40 ms·

Responding to skepticism with hostility does nothing except make you feel better. And further convince the skeptics that you're wrong. After all, if you'll try

Responding to skepticism with hostility does nothing except make you feel better. And further convince the skeptics that you're wrong. After all, if you'll try to tell them that their own lived experience is a lie, why should they believe anything you tell them?

eganist 5y ago
> Responding to skepticism with hostility does nothing except make you feel better. And further convince the skeptics that you're wrong. After all, if you'll try to tell them that their own lived experience is a lie, why should they believe anything you tell them? I hear you, though it's not an effort at convincing the OP employing manipulative communication. It's an effort at highlighting the manipulation—with references—so that vulnerable readers are informed and inoculated against it. Unlike OP's comment, scientific skepticism simply seeks information, insight, and references in order to inform their own opinions rather than making assumptions on faith.
- trhway 5y ago
  >the OP employing manipulative communication. > ... it's an effort at highlighting the manipulation—with references—so that vulnerable readers are informed and inoculated against it. as i've already shown (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720) you invented the "manipulation", ie. you generated misinformation, and you're clearly acknowledging here that you're using that misinformation in order to affect "vulnerable readers", ie. for propaganda purposes.
  - eganist 5y ago
    > as i already pointed out you invented the "manipulation", ie. you generated misinformation, and you're clearly acknowledge here that you're using that misinformation in order to affect "vulnerable readers", ie. for propaganda purposes. I was clear in providing citations. At this point, you need to provide your own backing for all the other vaccines you've supported, such as the flu vaccine, MMR, etc. if you want to lend credibility to the idea that you're not broadly anti-vaccine. Thing is, even if you're against new-technology vaccines, we have numerous old-technology vaccines following the same paradigms used to make the vaccines I mentioned above (AZ, JJ, etc). Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. I don't see this conversation between you and me being any more productive. Sock puppetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account) is a pretty established pattern, and it's easily defeated by asking people to provide their sources, something you haven't done with your assertions against the COVID-19 vaccines. Cheers, mate. I wish you the best.
    - trhway 5y ago
      you've got caught generating misinformation, and now you're clearly deflecting. >I was clear in providing citations. All the citations/links you brought in were to build a house of cards of your pet narrative on top of a factually wrong false statement you generated about me out of nothing. You generated that false statement in order to be able to apply those citations. Without that foundational false statement your citations didn't make sense. Now, once you've got caught (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720) by me showing that you just casually generated that misinformation, you're trying to drown that fact under the pile of the long winded meaningless word-abouts like this gem here: >Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. It is a classic device of propaganda - equating risk-benefit analysis unfavorable in a specific narrow situation (a healthy very low risk group in this case) with blanket non-acceptance ("broadly anti-covid-vaccine"). Like back in the USSR - "You don't like the absence of hot water?! You're anti-Soviet!" It is strange that you didn't notice that propaganda device description among your "manipulation" describing links. It is pretty clear that you're trying to paint me, against the already demonstrated facts, as an anti-vaxxer in order to undermine whatever i was saying. I think you'll be able to find on your own a link describing that fallacy.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      >Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. You're assuming everyone has the same knowledge base as you and then inferring their decision making process from that. More likely is that people have formed broad opinions about a new event based on scattered information. That's the sort of information that would be helpful to provide, not Wikipedia pages to generalized propaganda techniques.
      - eganist 5y ago
        > You're assuming everyone has the same knowledge base as you and then inferring their decision making process from that. More likely is that people have formed broad opinions about a new event based on scattered information. That's the sort of information that would be helpful to provide, not Wikipedia pages to generalized propaganda techniques. Hey, thanks for that. This helped me rethink and understand the entire conversation. I'm not sure how much more effective new information or facts would be either, in hindsight, but it did remind me of an old publication (not research, I should add) discussing the use of personal narratives and stories to fight vaccine misinformation: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/hv.24828 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/hv.24828 Possibly effective against other forms of misinformation too. Sadly, I'm too buried in the facts and not enough of a storyteller to be effective here.

eganist 5y ago

> Responding to skepticism with hostility does nothing except make you feel better. And further convince the skeptics that you're wrong. After all, if you'll try to tell them that their own lived experience is a lie, why should they believe anything you tell them? I hear you, though it's not an effort at convincing the OP employing manipulative communication. It's an effort at highlighting the manipulation—with references—so that vulnerable readers are informed and inoculated against it. Unlike OP's comment, scientific skepticism simply seeks information, insight, and references in order to inform their own opinions rather than making assumptions on faith.

trhway 5y ago
>the OP employing manipulative communication. > ... it's an effort at highlighting the manipulation—with references—so that vulnerable readers are informed and inoculated against it. as i've already shown (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720) you invented the "manipulation", ie. you generated misinformation, and you're clearly acknowledging here that you're using that misinformation in order to affect "vulnerable readers", ie. for propaganda purposes.
- eganist 5y ago
  > as i already pointed out you invented the "manipulation", ie. you generated misinformation, and you're clearly acknowledge here that you're using that misinformation in order to affect "vulnerable readers", ie. for propaganda purposes. I was clear in providing citations. At this point, you need to provide your own backing for all the other vaccines you've supported, such as the flu vaccine, MMR, etc. if you want to lend credibility to the idea that you're not broadly anti-vaccine. Thing is, even if you're against new-technology vaccines, we have numerous old-technology vaccines following the same paradigms used to make the vaccines I mentioned above (AZ, JJ, etc). Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. I don't see this conversation between you and me being any more productive. Sock puppetry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sock_puppet_account) is a pretty established pattern, and it's easily defeated by asking people to provide their sources, something you haven't done with your assertions against the COVID-19 vaccines. Cheers, mate. I wish you the best.
  - trhway 5y ago
    you've got caught generating misinformation, and now you're clearly deflecting. >I was clear in providing citations. All the citations/links you brought in were to build a house of cards of your pet narrative on top of a factually wrong false statement you generated about me out of nothing. You generated that false statement in order to be able to apply those citations. Without that foundational false statement your citations didn't make sense. Now, once you've got caught (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27467720) by me showing that you just casually generated that misinformation, you're trying to drown that fact under the pile of the long winded meaningless word-abouts like this gem here: >Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. It is a classic device of propaganda - equating risk-benefit analysis unfavorable in a specific narrow situation (a healthy very low risk group in this case) with blanket non-acceptance ("broadly anti-covid-vaccine"). Like back in the USSR - "You don't like the absence of hot water?! You're anti-Soviet!" It is strange that you didn't notice that propaganda device description among your "manipulation" describing links. It is pretty clear that you're trying to paint me, against the already demonstrated facts, as an anti-vaxxer in order to undermine whatever i was saying. I think you'll be able to find on your own a link describing that fallacy.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >Being broadly anti-covid-vaccine essentially acknowledges holding generalized anti-vaccine opinions since the majority of vaccines on the market make use of legacy manufacturing techniques. You're assuming everyone has the same knowledge base as you and then inferring their decision making process from that. More likely is that people have formed broad opinions about a new event based on scattered information. That's the sort of information that would be helpful to provide, not Wikipedia pages to generalized propaganda techniques.
    - eganist 5y ago
      > You're assuming everyone has the same knowledge base as you and then inferring their decision making process from that. More likely is that people have formed broad opinions about a new event based on scattered information. That's the sort of information that would be helpful to provide, not Wikipedia pages to generalized propaganda techniques. Hey, thanks for that. This helped me rethink and understand the entire conversation. I'm not sure how much more effective new information or facts would be either, in hindsight, but it did remind me of an old publication (not research, I should add) discussing the use of personal narratives and stories to fight vaccine misinformation: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/hv.24828 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4161/hv.24828 Possibly effective against other forms of misinformation too. Sadly, I'm too buried in the facts and not enough of a storyteller to be effective here.