4 ms·

I understand why you said it. It just seems that the general atmosphere of the internet is that of self-censorship and fear. It just doesn't sit well with me.

I understand why you said it. It just seems that the general atmosphere of the internet is that of self-censorship and fear. It just doesn't sit well with me. The intolerance of different views is driving the hostile and divisive atmosphere in the social media. Let's say there's a person who's really anti-climate change. How is that person supposed to change their mind, if they get attacked every time they voice their opinions, instead of being approached in a civil manner? People can't be bullied people into agreement, only silenced and driven further away into their own echo chamber, at which point you lose any chance you had of ever changing their minds.

Loughla 4y ago
Legitimately, do you believe that people posting on internet forums is an effective means of getting someone to change their minds? My take is that by the time the poster goes through the effort to post, they have adopted [insert view here] into their personal belief system; they're not seeking answers. Don't most studies show that fact based arguments only cause people with faulty beliefs to dig in further?
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Legitimately, do you believe that people posting on internet forums is an effective means of getting someone to change their minds? Some percentage of them? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way to know when that happens, so it's very easy to assume it doesn't. > My take is that by the time the poster goes through the effort to post, they have adopted [insert view here] into their personal belief system; they're not seeking answers. If what you're saying is true, what's the logic behind censoring people? Nobody is able to convince anyone of anything anyway.
  - Loughla 4y ago
    >If what you're saying is true, what's the logic behind censoring people? Because at some point, arguing the same topic over and over and over is exhausting. The impact of greenhouse gases and climate change, for example, has been established as 'a thing' for my entire adult life. And yet people still want to argue about it even existing.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      > arguing the same topic over and over and over is exhausting Is that, by itself, a good enough reason to censor people? Nobody is forcing anybody to argue.
carapace 4y ago
I'm not saying it's right or useful, but I think a lot of people (especially young people) are just really sick of climate change denial-ism. I know I am. I'm nearly half a century old and the handwriting has been on the wall my whole life. I don't want to quash discussion (interesting and informative discussion is the main reason I use HN) but, yeah, it's not a bad thing to differentiate yourself from the climate deniers, if you want people to hear you these days.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Being really sick of a certain group of people just because they hold different beliefs than you is exactly what causes the division. Why are you sick of them? That's a fairly strong emotion. Do you hold resentment because they are the ones who are going to bring the apocalypse to the world? Is it annoyance from hearing too many incorrect opinions? Or something else entirely? Honest question - why are you, personally, sick of them? I'd really like to know.
  - bloaf 4y ago
    1. Their existence is the political justification for inaction. 2. They form an unholy alliance with other anti-empiricist groups (e.g. anti-vaxxers, young earth creationists) to undermine reality-based policies, including in education. 3. Their denialist opinions are typically held in bad faith. That is, they are held because if they were true they would confirm some pre-existing belief (e.g. that scientists are tools of a global elite cabal), not because an independent evaluation of the facts has led them there. This reinforces their hostility towards whatever group they think is lying. 4. Denialists typically engage in a perverse form of virtue signaling. The greater and more well evidence a claim is, the greater the "cred" they get for denying it. This creates a fertile field for sham experts to sell lies to members.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    the existence of santa claus is a "belief" climate change isn't
    - 4y ago

Loughla 4y ago

Legitimately, do you believe that people posting on internet forums is an effective means of getting someone to change their minds? My take is that by the time the poster goes through the effort to post, they have adopted [insert view here] into their personal belief system; they're not seeking answers. Don't most studies show that fact based arguments only cause people with faulty beliefs to dig in further?

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Legitimately, do you believe that people posting on internet forums is an effective means of getting someone to change their minds? Some percentage of them? Yes. Unfortunately, there's no way to know when that happens, so it's very easy to assume it doesn't. > My take is that by the time the poster goes through the effort to post, they have adopted [insert view here] into their personal belief system; they're not seeking answers. If what you're saying is true, what's the logic behind censoring people? Nobody is able to convince anyone of anything anyway.
- Loughla 4y ago
  >If what you're saying is true, what's the logic behind censoring people? Because at some point, arguing the same topic over and over and over is exhausting. The impact of greenhouse gases and climate change, for example, has been established as 'a thing' for my entire adult life. And yet people still want to argue about it even existing.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > arguing the same topic over and over and over is exhausting Is that, by itself, a good enough reason to censor people? Nobody is forcing anybody to argue.

carapace 4y ago

I'm not saying it's right or useful, but I think a lot of people (especially young people) are just really sick of climate change denial-ism. I know I am. I'm nearly half a century old and the handwriting has been on the wall my whole life. I don't want to quash discussion (interesting and informative discussion is the main reason I use HN) but, yeah, it's not a bad thing to differentiate yourself from the climate deniers, if you want people to hear you these days.

bheadmaster 4y ago
Being really sick of a certain group of people just because they hold different beliefs than you is exactly what causes the division. Why are you sick of them? That's a fairly strong emotion. Do you hold resentment because they are the ones who are going to bring the apocalypse to the world? Is it annoyance from hearing too many incorrect opinions? Or something else entirely? Honest question - why are you, personally, sick of them? I'd really like to know.
- bloaf 4y ago
  1. Their existence is the political justification for inaction. 2. They form an unholy alliance with other anti-empiricist groups (e.g. anti-vaxxers, young earth creationists) to undermine reality-based policies, including in education. 3. Their denialist opinions are typically held in bad faith. That is, they are held because if they were true they would confirm some pre-existing belief (e.g. that scientists are tools of a global elite cabal), not because an independent evaluation of the facts has led them there. This reinforces their hostility towards whatever group they think is lying. 4. Denialists typically engage in a perverse form of virtue signaling. The greater and more well evidence a claim is, the greater the "cred" they get for denying it. This creates a fertile field for sham experts to sell lies to members.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
  the existence of santa claus is a "belief" climate change isn't
  - 4y ago