4 ms·

But that has been done again and again. Let's not talk about Covid, but climate change (which interestingly never attracted the Facebook et al fact checkers ev

But that has been done again and again. Let's not talk about Covid, but climate change (which interestingly never attracted the Facebook et al fact checkers even though it is a much more existential crisis for humanity). There are many sites that debunk the arguments like "it was warmer in the middle ages", "warming can be attributed to sun activities", realclimate.org is a great resource for instance. Still the same arguments get brought up every time, and the facts simply get ignored.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
Correct. The last step needed: the debunkers need to debunk the myths not in their cozy groups and websites, but in the enemy's lair. This achieves two purposes: First, those reading the myths will immediately see the refusal. They don't need to search through multiple websites. They don't have to go through the layers of meaningless arguments. Here's bullshit in the post - here's refusal in the reply. Easy-peasy. Second, with this everyone knows that once he posts some burp - someone will call him out. And nobody - not even a group moderator - will be able to come to the rescue.
- rajin444 5y ago
  This is great in theory if each individual has the ability to arrive at the same conclusion as the “debunkers”. They don’t, so they fallback to trust, and that’s when it all breaks down. The most important thing to combat misinformation is to build trust. Anyone trying to combat misinformation while disparaging their tribal outgroup is playing politics, not combating misinformation. In your post you call people you need to convince that you’re trustworthy “enemies”. There’s no way that will ever work.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    Most people are quite reasonable and can be convinced. On the other hand most people are lazy and often it's about "some <yet another evil theory> explained right here" vs. "an alternative (and probably much better) explanation of the same thing on some smarty-pants website". Well, people just don't go to that somewhere else and ignore it. Out of site - out of mind. If you see an inconvenient reply under every message of your local prophet, you may not get convinced right away, but the seeds of doubt will be sown.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- sjtindell 5y ago
  Such a fantasy. This is exactly how it happens. And they literally just respond to the “debunking” post with garbage and move on. It’s not about information, it’s about emotion and tribe.
  - AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
    Not always. I remember scrolling through the flat-earhers forum once and I was amazed how short all the arguments have been. The conversation was usually like: - Look, the Earth is really flat, I've measured the visible height of such-and-such mountain from such-and-such place and it's way higher than should've been. - Man, you got the distance wrong. Look at google map, you're off by X hundred miles. Try doing your calculations with the correct numbers - Fuck off, I've got better things to do in my life than replying your stupid messages QED
henrikschroder 5y ago
Actually, I saw some "Climate Facts" blob from Facebook on a post that was extremely tangentially related, but the glorious Algorithm had apparently decided it was a discussion on climate change, and therefore needed to insert itself into it, making sure there was no wrongthink, or something. Completely tone-deaf, and therefore extremely off-putting. I would not be surprised if an effort like that completely backfires.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  A mandatory prayer at school is the best way to breed an atheist.
deltree7 5y ago
'existential crisis' : citation needed backed by actual model of the universe and human behavior.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Thanks for proving my argument
  - deltree7 5y ago
    Extraordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, You are making the claim of their extinct in the next 50 years. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. If you make the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow, you have to produce the proof, not me
    - garethrowlands 5y ago
      OP is not making the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow though. Nor did OP mention 50 years. Nor does OP need to prove global warning, since many others have done that. Not that you'd read it but here's a readable summary of the evidence, https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan...
      - deltree7 5y ago
        Global Warming by 2-3 degress doesn't imply human extinction (or even the leading cause of deaths). That is an incredible lazy, naive and dumb take on effects of Climate Change. Human ingenuity and technology and accumulated capital of nearly $200 Trillion can easily scale mitigating solutions when it really comes to it. Unfortunately, Policy makers never take into account the dynamic, complex systems and use linear graphs done by low-paid interns to predict economic and human systems.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

Correct. The last step needed: the debunkers need to debunk the myths not in their cozy groups and websites, but in the enemy's lair. This achieves two purposes: First, those reading the myths will immediately see the refusal. They don't need to search through multiple websites. They don't have to go through the layers of meaningless arguments. Here's bullshit in the post - here's refusal in the reply. Easy-peasy. Second, with this everyone knows that once he posts some burp - someone will call him out. And nobody - not even a group moderator - will be able to come to the rescue.

rajin444 5y ago
This is great in theory if each individual has the ability to arrive at the same conclusion as the “debunkers”. They don’t, so they fallback to trust, and that’s when it all breaks down. The most important thing to combat misinformation is to build trust. Anyone trying to combat misinformation while disparaging their tribal outgroup is playing politics, not combating misinformation. In your post you call people you need to convince that you’re trustworthy “enemies”. There’s no way that will ever work.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  Most people are quite reasonable and can be convinced. On the other hand most people are lazy and often it's about "some <yet another evil theory> explained right here" vs. "an alternative (and probably much better) explanation of the same thing on some smarty-pants website". Well, people just don't go to that somewhere else and ignore it. Out of site - out of mind. If you see an inconvenient reply under every message of your local prophet, you may not get convinced right away, but the seeds of doubt will be sown.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
sjtindell 5y ago
Such a fantasy. This is exactly how it happens. And they literally just respond to the “debunking” post with garbage and move on. It’s not about information, it’s about emotion and tribe.
- AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
  Not always. I remember scrolling through the flat-earhers forum once and I was amazed how short all the arguments have been. The conversation was usually like: - Look, the Earth is really flat, I've measured the visible height of such-and-such mountain from such-and-such place and it's way higher than should've been. - Man, you got the distance wrong. Look at google map, you're off by X hundred miles. Try doing your calculations with the correct numbers - Fuck off, I've got better things to do in my life than replying your stupid messages QED

henrikschroder 5y ago

Actually, I saw some "Climate Facts" blob from Facebook on a post that was extremely tangentially related, but the glorious Algorithm had apparently decided it was a discussion on climate change, and therefore needed to insert itself into it, making sure there was no wrongthink, or something. Completely tone-deaf, and therefore extremely off-putting. I would not be surprised if an effort like that completely backfires.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
A mandatory prayer at school is the best way to breed an atheist.

deltree7 5y ago

'existential crisis' : citation needed backed by actual model of the universe and human behavior.

cycomanic 5y ago
Thanks for proving my argument
- deltree7 5y ago
  Extraordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years, You are making the claim of their extinct in the next 50 years. The burden of proof is on you to prove that. If you make the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow, you have to produce the proof, not me
  - garethrowlands 5y ago
    OP is not making the claim that Earth will stop spinning tomorrow though. Nor did OP mention 50 years. Nor does OP need to prove global warning, since many others have done that. Not that you'd read it but here's a readable summary of the evidence, https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan...
    - deltree7 5y ago
      Global Warming by 2-3 degress doesn't imply human extinction (or even the leading cause of deaths). That is an incredible lazy, naive and dumb take on effects of Climate Change. Human ingenuity and technology and accumulated capital of nearly $200 Trillion can easily scale mitigating solutions when it really comes to it. Unfortunately, Policy makers never take into account the dynamic, complex systems and use linear graphs done by low-paid interns to predict economic and human systems.