3 ms·

You are just expressing frustration that other people who care more about winning debates than you are able to do so. Paraphrased, it's "impossible" to argue wi

You are just expressing frustration that other people who care more about winning debates than you are able to do so. Paraphrased, it's "impossible" to argue with other people because they "always" have evidence that supposed experts are somehow unaware of, despite being experts, and weirdly enough when you "dismiss [the evidence] out of hand" they "claim victory". That's usually how debate works, yes. That's the whole point of evidence-based argumentation. Your post is kind of the worldview Yglesias is arguing against in his article. His argument, summarized, is that certain types of people are railing in frustration at so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites, intellectually dishonest or not actually expert in their claimed field of expertise. Because they can't rebut the data or facts being presented they instead fall back on logical fallacies like appeals to authority ("experts"), false claims of lacking good faith, blanket assertions that any non-left wing source is illegitimate and so on and so forth.

fortuna86 5y ago
> so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This is a new problem, no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc. People don't trust experts at a time when that trust can literally save their lives. The information space is a minefield, expecting every person on earth to have the tool to "make up their own mind" is unrealistic, to put it simply.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ "In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10." I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not. Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else. All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > Why change the subject? Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend. > You made a false claim No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying. > The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d... It's unequivocal and damning.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Your claim: > no one had any issues with a polio vaccine Reality: > 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10 There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
      - fortuna86 5y ago
        I said no one had any objections to it, 20% of the population didn't refuse the polio vaccine and refuse to give it to their kids (which is the topic of discussion, if you need reminding again).
        native_samples 5y ago
        Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. You think something like that happened and everyone just shrugged and said, hey, no big deal? The reason vaccine companies are immune from legal liability is because after what happened at Cutter Labs there were floods of litigation and a jury found against the vaccine makers, which more or less killed off the vaccine business. From a review of the book: "Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases" A big part of what drives vaccine refusal today is awareness that vaccination campaigns have a history of being so dangerous the producers cannot survive in the open market under the normal rules. Also, the topic of discussion is actually the original article about misinformation and the internet, in general. It was you who insisted on bringing up vaccines in an unrelated thread.
cgriswald 5y ago
This isn’t about reason and evidence. A crank believes that if an opposing theory is unable to explain his evidence (even if his evidence is completely false or even fabricated) in an immediate manner, then it means his theory is the correct one. Hence why it is impossible to reason with such a person. If you think that’s how debates work, we probably have nothing to say to each other that the other would find valuable. In any case, your ascribation of those feelings and ideas to me and my post are baseless and completely false. You’ve failed to comprehend the point.

fortuna86 5y ago

> so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This is a new problem, no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc. People don't trust experts at a time when that trust can literally save their lives. The information space is a minefield, expecting every person on earth to have the tool to "make up their own mind" is unrealistic, to put it simply.

native_samples 5y ago
Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ "In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10." I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not. Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else. All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > Why change the subject? Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend. > You made a false claim No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying. > The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750 https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d... It's unequivocal and damning.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Your claim: > no one had any issues with a polio vaccine Reality: > 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10 There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      I said no one had any objections to it, 20% of the population didn't refuse the polio vaccine and refuse to give it to their kids (which is the topic of discussion, if you need reminding again).
      - native_samples 5y ago
        Of course they had objections to it, don't be ridiculous. You think something like that happened and everyone just shrugged and said, hey, no big deal? The reason vaccine companies are immune from legal liability is because after what happened at Cutter Labs there were floods of litigation and a jury found against the vaccine makers, which more or less killed off the vaccine business. From a review of the book: "Dr. Offit also explores how, as a consequence of the tragedy, one jury's verdict set in motion events that eventually suppressed the production of vaccines already licensed and deterred the development of new vaccines that hold the promise of preventing other fatal diseases" A big part of what drives vaccine refusal today is awareness that vaccination campaigns have a history of being so dangerous the producers cannot survive in the open market under the normal rules. Also, the topic of discussion is actually the original article about misinformation and the internet, in general. It was you who insisted on bringing up vaccines in an unrelated thread.

cgriswald 5y ago

This isn’t about reason and evidence. A crank believes that if an opposing theory is unable to explain his evidence (even if his evidence is completely false or even fabricated) in an immediate manner, then it means his theory is the correct one. Hence why it is impossible to reason with such a person. If you think that’s how debates work, we probably have nothing to say to each other that the other would find valuable. In any case, your ascribation of those feelings and ideas to me and my post are baseless and completely false. You’ve failed to comprehend the point.