Is it even worth it to engage with these people? — Xtrix

The universe was created. Who says this didn't happen 6000 years ago? If they think this is what happened... Why shouldn't I engage with them? Of course I won't argue about the creation how they view it. But I know a lot of other means to engage with creationists. Especially when they are female (though I don't think they will like me being married, nor do I think will my wife approve...).

It depends what you want in life, I guess, but for me, yes. Sometimes people who you think are nuts turn out to be right. It's healthy and productive to see people as individuals, all with different unique constellations of views, some rational, others not. It can get a bit us-and-them if we group populations according to their views and dismiss individuals within that group because of their group membership. — bert1

Yes, well said.

I, for example, have not come across anything to suppose that the virus is anything other than what it appears to be, and that vaccines are probably broadly safe, at least safer than the disease, and we should probably all get vaccinated for the good of everyone. Regarding the ninth of November, on the other hand, I think the physical evidence for controlled demolition is completely overwhelming. To even begin to change my mind on that I'd need to see a plausible explanation for the collapse of building 8 minus 1 - office conflagration isn't plausible. This isn't even a conspiracy theory. It's a physical theory based on observations; I have absolutely no idea who, how or why someone would do that. And the kind of creationism that is based on taking creation myths and stories literally seems completely baseless and contradicted by evidence. — bert1

I have no idea what you're referring to by the 9th of November, but fair enough.

So while the populations that hold these views might overlap considerably, they are different views, and can, and I suggest should, be approached separately. — bert1

Yes -- I don't mean to imply they're the same, really. These are vastly different topics.

But there are obvious similarities, in that all are minority views that go against the overwhelming expert consensus -- whether it be that we evolved, or that vaccines are safe and effective, or that climate change is real, etc. Not all minority or dissenting views should be dismissed, but these certainly can. They've been debunked over and over again by experts in each respective field, yet they live on -- like zombies.

So the question stands: is it worth bothering with irrational people? Personally, I wouldn't care to -- just as I don't care about those who believe in aliens or Big Foot or a flat Earth or astrology. Let people be happy with that.

When it starts to effect society, the education of future generations, and the future of the planet, then I don't take this position anymore. I think it should be called out -- but whether one should bother spending time running through claim after debunked claim, that's a different question entirely. Is it worth it for others who can still be persuaded? I think maybe it can be justified on those grounds.

Of the categories listed the anti-vaxxers should be dealt with by a federal mandate requiring most receive the shots. Climate change mitigation can be government/citizen actions - the priority being to prepare for what seems inevitable. Creationists I have known have not been threatening, but rational disagreement leads nowhere, usually. 9/11 Truthers, well let them babble on.

:up:

So is it a waste if time to engage you? — frank

For you, yes it is. Feel free not to.

My take is that they're sick in some way, even if just the sickness of stupidity. — tim wood

If one imagines them as young children, then that helps a little. We wouldn't treat children this way because of their silly beliefs or irrationality. We'd probably have more patience and empathy.

But that is wearing thin, because we're running out of time, and everyone is effected. We're all effected by the effects of climate change, for example. We're all effected by the pandemic.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't place the majority of the blame on misinformed or ignorant people. One shouldn't blame the students, only the teachers.

I place the blame on those with power who deliberately dupe them, through their influence on the government, through their owning the media, through advertising, and through appealing to their prejudices. Pundits, false prophets, bad teachers, religious leaders, corrupt "scientists," con man of every stripe, corporate propaganda campaigns, etc. This is the real source. People don't conjure most of this bullshit up on their own.

Not worth it, for they are stuck in their notions from thoughts that so often fired together that they became very strongly wired together. It shows a fixed will to the nth degree as well as an inhibited learning disability that prevents a new and wider range of will to form beyond the stuck notion. — PoeticUniverse

So, they will die, but at least evolution has this new opening to rid us of stupid people. — PoeticUniverse

That's pretty harsh, but you may be right. If so, it's really quite sad.

My point is that as long as one is looking for happiness outside, one is going to be faced with an endless amount of problems. Even if you were to opt for the final solution (as some in the past did) and executed it in full (as those in the past haven't succeeded), so that you'd be left only with like-minded people, you'd still be living on a planet where there are volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, dangerous animals, unwelcome genetic mutations, limited natural resources, and at that a planet that is on collision course with some asteroids, in a solar system whose sun will eventually explode. IOW, living on such a planet and looking for happiness outside, you'd still be miserable. — baker

I agree. This has very little to do with my own personal happiness, or looking for it outside myself. I'm not looking for a perfect world, and I'm not looking to kill people off who don't agree with me and, as I said above, don't even hold them completely responsible.

Nevertheless, I do see their beliefs as leading to very dangerous actions, as we're seeing in this pandemic and as we see with climate change. That effects everyone, and will cause untold suffering. Obviously I don't think this is their intention -- I don't think people who are anti-vaxxers are psychopaths, for example. Yet they are still causing harm, unwittingly.

My question is whether we should engage with them -- assuming I'm correct about their irrationality.

For me, I engage them only in the company of a third party or audience, not to persuade them but to expose the falsity of such claims before witnesses and hopefully to provoke others to question prevalent, uninformed gossip, conventional wisdom and stupifying conspiracies. Like a good gadly, I try to plant seeds of doubt in as many heads as the occasion allows. 'Shaming stupidity' (or rodeo-clownin' the bulls***) is how I roll online as well as off. :smirk: — 180 Proof

That's interesting. I think that's generally my motivation as well. But not always -- in fact sometimes I feel it's better without an audience, because there's less chance of embarrassment on their end and so less saving face and digging in. Whether any of it is worthwhile, I'm still on the fence about. If we assume the audience is persuadable, I think the argument is a fair one.

That means that conversations with those with whom you have disagreements become more important. That it becomes more important that you find a way to find common purpose with them. The great majority of people in the US share a core set of values. Mainstream, moderate, more or less pragmatic, sometimes idealistic.

Saying you're not mature enough to work with that is a pretty poor excuse given your apparent sense of impending doom. — T Clark

That's fair.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence?

I wouldn't call it "impending doom," but I do take climate change very seriously, yes. Nuclear weapons as well, of course. But the same applies to the pandemic -- it's only a matter of time before we're hit with one that's both highly transmissible and highly fatal. Then the stakes are even higher.

How to talk to a science denier

Not the best of interviews, but there are some cogent points here.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?
— Xtrix

The universe was created. Who says this didn't happen 6000 years ago? If they think this is what happened... Why shouldn't I engage with them? Of course I won't argue about the creation how they view it. But I know a lot of other means to engage with creationists. Especially when they are female (though I don't think they will like me being married, nor do I think will my wife approve...). — MikeBlender

I find this to be a bizarre response, but in a good way.

Of the categories listed the anti-vaxxers should be dealt with by a federal mandate requiring most receive the shots. — jgill

There's a good argument for that -- at least for schools and workplaces. I think vaccine verification in other public places -- bars, restaurants, sporting events, etc., should also be a requirement. It's time to stop coddling people who are putting others at risk and prolonging this pandemic -- despite them not intending to, and despite their best intentions and sincere beliefs.

Climate change mitigation can be government/citizen actions - the priority being to prepare for what seems inevitable. Creationists I have known have not been threatening, but rational disagreement leads nowhere, usually. 9/11 Truthers, well let them babble on. — jgill

More or less agree -- as long as mitigation of climate change isn't the sole focus. Priority, yes -- given that we've done next to nothing for 40 years and the effects are now locked in. But at the same time, and equally important, is to immediately transition from fossil fuels.

Not the best of interviews, but there are some cogent points here. — Banno

Thanks for that.

Depends on the person, no?

I mean, some people really are too far gone to reach common ground. But many are not. If one takes a path of sympathy to these views (maybe empathy would be too hard to reach), then there are ways to tone down the craziness.

Best is to talk to those people who are on the fence on many issues than those already set in stone in terms of belief.

In my experience anyway.

:up:

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence? — Xtrix

Do you spend your time organizing others?

I wouldn't call it "impending doom," — Xtrix

Yes. Hyperbole on my part.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks.

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks. — Tzeentch

Done. No joy.

There are people having died due to their denial, and parents whose kids have died, all preventable. :death:
Sometimes words might not make much difference.
At large, people just aren't (full-time or perhaps even half-time) rational, or at least evidently can't be expected to be.
Maybe some sort of more direct (or ongoing) participation (or similar exposure) would be more beneficial, who knows.

"You can make a difference by helping elderlies to and from the vaccine clinic"
"Please help us operate and document vaccine administration at the hospital"
"This week you have the opportunity of winning $2000 by getting the vaccine"

During the pandemic, there's a heightened chance of pathogen-encounters. ☣
I suppose you're entitled to choose infection for yourself (however weird that'd be, and not what others would want for you I'm sure), but you're not free to further increase chances of spread or putting others in danger thus.
Most/all are rather encouraged or obligated to decrease all that, and we have reasonable ways of going about it.
Doesn't have much to do with fear or panic or evil tyrant authoritarian government or conformism for conformism's sake or whatever bullshit; has to do with common sense, doing the right thing, being socially responsible, not being a loose cannon, and history is a fine teacher.
Presumably, you're not going to sue SARS-CoV-2? What about taking part in stomping the pandemic down?

There was a woman on the BBC’s Big Questions program a while ago talking about the effects of lockdowns, in particular the student suicides that have occurred. There have also been reports of these restrictions contributing to the deaths of babies and young children. I assume you advocate for these policies, so arguably you share some of the blame for these deaths.

Stop thinking of yourself as a good person. You’re not. Hardly anyone is. My own arrogance doesn’t even extend to that assumption about myself.

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens — Xtrix

You speak as if irrationality is a trait of a minority of people. I've encountered very few people who I was convinced were truly open to being proven wrong on any subject. Virtually everyone is immune to facts/reason on many or most topics.
Most people are open to being proven wrong only on minor issues, but not issues that are fundamental to a world view.
This is simple psychology. To have ones fundamental view shifted is to lose ones bearing.

I assume you advocate for these policies, so arguably you share some of the blame for these deaths. — AJJ

Those policies are largely the result of the refusal of disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish people to distance, mask, wash and vax. Had they played ball from day one, the policies would be gone months ago and we'd be back to where we were. Oh, and don't place the burden of proof on me. It's not mine. So no, we don't share any of the blame. It's your fault.

Do you spend your time organizing others? — T Clark

Yes, but not while on here of course.



Anti-vaxxer. So here's a good example of a dead end. Don’t bother, Joe.

Consider it: you’re not a good person.

Consider it: you’re not a good person. — AJJ

I will take your input under advisement and render an august decision at my earlies convenience. Or not. :razz:

Stop thinking of yourself as a good person. You’re not. Hardly anyone is. My own arrogance doesn’t even extend to that assumption about myself. — AJJ

...tf? :brow:

So there are some people here and there that could a bit of extra help, psychological in this case apparently. Numbers/reports/contexts?

You skipped ...

Presumably, you're not going to sue SARS-CoV-2? What about taking part in stomping the pandemic down?

Consider it: you’re not a good person. — AJJ

Consider it: you’re an imbecile.

Something else I wonder is this:

LBC radio got a caller once who had voted for the UK to leave the EU. He cried down the phone (“What have I done to my country?”) because he felt so strongly that he’d made a mistake.

How far from such feelings are advocates for these restrictions and mandates? Do they dare consider what they’ve done? It doesn’t seem so to me.

LBC radio got a caller once who had voted for the UK to leave the EU. He cried down the phone (“What have I done to my country?”) because he felt so strongly that he’d made a mistake.

How far from such feelings are advocates for these restrictions and mandates? Do they dare consider what they’ve done? It doesn’t seem so to me. — AJJ

I don't know but the news is full of folks with Covid crying that they wished they'd vaxed. Some die. So there's that.

On your question, we'll have to wait a spell, I reckon. After all, we've mostly been asking politely and the harshness has yet to really kick in. Keep up your whining and they will kick in. Then we wait and find out if I and my ilk have any regrets. Then you can tell us "I told you so!" in your righteous indignation.

5.4 billion shots given around the world.

177 million Americans fully vaccinated.

Vaccines shown to be safe and effective.

School and workplace vaccinations have been around for decades.

We wiped out polio, once upon a time, with a vaccine.

FDA approved.

World’s leading medical experts say the same thing: get vaccinated.

Just some facts worth remembering. Anti-vaxxer bullshit should simply be ignored, at this point. If they want to refuse, fine— but they won’t be allowed in most public places or businesses. As it should be. Their dangerous ignorance and stupidity will simply prolong the pandemic, and patience is indeed wearing thin.

Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers...Materialists

Here we have two sweeping generalizations--one more useful than the other.

Stop thinking of yourself as a good person. You’re not. Hardly anyone is. — AJJ

From the Christian POV, what with original sin and all, NO ONE is free of sin--all capable of rot. Is this the POV to which you are hewing? I don't like the doctrine of original sin (it was cooked up to solve unnecessary theological problems). There is a common view that most people are, generally and basically good, unless and until they engage actively in bad systems--like fascism or capitalism.

This is simple psychology. To have ones fundamental view shifted is to lose ones bearing. — Yohan

This is an accurate statement: Shifting one's fundamental views can be very difficult when it is performed under one's own volition. When prosecuted by missionaries of various types, fundamental ideas are, for all practical purposes, damned near immovable.

Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers, Covid-19 deniers, et al have the specifics of their quirky views tied to deeper fundamentals. Those who found a home for all their various resentments in the person of Donald Trump can't change their views about vaccinations for the virus. Election fraud and disease hoax are welded together. Getting vaccinated is tantamount to accepting that there was no fraud in the 2020 election.

Don't leave out small pox -- the world was declared free of smallpox in 1980. "One of history's deadliest diseases, smallpox is estimated to have killed more than 300 million people since 1900 alone." The fatality rate for smallpox was about 33%. Those who survived were usually scarred, sometimes severely.

Polio is very close to being eradicated world wide.

You can consider it rhetorical, but equally I just don’t accept that a person can be good without being able to think. And judging by the way most people argue almost no one can really think.

:up:

Those who found a home for all their various resentments in the person of Donald Trump can't change their views about vaccinations for the virus. Election fraud and disease hoax are welded together. Getting vaccinated is tantamount to accepting that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. — Bitter Crank

:100:

MAGA-hats are so far up their own sagging fat asses that those who believe TR45H won the last election will vote for him in 2024 even though he can't be elected for, what follows from their delusion, what would be a "third term" according to the Twenty-second Amendment to the US Constitution. Stupid shits! – either TR45H won in 2020 and therefore can't be elected in 2024 or he can be elected in 2024 because he did not win re-election in 2020. Unvaccinated trumptard mouth-breathers are simply immune to both logic and evidence. :shade:

update:

I've lost any shred of empathy for all those assholes who lack enough empathy to not endanger their own families, neighbors & communities. Affix a Darwin Award on their fuckin' headstones and obituaries.

Anti-Vaxxers, Creationists, 9/11 Truthers, Climate Deniers, Flat-Earthers...Materialists — RogueAI

:rofl: Sillier sounds of woo have never been grunted.

Paraphrasing Churchill, 'materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed. — 180 Proof

Those policies are largely the result of the refusal of disrespectful, inconsiderate and selfish people to distance, mask, wash and vax. Had they played ball from day one, the policies would be gone months ago and we'd be back to where we were. — James Riley

Lockdown is a complicated issue. On balance, I expect you're right that the duration of the lockdowns was at least partially due to how we half-assed all the other measures, and to the degree that some people, some elected people that come to mind, were responsible for that half-assery, then those people are responsible for the duration of the lockdowns. And to the degree that the truly tragic effects of the lockdowns are a function of their duration, then those people are responsible for that too.

But I think people on the "right side" of pandemic polemics have too often minimized the negative effects of the lockdowns, and we shouldn't do that. Lives were lost and businesses shuttered forever not because of the pandemic itself, but because of bungled attempts to deal with it.

Still, it is deeply annoying that the supposedly pro-business political party in the United States was so consistently anti-lockdown when the overwhelming consensus of economists was to shut down almost everything and get it over with, instead of dragging it out until as many small businesses as possible had failed. The GOP prioritized "muh liberty" over the real (that is, more than a couple news cycles out) economic interests of their constituents. Hell, the government has been paying farmers not to produce (in targeted ways) for generations. Just do a whole lot more of that. Just for a few months. Shut down and start cutting checks. The surest way to drive barber shops and hair salons out of business was to hold up covid relief and then insist, in front of every camera you could find, that the dumbasses who voted for you have a constitutional right to get a haircut. ("Dumbasses" because either they believed you when you claimed to be pro-business -- you're not, you just want to fight the culture war -- or they knew you just wanted to fight the culture war and thought that qualifies you for public office.)

So, on the one hand, lockdowns lasted longer than they had to, not because libs get off on taking away people's freedom but because we half-assed it. Businesses failed because of the lockdowns and people under long lockdowns suffered. (One restaurant owner in my town, who I believe struggled with depression, committed suicide when she saw her life's work slipping away.) On the other hand, a lot of us were never under lockdown at all. I worked right through the pandemic, even though the store I work at was closed to the public for a couple months. But I had the luxury of pretty safe working conditions. Ask America's essential workers what they thought about the lockdowns and they'll say, "What lockdown?"

(I just hope I never again have to listen to upper-middle-class media professionals whining, a little bittersweetly perhaps, about how much it sucked spending so much time with their children.)

Right, humans have difficulty maintaining intellectual effort while keeping their vigorous emotions under control. To assert that "almost no one can really think" is another sweeping generalization with a decidedly negative load. Are you sure your generalization doesn't include yourself?

The fact is that we do manage to think reasonably well most of the time. I do not like the kind of thinking that a lot of people do, but that doesn't take away from the fact of their thinking.