4 ms·

You pretty obviously can argue with people who don't argue in good faith. When they shift the goal posts call attention to it, explain it, and then meet them wh

You pretty obviously can argue with people who don't argue in good faith. When they shift the goal posts call attention to it, explain it, and then meet them where they are at. People watching will see the other party being duplicitous. I'm imagining YouTube or the government or whoever hiring some informed experts and inviting the vaccine hesitant on for debates. Let them make whatever arguments they want and when they are absurd or move the goalposts point it out. Are medical doctors X, Y, and Z, selected for being informed and skilled orators going to be outdebated by the likes of Alex Jones? Why can't we have some experts who just engage with the conspiracy theory stuff, not sneeringly but just dispassionately. I don't think this would convince everyone. I don't think convincing everyone should be the goal. I do think it would convince more people than the current approach though and it would be more in keeping with free speech ideals.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
I would pay a lot to watch this and other content like it. Exhaustive rebuttals that painstakingly enumerate over the minute, and ultimately unimportant, arguments fully refuting the hair brained arguments we’ve all seen shouted without an a drop of critical analysis behind them. Good luck getting an anti vaxxer to agree to an argument that’ll have to take place over months to allow time for proper research and production to occur.
chrischen 5y ago
People do regularly debate, debunk, and directly answer the conspiracy theory stuff. Plus, if there's a statement made that an invisible unicorn is controlling the world, how am I supposed to debunk that? The debunking stuff just isn't content interesting these people who are not seeking it out.
etchalon 5y ago
People argue with anti-vaxxers every day on social media. It doesn't change any minds.
Jenda_ 5y ago
I feel there are enough debates with flat-earthers, climate change deniers, covid-deniers, anti-vaxers etc. and it leads to nowhere. (at least in .cz) The same applies to other topics, for example some time ago there was Internet censorship in .cz widely discussed (a topic where I can be, given my education and job, absolutely sure what things are nonsense from the technical point of view), and I think the problem is arguments from the "objectively correct" side are indistinguishable to a layperson from the "crafted nonsense". For a layperson to make sense of such arguments, at least a several hours long lecture explaining the concepts would be needed (in case of vaccines: DNA replication, proteosynthesis, folding, antigens and immune reactions…; in the case of internet censorship: routing, DNS, HTTPS, SNI…), which is impossible to do in a "debate", we have "lectures" for this. Otherwise, they simply cannot get the arguments and why the other side is wrong, by other means than faith. And yes, of course there are many websites, free online textbooks and recorded lectures explaining such concepts available to anyone willing to spend some time on it. Even in Czech, so no language barrier.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago

I would pay a lot to watch this and other content like it. Exhaustive rebuttals that painstakingly enumerate over the minute, and ultimately unimportant, arguments fully refuting the hair brained arguments we’ve all seen shouted without an a drop of critical analysis behind them. Good luck getting an anti vaxxer to agree to an argument that’ll have to take place over months to allow time for proper research and production to occur.

chrischen 5y ago

People do regularly debate, debunk, and directly answer the conspiracy theory stuff. Plus, if there's a statement made that an invisible unicorn is controlling the world, how am I supposed to debunk that? The debunking stuff just isn't content interesting these people who are not seeking it out.

etchalon 5y ago

People argue with anti-vaxxers every day on social media. It doesn't change any minds.

Jenda_ 5y ago

I feel there are enough debates with flat-earthers, climate change deniers, covid-deniers, anti-vaxers etc. and it leads to nowhere. (at least in .cz) The same applies to other topics, for example some time ago there was Internet censorship in .cz widely discussed (a topic where I can be, given my education and job, absolutely sure what things are nonsense from the technical point of view), and I think the problem is arguments from the "objectively correct" side are indistinguishable to a layperson from the "crafted nonsense". For a layperson to make sense of such arguments, at least a several hours long lecture explaining the concepts would be needed (in case of vaccines: DNA replication, proteosynthesis, folding, antigens and immune reactions…; in the case of internet censorship: routing, DNS, HTTPS, SNI…), which is impossible to do in a "debate", we have "lectures" for this. Otherwise, they simply cannot get the arguments and why the other side is wrong, by other means than faith. And yes, of course there are many websites, free online textbooks and recorded lectures explaining such concepts available to anyone willing to spend some time on it. Even in Czech, so no language barrier.