5 ms·

Even without any scientific background, you can see that the denialism is really fishy. The denialism stinks. Those that are antivaxx, are also climate deniers

by aritmo 5y ago

Even without any scientific background, you can see that the denialism is really fishy. The denialism stinks. Those that are antivaxx, are also climate deniers. To the core.

adamrezich 5y ago
I find it interesting that you correlate these two things and that your instinctual reaction to those who hold such beliefs is suspicion, distrust, and a general negative value judgement on the individual, as opposed to understanding, empathy, and acceptance of worldviews other than your own. this kind of behavior seems increasingly common and downright socially acceptable with regards to these topics and a few key others—it's a fascinating phenomenon to witness. most people are mostly good people, regardless of whether they agree with you on things such as these. it probably wouldn't hurt to reflect on where such dogmatic negative generalizations about large swaths of people you've never met stem from internally, because it's not a very productive lens to view the world through (again, despite being increasingly common and socially accepted (or even expected in some cases!)).
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  It's because blatant ignorance or motivate thinking are the only possible reasons to be anti-vaxx or a climate denier in 2021. Furthermore, these ignorant or motivated beliefs are causing very direct harm to millions today and billions tomorrow. So no, there is no reason to be kind to people spreading anti-vaxx or anti-climate change propaganda. That's not to say that they should be harmed or anything like that, but it's necessary to silence and combat their "arguments" and not allow them to spew their propaganda anywhere unimpeded. Writing from a country where anti-vaxx idiots are partly responsible for the worst death toll from the 4th wave of Covid.
  - adamrezich 5y ago
    has there ever been a period of human history before where faith in scientific consensus has reached this level of widespread overt ideological zealotry? I'm racking my brain trying to think of any but I'm no historian. absolutely fascinating times to live in.
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that time dilates as the speed of light approaches? You are needlessly equivocating. Some facts are known, and anthropogenic climate change is one of them (as is the efficacy of vaccines). We don't have all the answers, but we do have plenty of answers. Your skeptic attitude borders on solipsism - the only thing I know for sure is what I see, so perhaps the whole world is just an illusion before my eyes, right?
      - adamrezich 5y ago
        > Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that time dilates as the speed of light approaches? no, because these statements do not come with an assertion of imminent, irreparable global disaster prophesized to occur in the nebulously nearish future, unless mankind takes swift action, and we have to act now dammit, because people did the math and this is what we have to do or else! notice that this general framework applies to both topics that you seem to feel very strongly about, and you've lumped your ideological opponents in each of these axes together as one unified "other"! this "othering" of anyone who disagrees with any disparate aspect of your worldview (apparently they're all the same group of undesirables) makes you come across as indistinguishable from a religious zealot. I truly don't mean this as an insult, it's just the most obvious comparison. I know plenty of people who share your general perspective but only a few of them share the zealotry. this specific anthropological phenomenon is very interesting to me, and after thinking about it quite a bit for many years now, it starts to make quite a bit of sense, but further analysis would be unwelcome here.
proc0 5y ago
Well, in both cases there is a political urgency to control the lives of others, isn't there? In both cases it has to do with big catastrophes that everyone needs to participate in to solve together, or else humanity will suffer grave consequences! Therefore we cannot afford to let people oppose these world-saving actions, and we must label them as "deniers" and "anti-". We must also censor those who question the consensus. We must shame them because we cannot afford to have dissident voices questioning the agreed upon solutions given to us by the experts! We cannot spare any time arguing about the solution, let alone the problem. Action must be taken, so sayeth the science!
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I don't see what control has to do with it. Do you have any evidence of that motivation? And how is this debate different from others? Do people not criticize others and their ideas in every debate on a public issue? Are you not attacking your opponents right now? Does not the political faction associate with climate denial aggressively attack people who are liberal, who are 'woke', who are RINOs, etc. etc.? It's on Fox all day long.
  - proc0 5y ago
    I'm alluding to the labels being used there, and how there is visible effort to reduce/collapse all opposition into these extreme views. I was being a little satirical to illustrate that such labeling looks like a strategy to get political traction and get laws and mandates into effect. Mostly because it creates a sense of urgency, based on plausible catastrophic danger. Of course extreme views exist, and a lot of times it comes from the same political side, precisely because the other political side is pressing with the sense of urgency and tied together with a sense of action. The latter is where I think the control comes in. Personally, I think there is a lot of "middle ground" to explore. Those extreme views are probably wrong (granted, definitely wrong on the no-action side), however that middle ground is frowned upon in favor of either the extreme where we need to take action, or the other extreme where it's all nonsense.
    - 5y ago

by aritmo 5y ago

Even without any scientific background, you can see that the denialism is really fishy. The denialism stinks. Those that are antivaxx, are also climate deniers. To the core.

adamrezich 5y ago

I find it interesting that you correlate these two things and that your instinctual reaction to those who hold such beliefs is suspicion, distrust, and a general negative value judgement on the individual, as opposed to understanding, empathy, and acceptance of worldviews other than your own. this kind of behavior seems increasingly common and downright socially acceptable with regards to these topics and a few key others—it's a fascinating phenomenon to witness. most people are mostly good people, regardless of whether they agree with you on things such as these. it probably wouldn't hurt to reflect on where such dogmatic negative generalizations about large swaths of people you've never met stem from internally, because it's not a very productive lens to view the world through (again, despite being increasingly common and socially accepted (or even expected in some cases!)).

tsimionescu 5y ago
It's because blatant ignorance or motivate thinking are the only possible reasons to be anti-vaxx or a climate denier in 2021. Furthermore, these ignorant or motivated beliefs are causing very direct harm to millions today and billions tomorrow. So no, there is no reason to be kind to people spreading anti-vaxx or anti-climate change propaganda. That's not to say that they should be harmed or anything like that, but it's necessary to silence and combat their "arguments" and not allow them to spew their propaganda anywhere unimpeded. Writing from a country where anti-vaxx idiots are partly responsible for the worst death toll from the 4th wave of Covid.
- adamrezich 5y ago
  has there ever been a period of human history before where faith in scientific consensus has reached this level of widespread overt ideological zealotry? I'm racking my brain trying to think of any but I'm no historian. absolutely fascinating times to live in.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that time dilates as the speed of light approaches? You are needlessly equivocating. Some facts are known, and anthropogenic climate change is one of them (as is the efficacy of vaccines). We don't have all the answers, but we do have plenty of answers. Your skeptic attitude borders on solipsism - the only thing I know for sure is what I see, so perhaps the whole world is just an illusion before my eyes, right?
    - adamrezich 5y ago
      > Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that the Earth is round and orbits the sun? Is it overt idealogical zealotry to say that time dilates as the speed of light approaches? no, because these statements do not come with an assertion of imminent, irreparable global disaster prophesized to occur in the nebulously nearish future, unless mankind takes swift action, and we have to act now dammit, because people did the math and this is what we have to do or else! notice that this general framework applies to both topics that you seem to feel very strongly about, and you've lumped your ideological opponents in each of these axes together as one unified "other"! this "othering" of anyone who disagrees with any disparate aspect of your worldview (apparently they're all the same group of undesirables) makes you come across as indistinguishable from a religious zealot. I truly don't mean this as an insult, it's just the most obvious comparison. I know plenty of people who share your general perspective but only a few of them share the zealotry. this specific anthropological phenomenon is very interesting to me, and after thinking about it quite a bit for many years now, it starts to make quite a bit of sense, but further analysis would be unwelcome here.

proc0 5y ago

Well, in both cases there is a political urgency to control the lives of others, isn't there? In both cases it has to do with big catastrophes that everyone needs to participate in to solve together, or else humanity will suffer grave consequences! Therefore we cannot afford to let people oppose these world-saving actions, and we must label them as "deniers" and "anti-". We must also censor those who question the consensus. We must shame them because we cannot afford to have dissident voices questioning the agreed upon solutions given to us by the experts! We cannot spare any time arguing about the solution, let alone the problem. Action must be taken, so sayeth the science!

wolverine876 5y ago
I don't see what control has to do with it. Do you have any evidence of that motivation? And how is this debate different from others? Do people not criticize others and their ideas in every debate on a public issue? Are you not attacking your opponents right now? Does not the political faction associate with climate denial aggressively attack people who are liberal, who are 'woke', who are RINOs, etc. etc.? It's on Fox all day long.
- proc0 5y ago
  I'm alluding to the labels being used there, and how there is visible effort to reduce/collapse all opposition into these extreme views. I was being a little satirical to illustrate that such labeling looks like a strategy to get political traction and get laws and mandates into effect. Mostly because it creates a sense of urgency, based on plausible catastrophic danger. Of course extreme views exist, and a lot of times it comes from the same political side, precisely because the other political side is pressing with the sense of urgency and tied together with a sense of action. The latter is where I think the control comes in. Personally, I think there is a lot of "middle ground" to explore. Those extreme views are probably wrong (granted, definitely wrong on the no-action side), however that middle ground is frowned upon in favor of either the extreme where we need to take action, or the other extreme where it's all nonsense.
  - 5y ago