4 ms·
I probably could have worded that a bit more clearly. I was trying to make the argument that there is an anti-truth faction and that this faction is currently i
by raphlinus 6y ago
I probably could have worded that a bit more clearly. I was trying to make the argument that there is an anti-truth faction and that this faction is currently in a much stronger alliance with the right. I'm under no illusions that it's exclusive to the right, though, and was thinking of adding a section on anti-vax to clarify this.
In any case, I wanted to stay away from reflexive both-siderism as I've most often seen it used as a bad faith argument.
- hihoheythere 6y agoRespect
- exmadscientist 6y agoAs someone who agrees in sentiment with GP (but leans similarly to you), I thought you communicated that well enough in the article. For what little my opinion's worth.
- neel_k 6y agoNowadays anti-vaccinantion is substantially a marker for being on the right, since Donald Trump ran for president while making anti-vaccination claims. This tremendously increased the popularity of antivax ideas on the right. See "Donald Trump and vaccination: The effect of political identity, conspiracist ideation and presidential tweets on vaccine hesitancy" in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103119302628 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00221...