5 ms·

What do you gain by insulting them and calling them idiots? What if it just makes them even worse? Not saying they don't fit the definition... but maybe the re

What do you gain by insulting them and calling them idiots? What if it just makes them even worse? Not saying they don't fit the definition... but maybe the reaction doesn't actually help.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
titzer 6y ago
In every society since the dawn of man, certain things carried a social cost. In our society, advocating idiotic conspiracies should carry, IMHO, a social cost of feeling embarrassed and stupid. Frankly.
- dandellion 6y ago
  At this point I'm not sure they're capable of feeling embarrassed or stupid. They get all riled up and start acting out, but it doesn't look like insulting and embarrassing them is working...
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Surprise surprise, amplifying division just further amplifies division. We're hearing this: A: "I'm dying inside because of lockdown. I can't work and I'm this close to the end of my rope." Should the response be this? B: "People are dying outside because of COVID. I don't care about your pain. You are an idiot." A: [storms capitol] Or this? B: "This sucks all around for sure. Your pain is real, and I feel it too. The tradeoffs made by society as a whole based on available data are X Y and Z, but here's a list of things you can do for now to help make ends meet and keep it together...." A: "Thanks, I'm glad we're able to help one another out."
    - dandellion 6y ago
      Of course, some people can't be reasoned with and others will just go off the handle because they're crazy. There's no point in being nice to those, but people forget about all the others that are not far gone and we could help them to understand. That's never going to happen if we start every sentence by calling them idiots right off the bat.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        Even the unreasonable and the crazy are likely to have better outcomes if treated with some dignity rather than open rudeness. I'm not saying I'm great at it, but "I think you're wrong, here's why, maybe we can find the root of our disagreement in either differing values or differing/incomplete data" probably works better than "you are an idiot" or "your views are idiotic".
    - intended 6y ago
      While valid, this argument can only apply in a different information reality than our current world. The pace of interaction and information has simply overwhelmed the ability of human one on one interaction. Most of our actions are with a mobile phone near us, meaning that the social sphere is directly with us and only a twitter/FB/Reddit/HN glance away. Doesn't even help that the sites are designed to be competitively addictive on top of it. IF that is the case - no matter how much you listen to someone, a few seconds after they return to their phone they are part of the new outrage cycle. Do note that the whole thing above is doable with cable television as well. IF your uncle goes back home to listen to X TV channel day in and day out, your one on one interaction is going to only have a tiny impact. The saddest part of what tech has created is a faster pace of communication that is orienting itself inimically to slower one on one human interaction. Even this para above is built with the idea that parts of it will be broken off by people who read it and then reused later on. It's not a conversation with just the person I am responding to, but to everyone else reading it.
    - d4mi3n 6y ago
      This misses an important fact: not everyone is acting in good faith and what should have been a discussion on public health policy has been turned into a political football. Good on you if you can help people who are struggling, but recognize that when people push back against the lockdown there are often ideological factors in play.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  The thing about conspiracy theorists is they feel smug and intelligent when you call them out.

What do you gain by insulting them and calling them idiots? What if it just makes them even worse? Not saying they don't fit the definition... but maybe the reaction doesn't actually help.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

titzer 6y ago

In every society since the dawn of man, certain things carried a social cost. In our society, advocating idiotic conspiracies should carry, IMHO, a social cost of feeling embarrassed and stupid. Frankly.

dandellion 6y ago
At this point I'm not sure they're capable of feeling embarrassed or stupid. They get all riled up and start acting out, but it doesn't look like insulting and embarrassing them is working...
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Surprise surprise, amplifying division just further amplifies division. We're hearing this: A: "I'm dying inside because of lockdown. I can't work and I'm this close to the end of my rope." Should the response be this? B: "People are dying outside because of COVID. I don't care about your pain. You are an idiot." A: [storms capitol] Or this? B: "This sucks all around for sure. Your pain is real, and I feel it too. The tradeoffs made by society as a whole based on available data are X Y and Z, but here's a list of things you can do for now to help make ends meet and keep it together...." A: "Thanks, I'm glad we're able to help one another out."
  - dandellion 6y ago
    Of course, some people can't be reasoned with and others will just go off the handle because they're crazy. There's no point in being nice to those, but people forget about all the others that are not far gone and we could help them to understand. That's never going to happen if we start every sentence by calling them idiots right off the bat.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      Even the unreasonable and the crazy are likely to have better outcomes if treated with some dignity rather than open rudeness. I'm not saying I'm great at it, but "I think you're wrong, here's why, maybe we can find the root of our disagreement in either differing values or differing/incomplete data" probably works better than "you are an idiot" or "your views are idiotic".
  - intended 6y ago
    While valid, this argument can only apply in a different information reality than our current world. The pace of interaction and information has simply overwhelmed the ability of human one on one interaction. Most of our actions are with a mobile phone near us, meaning that the social sphere is directly with us and only a twitter/FB/Reddit/HN glance away. Doesn't even help that the sites are designed to be competitively addictive on top of it. IF that is the case - no matter how much you listen to someone, a few seconds after they return to their phone they are part of the new outrage cycle. Do note that the whole thing above is doable with cable television as well. IF your uncle goes back home to listen to X TV channel day in and day out, your one on one interaction is going to only have a tiny impact. The saddest part of what tech has created is a faster pace of communication that is orienting itself inimically to slower one on one human interaction. Even this para above is built with the idea that parts of it will be broken off by people who read it and then reused later on. It's not a conversation with just the person I am responding to, but to everyone else reading it.
  - d4mi3n 6y ago
    This misses an important fact: not everyone is acting in good faith and what should have been a discussion on public health policy has been turned into a political football. Good on you if you can help people who are struggling, but recognize that when people push back against the lockdown there are often ideological factors in play.
lordnacho 6y ago
The thing about conspiracy theorists is they feel smug and intelligent when you call them out.