4 ms·

What I find very disappointing is that instead of addressing this misinformation and actively informing the people as well explaining to them (without being con

What I find very disappointing is that instead of addressing this misinformation and actively informing the people as well explaining to them (without being condescending, a huge issue IMO) why what is being reported is untrue we decided to just ban these people from discourse fueling the conspiracies. Things are not always black and white and we as a nation need to understand that. Nothing is 100% but that is ok. No one is 100% good or evil, we all have our flaws and we need to deal with that. Only because someone believes something "stupid" doesn't make them unable to change their mind. I have talked to many who did not want to get vaccinated. I never told them they should, I respect their choice. I did inform them and answer uncertainties that they heard about and had. I also listened and acknowledged the concerns they had, even ones that are completely baseless but I was diplomatic about it. You can tell someone they are wrong without throwing it in their face or making them feel like an idiot. To my surprise a lot of these people ended up getting vaccinated which was never really a goal of mine. EDIT: if you are down voting me please explain why.

nabla9 5y ago
When people argue in bad faith, there is no reason to engage with them. Just shun them and shut them off.
- sschueller 5y ago
  Isn't that in the end going to result in civil war if that shunted out crowed gets too large? I have to disagree, sure some are arguing just for the sake of it but the majority are not. They get bits and pieces of the discord and don't really know what is going on. No bad faith there.
  - Applejinx 5y ago
    When people are arguing in bad faith to seize political power, they're going to go for civil war anyhow. They're stepping away from negotiation and committing to war. It's fair to ask how intensely you react to it (no sense becoming mirror fascists, which the fascists will immediately accuse you of being anyhow) but it's not reasonable to ignore the reality.
kitsunesoba 5y ago
Anecdotes and all, but in my experience anti-vaxxers and the like often have a nearly religious zeal about their beliefs that makes them extremely difficult to have a productive conversation with. I’ve tried the sort of level headed, patient approach you mention and it practically never works — they don’t want to be convinced, or even hear anything that opposes what they think. And oddly, it’s not just the ones who are arguing in bad faith who are like this. It seems to affect anybody who’s went to do “research” and stumbled upon the mountains of disinformation. The handful of people who are uncertain and haven’t been taken in by disinformation are somewhat reasonable to talk with, but they’re a vanishingly small group. The mind closing aspect of the conspiracy stuff is wildly infectious.
- User23 5y ago
  Given that most people are idiots, you can expect to find plenty of idiot anti-vaxxers. I've met quite a few who are far from being idiots though. For example the infamous Marin county anti-vaxxers were defecting in a prisoner's dilemma type game. They got all the benefits of vaccination since herd immunity existed in the school system and none of the risks that pharmaceutical intervention carries. So as a selfish risk minimization and benefit maximization strategy that anti-vaxxing behavior was entirely rational and indeed locally optimal. Other anti-vaxxers are capable of distinguishing between a therapy that's been used widely in the general public for decades, and thus has decades of data supporting that the intervention carries less risk than the disease, and a therapy for a disease that was rushed out in under a year and still hasn't been approved by the FDA for a disease that's known to carry minimal risk to those under the age of 40 without comorbidities. Now you can smugly say well I know the risks better and these people are religious fanatics, but really, you don't. Nobody knows the long term risks and benefits of the mRNA interventions because they have never been used in the long term. Vaccine development has historically taken about 10-15 years, so it's far from irrational to have doubts when it was done in under a year. Edit: If any of the above is logically fallacious or based on misinformation please reply. I am willing to have my mind changed by dialectic.

nabla9 5y ago

When people argue in bad faith, there is no reason to engage with them. Just shun them and shut them off.

sschueller 5y ago
Isn't that in the end going to result in civil war if that shunted out crowed gets too large? I have to disagree, sure some are arguing just for the sake of it but the majority are not. They get bits and pieces of the discord and don't really know what is going on. No bad faith there.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  When people are arguing in bad faith to seize political power, they're going to go for civil war anyhow. They're stepping away from negotiation and committing to war. It's fair to ask how intensely you react to it (no sense becoming mirror fascists, which the fascists will immediately accuse you of being anyhow) but it's not reasonable to ignore the reality.

kitsunesoba 5y ago

Anecdotes and all, but in my experience anti-vaxxers and the like often have a nearly religious zeal about their beliefs that makes them extremely difficult to have a productive conversation with. I’ve tried the sort of level headed, patient approach you mention and it practically never works — they don’t want to be convinced, or even hear anything that opposes what they think. And oddly, it’s not just the ones who are arguing in bad faith who are like this. It seems to affect anybody who’s went to do “research” and stumbled upon the mountains of disinformation. The handful of people who are uncertain and haven’t been taken in by disinformation are somewhat reasonable to talk with, but they’re a vanishingly small group. The mind closing aspect of the conspiracy stuff is wildly infectious.

User23 5y ago
Given that most people are idiots, you can expect to find plenty of idiot anti-vaxxers. I've met quite a few who are far from being idiots though. For example the infamous Marin county anti-vaxxers were defecting in a prisoner's dilemma type game. They got all the benefits of vaccination since herd immunity existed in the school system and none of the risks that pharmaceutical intervention carries. So as a selfish risk minimization and benefit maximization strategy that anti-vaxxing behavior was entirely rational and indeed locally optimal. Other anti-vaxxers are capable of distinguishing between a therapy that's been used widely in the general public for decades, and thus has decades of data supporting that the intervention carries less risk than the disease, and a therapy for a disease that was rushed out in under a year and still hasn't been approved by the FDA for a disease that's known to carry minimal risk to those under the age of 40 without comorbidities. Now you can smugly say well I know the risks better and these people are religious fanatics, but really, you don't. Nobody knows the long term risks and benefits of the mRNA interventions because they have never been used in the long term. Vaccine development has historically taken about 10-15 years, so it's far from irrational to have doubts when it was done in under a year. Edit: If any of the above is logically fallacious or based on misinformation please reply. I am willing to have my mind changed by dialectic.