> Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to

> Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to those who simply have stopped engaging. I agree that there are level of distrust, but these are not separate categories. > Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition. Why is it relevant to attack people who disagree with mainstream views as ‘untrustworthy by definition’? Being wrong or misguided doesn’t make someone untrustworthy. > That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us." It’s not clear what point you are making here. > Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible. Now you are changing the goalposts. Skepticism is not the same as distrust and not something I have mentioned.