4 ms·

Yep, we used to have taboo topics, but the overton window is massive these days.

epicureanideal 4y ago
But maybe it’s a good thing that people say these things out loud so we can discuss them and maybe convince them otherwise? Or learn that in some cases they might be right?
- cheschire 4y ago
  Sure, if you have patience and energy for those sorts of tug-of-war type conversations.
- watwut 4y ago
  Not really. It is not that we can convince then. And it is mostly that the world moved toward these and that they won at convincing others.
- marcodiego 4y ago
  This doesn't work that well. Conspiracists won't change their mind despite any evidence. Unless you're a very good speaker, trying to argue with them will only give them a "stage" to profess their ideas. Arguing against an irrational but skilled speaker will only benefit the unreasonable one, specially if you arguments are simple and technical: most people don't understand simplicity or technicalities; but get hypnotized by voice, fear, indignation and a feeling of "if he is that person is right them I'm screwed!" The best way to counter conspiracists is (I think) leaving them alone and spread rationality among the ones who are still not sick or can be cured.
  - epicureanideal 4y ago
    Ok, but there are "committed conspiracists" and "misinformed conspiracists" or people who haven't thought things through very well, and the latter group(s) may benefit from being able to speak their opinion freely and hear counter-arguments.
- PenguinCoder 4y ago
  No it's not a good thing and you won't ever change someone's mind on their belief in a conspiracy theory, from a one off conversation. people like that have no logical basis for their belief, you can't reason with them using better logic. All you'll end up doing is wasting your time and likely pissing multiple people off. Including yourself. Not worth it.
- wiml 4y ago
  I think it is good in a way. You're not going to convince them of anything in that ten minute bus stop conversation, not should you try. But it's good for them to have the experience of talking to someone who doesn't believe in their thing, and it's good for both of you to interact with someone you don't share a belief with but still experience them as a person. On the Internet we tend to protect ourselves from the other by replacing them with a caricature. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong that can become a pretty toxic habit.
kelseyfrog 4y ago
I find it fascinating that society can support the range of conspiracy and illogical thought out there. I'd always assumed that someone's faulty reasoning would get in their way of their Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), but apparently this is not the case. It's emperically possible to hold the wildest beliefs and still manage a daily existence. These folks are still hold jobs, pay their bills, raise kids and then meetup with folks on the weekend who sling conspiracy theories that would have been Poe's Law material on 1990s internet. Maybe I'm wrong in a different way, but at least that means I still have something new to learn.

But maybe it’s a good thing that people say these things out loud so we can discuss them and maybe convince them otherwise? Or learn that in some cases they might be right?

cheschire 4y ago
Sure, if you have patience and energy for those sorts of tug-of-war type conversations.
watwut 4y ago
Not really. It is not that we can convince then. And it is mostly that the world moved toward these and that they won at convincing others.
marcodiego 4y ago
This doesn't work that well. Conspiracists won't change their mind despite any evidence. Unless you're a very good speaker, trying to argue with them will only give them a "stage" to profess their ideas. Arguing against an irrational but skilled speaker will only benefit the unreasonable one, specially if you arguments are simple and technical: most people don't understand simplicity or technicalities; but get hypnotized by voice, fear, indignation and a feeling of "if he is that person is right them I'm screwed!" The best way to counter conspiracists is (I think) leaving them alone and spread rationality among the ones who are still not sick or can be cured.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  Ok, but there are "committed conspiracists" and "misinformed conspiracists" or people who haven't thought things through very well, and the latter group(s) may benefit from being able to speak their opinion freely and hear counter-arguments.
PenguinCoder 4y ago
No it's not a good thing and you won't ever change someone's mind on their belief in a conspiracy theory, from a one off conversation. people like that have no logical basis for their belief, you can't reason with them using better logic. All you'll end up doing is wasting your time and likely pissing multiple people off. Including yourself. Not worth it.
wiml 4y ago
I think it is good in a way. You're not going to convince them of anything in that ten minute bus stop conversation, not should you try. But it's good for them to have the experience of talking to someone who doesn't believe in their thing, and it's good for both of you to interact with someone you don't share a belief with but still experience them as a person. On the Internet we tend to protect ourselves from the other by replacing them with a caricature. Regardless of who's right and who's wrong that can become a pretty toxic habit.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

I find it fascinating that society can support the range of conspiracy and illogical thought out there. I'd always assumed that someone's faulty reasoning would get in their way of their Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), but apparently this is not the case. It's emperically possible to hold the wildest beliefs and still manage a daily existence. These folks are still hold jobs, pay their bills, raise kids and then meetup with folks on the weekend who sling conspiracy theories that would have been Poe's Law material on 1990s internet. Maybe I'm wrong in a different way, but at least that means I still have something new to learn.