Age of the Hellenic Era ushered in by Alexander--and 'good.' It could have been written merely as proofs with the elucidation of its applications and usecases, as was typical of the time, but instead it took the time to navigate the reader on the likely rebuttals and discourses one may encounter when exploring the Nature of the topic. To this day I think it stands the time as the most seminal work(s) on Anarchism, it took me 5 readings of all of the books: the first being when I was a sophomore in High School still exploring the ideology and the last being after the death of Grothendieck. Which is probably contrary to what Plato wanted as he himself was an aristocrat who benefited greatly due to his status and standing in Athenian Society that was only possible because of the centralized power of the Athenian-Polis. All of Plato's work before or since were not comparable and Diogenes, who Plato referred to as 'Socrates gone mad' but also one of the most dedicated Moral Ethicists to have ever existed in my view, was there to remind him of the futility of it.
perilunar 6y ago
I find the best option is simply asking someone (or yourself for that matter) 'what evidence would you need to see for you to change your opinion on X?'
- wintorez 6y ago
  Unfortunately in most cases, people are so entrenched in their opinions that it’s impossible to penetrate it from outside.
RealStickman_ 6y ago
I believe in compromises. https://xkcd.com/690/ https://xkcd.com/690/
- wintorez 6y ago
  I believe in absurd. "You think New York is a real place?"

I read it somewhere that the best way to respond to conspiracy theorist is to make a more outlandish claim: - Moon landing was fake. - You believe in the Moon?!

gorgoiler 6y ago

Have you used this in real life, and how did it go?

wintorez 6y ago
I actually did. Not for the moon landing though. It basically frustrates the person to the point that they begin questioning their own conspiracy theory. Sometimes you need to hold a mirror in front of people to see themselves.
- slazaro 6y ago
  But from their point of view, were you totally serious, or was it obvious that you were just taking an absurd stance for the sake of an extreme counter-example, tongue in cheek?
  - wintorez 6y ago
    I had to sound serious. I argued the whole night that New York is not a real city, and is a fictional place created by Marvel, like Gotham is created by DC. Nothing would convince me otherwise. Satellite images? Fake! Maps? Obviously fictional, like maps of middle earth. Videos? All filmed in Toronto!
    - wintorez 6y ago
      In case you were wondering why? My aim was to make the other person do some actual “research” to prove to me that I was wrong. Once you learn how to do that, you will find your way out of your own conspiracy theories as well.

rafaelreinert 6y ago

I will try it next time haha - the earth is flat! - what earth ?!

moksly 6y ago

The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen.

wintorez 6y ago
I agree, that would be a better way. This is more like fighting fire with fire.
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> The best way is to use the Socratic method, if you have a lot of time. If you throw enough wilful ignorance, compliments, kindness, genuine interest and an endless amount of questions at someone, you’ll eventually get them arguing with them selves. It’s really the only way to move someone, because you’re not really convincing them of anything, they are doing that themselves. That's probably the most succinct description of rhetoric using the Socratic method I have seen to date; highlighting the way its used in effective discourse is as a guide to a conclusion rather than an argument. Very well put. > Of course in the modern day and age, such a conversation is rarely going to happen. Agreed. But even in Plato's time this was rare, too. Which is why The Republic was written the way that it was: a Philosophical discourse approached with this method in mind told via (hypothetical?) dialogue(s) amongst other Philosophers and eventually members of the State to reveal a premise that most could arrive on their own with enough inquiry as to the onerous Nature of the State--even in it's ideal portrayal of the coming Golden Age of the Hellenic Era ushered in by Alexander--and 'good.' It could have been written merely as proofs with the elucidation of its applications and usecases, as was typical of the time, but instead it took the time to navigate the reader on the likely rebuttals and discourses one may encounter when exploring the Nature of the topic. To this day I think it stands the time as the most seminal work(s) on Anarchism, it took me 5 readings of all of the books: the first being when I was a sophomore in High School still exploring the ideology and the last being after the death of Grothendieck. Which is probably contrary to what Plato wanted as he himself was an aristocrat who benefited greatly due to his status and standing in Athenian Society that was only possible because of the centralized power of the Athenian-Polis. All of Plato's work before or since were not comparable and Diogenes, who Plato referred to as 'Socrates gone mad' but also one of the most dedicated Moral Ethicists to have ever existed in my view, was there to remind him of the futility of it.

perilunar 6y ago

I find the best option is simply asking someone (or yourself for that matter) 'what evidence would you need to see for you to change your opinion on X?'

wintorez 6y ago
Unfortunately in most cases, people are so entrenched in their opinions that it’s impossible to penetrate it from outside.

RealStickman_ 6y ago

I believe in compromises. https://xkcd.com/690/ https://xkcd.com/690/

wintorez 6y ago
I believe in absurd. "You think New York is a real place?"