2 ms·
> Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, p
by shkkmo 5y ago
> Sorta like, if someone believes that Elvis is secretly a lizard-man who is now pretending to be President Biden, then that could be responded to in simple, polite terms that aren't immediately condescending.
You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis.
You aren't conducting science, explaining science, or even challenging incorrect scientific beliefs. You are using science as a bludgeon to demean people you don't agree with.
It is OK to be wrong and it is OK to entertain incorrect ideas. These are critical parts of learning. It is also OK to say when things are wrong. Mocking people for being wrong is alienating and counter productive.
- _Nat_ 5y ago> You JUST did the exact thing I am talking about. You equated having an incorrect understanding of science with believing Biden is a lizard man Elvis. I was concerned that, if I selected a common conspiracy-theory, folks who believe in it might feel attacked. So I picked a made-up conspiracy-theory that I didn't think anyone would feel emotionally invested in.
- shkkmo 5y ago> So I picked a made-up conspiracy-theory that I didn't think anyone would feel emotionally invested in. You picked one that was absurd but yet similar enough to existing beliefs to mock them with that absurdity. This is exactly the kind of 'othering' that the article pushes back against.
- _Nat_ 5y agoThe principle of "assume good faith" is essential to even basic conversation. In its absence, intelligent exchanges are fundamentally impossible. Which may be the case here?