I want to loop back to the OP, because I still maintain it’s an important topic in today’s climate:

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?

I struggle with this. — Xtrix

I think a handful of people have actually addressed the question.

The conclusion I’ve reached is that it is indeed worth it, provided there’s a neutral, persuadable, or otherwise reachable audience to witness the exchange — and that keeping ones temper, sticking to logic, facts and evidence, and maintaining a respectful tone is the best approach.

I’m reminded of the well-known destruction of William F. Buckley by Noam Chomsky on "Firing Line" in 1969, discussing the war in Vietnam. What could be more persuasive to those “on the fence” about the issue then witnessing something like this?

https://youtu.be/9DvmLMUfGss

The difference is that Buckley is not in the same league as those mentioned in the thread’s title, in my view.

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1437172664821600262?s=20

Just came across this. Seems about right.

What is an anti-vaxxer? It is unclear to me. — Bartricks

There's plenty of literature on this. It has been a movement for a while, in fact. Generally it's exactly what the label says: being anti-vaccines. Won't get their kids vaccinated, believe vaccines cause autism (yes, that's still out there), etc.

I remember hearing years ago about how the flu vaccines have mercury in them, how they "give you" the flu, etc. So the seeds have been there for a long time.

Or is it someone who is fine with getting one themselves, and fine with others getting one, but doesn't believe others should be 'made' to get one? — Bartricks

So far no one is being forced to get one by law. That's not what's being proposed. Mandates, so far, are about workplaces and schools mostly. Many have the option to either get vaccinated or get tested more frequently. Everyone has the "option" to resign (or not go to school) if they don't like either. It's odd that mostly conservatives are screaming about this, yet are the first to say "You're free to leave your job and work somewhere else" when poor working conditions are brought up. But when a legitimate reason is given, suddenly they all become Eugene Debbs.

I don't think there's any reasonable, ethical basis for forcing people to get vaccinated. — Bartricks

If by "forcing" you mean what I described above, there is most definitely an ethical reason for doing so: the lives of those OTHER PEOPLE who share a space with said refusers.

It's baffling this is hard to understand, considering we've had school (and work) vaccination requirements for DECADES -- for reasons very easy to understand.

And in this case, refusing to be vaccinated means one exposes oneself and others who have made the same free decision as oneself to greater risks, not innocent others. — Bartricks

No. This is a mistake. Listen to what the overwhelming medical consensus say about this -- it's not hard to do. Takes a few minutes, and is well advised.

This is not simply an individual choice. If it were, there would be no push for it.

Come around, suffer the consequences of not coming around, or revolution. These people will come around. But why try to convince them? That horse done left the barn. They've killed untold numbers of people already. Time to turn up the temp and listen to them wail about fascism. Talk to the hand, bitches. — James Riley

Right. This is happening, one way or another. It's completely legitimate. Refusal to understand or "agree with" the law isn't an excuse when you're pulled over for drunk driving. Nor is it an excuse when asked to leave a restaurant for smoking inside.

They're killing people and prolonging this pandemic with their ignorance and stupidity. The ones who are really to blame are the people they trust: talk radio conservatives, Fox News pundits, social media stars, misinformation super spreaders, and politicians along for the ride.

When Trump gets booed for saying "Take the vaccine, it's good" -- you know the monster is unleashed and there's no going back. Still, it was Trump who helped create the monster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL9aJcqrtnw

Adam McKay tackles climate change. Looks like a decent cast.

So you confess this discussion was worthless from the beginning, then proceed to blame the worthlessness of it on someone else? — Derrick Huestis

No.

"But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational but "on the fence"?"

That was the question.

The discussion with Baker wasn't a complete waste, I suppose. Now I know something about engaging with him in the future.

Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.
— Xtrix

Are you saying I shouldn't take horse deewormer and shit my pants in the grocery store? Or end up shitting all over the ER? — James Riley

Depends on your goals...

The demon that started this thread — Cheshire

:kiss:

There is also nothing inherently irrational with not being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

There is. If we know nothing about a subject, and care about truth, accuracy, well-being, etc., then the rational choice is the consensus view. If we actually want to do a long-term, deep study on the issue, or have some expertise ourselves, then there's nothing irrational about holding dissenting views. For the laymen, however, there is.

Easy example: climate denial. If we care about the planet, as laypeople, then we should trust the overwhelming consensus. It is irrational to do the opposite -- because that's going against our goal. The correct choice is to go with not what feels good, or makes us feel special, or aligns with our religious or political affiliation -- but with what's true. If we can't decide for ourselves if something is true or not -- and we usually can't -- then our only choice is to trust others. If we decide to trust Alex Jones over the CDC, that's irrational. If we choose to trust Sean Hannity over the IPCC, that's irrational.

I talk about minority experts and bring up as an example, Alex Jones? — Yohan

He claims to be an expert. So does Donald Trump. But fine -- take dissenting expert views. We're in no position to judge that either.

99 doctors tell you you need surgery on your heart or else you'll probably die, and 1 says you shouldn't -- knowing nothing else, what do you do? (Assuming you want to continue living.)

Seems like an extreme example -- but that's exactly the level we're at with, again, climate change. (Actually it's said to be around 97%, but other studies have it higher, and I suspect it is.)

I'll give away the answer: you go with the 99% of doctors. It's as simple as gambling: do we put all our money on an event that wins 99% of the time, or not? Of course we go with the greater chances of success -- again, assuming we wish to win money and not lose money.

How do we know that going with the majority of experts is more likely to be true, or more likely to give us the results we want? What about in harder cases where there's less agreement? Can we really put a number on it the way we can with the roll of a die? All those questions are important, too.

Am I in a position to determine who I can trust? Or should I consult an expert on that as well? — Yohan

The choice about who to trust is up to each one of us regarding things we don't understand.



Yes, affect and effect are different. One is a verb, one is a noun. I choose not to care about it, since the meaning conveyed is the same, and its so trivial as to be embarrassing to go on about. But you two have fun with it. Small victories, I guess.

"If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar." - Franklin

Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

I agree.

If a minority expert offers more compelling arguments for their views than the "overwhelming scientific or medical consensus" than it is rational believe them. — Yohan

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.

The "them", the "those people". Those in the title of your thread. — baker

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip.

*sigh*
You know, it would help your case to spell properly. Mixing up verbs like you do makes you look irrational and emotional. And incompetent. — baker

No, it doesn't. You say this because you yourself are emotional. Affect and effect are often used interchangeably. There's a subtle difference, but both convey the same basic information to English speakers.

It does make you rather pathetic to bring this discussion into spelling, however. Revealing -- so thank you for that. Now I know not to waste too much time on you in the future.

So you have a goal (to change other people's minds) — baker

That's not my goal and wasn't the question of this thread. If I could snap my fingers and change people's minds, fine -- but in the real world, I know very well it often can't be done and is, essentially, a waste of time. Much like this discussion with you.

Good luck with your amazingly constructive attitude! — baker

Good luck with your spelling bee.

You owe him an apology! — baker

I guess you couldn't read between the lines, so I'll spell it out: what was said still applies, whether vaccinated or not. HIs entire comment was based on a straw man anyway.

You do realize that he said he got vaccinated? — baker

Wonderful.

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.
— Xtrix

So why don't you sue them? — baker

Sue who?

Oh, and "to affect" and "to effect" are two different verbs. — baker

Affect and effect are overlapping. I decided a while ago not to bother with "affect."

How pathetic that you resort to this, by the way. Can't say I'm totally surprised.

It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal. — baker

I'm not interested.

You're free to be a coward, but I've said elsewhere, although I don't have a death wish and will do basic things to protect myself, I will not let fear control my life. — Derrick Huestis

:rofl:

How utterly pathetic that this is the hill one chooses to die on -- vaccines, during a pandemic. In their minds, this is akin to Socrates and Jesus. Imagine that.

No one cares if you die or not. Feel free. The issue is other people. Again: you want to smoke -- fine. You want to smoke around me? You will not.

I stated a truism. I'm not misleading — Yohan

You think it's a truism, but it isn't. It treats everything as if there are "two sides," and there aren't. Are there really "two sides" to whether the earth is flat? No. Also, even in less extreme examples, like with climate change, where one person is in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the other isn't, it's completely misleading to suggest they're equally irrational.

I meant to say that both sides, those who are married to mainstream narratives, and those married to counter-mainstream narratives can both be immune to facts. — Yohan

Both are non-experts who choose who they trust. If one trusts the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, that's simply a better choice than the other non-expert who chooses to trust Internet conspiracy theories.

I don’t care if the vaccine cures every disease in human history. If someone doesn’t want to put it in their body they shouldn’t be forced to do so — NOS4A2

Perfectly fine. Just like it's perfectly fine to smoke if you choose to do so. I think you're an idiot for doing so, but it's your right. Just stay away from anywhere people congregate.

No one is saying everyone must get vaccinated or face legal consequences. What they're mandating is vaccines for workplaces, schools, etc. Refuse? OK -- then either don't come here or agree to be tested more often to protect others. Vaccine passports for travel, also a good idea. Those that don't like any of this -- tough. Just like it's tough for smokers these days.

We’ve seen what happens when we give the state the power — NOS4A2

School and work vaccine mandates have been around for decades.

Also, we follow laws every day of our lives. Some are legitimate, some aren't. You happen to think this mandate (not a law) is illegitimate, but that's because you're a medical ignoramus and, again, we're lucky you're not running the show.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-could-become-like-the-flu-if-more-people-get-vaccinated-11631439002?mod=mhp

From the WSJ.

Both sides — Yohan

This is misleading. Try arguing both-sides to the flat earth “debate.” It simply looks ridiculous there.

Yes, as laymen we should question those in authority.

But most of the time, our real choice lies in who we deem trustworthy— because we can’t be questioning everything at all times, and we can’t do “deep dives” into every medical, mechanical, scientific, or physical issue that we face— we rely on those with the requisite experience, knowledge, expertise to guide us as we get on with our lives.

We do this all the time. When we go to the doctor, when we go to the auto mechanic, to the bank, and even when we go over bridges. There’s a level of common-sensical trust and reliance on others’ goodness and expertise that’s taken for granted in everyday life.

This issue about vaccines is no different, as vaccines have been around for a long time, mandates have been around a long time, etc. What’s changed is the anti-vax movement and politicization of every issue. Because of this, laypeople who would otherwise get the shot and get on with their lives now feel the need to have an “opinion” about it and choose a “side.”

Many — enough to prevent vaccination targets from being met — are going with Alex Jones, “plandemic” and other such nonsense, some more sophisticated and nuanced than others. But all as wrong and misguided as flat earthers and, unfortunately, much more dangerous.

To argue that both sides are equally irrational is irrational.

Argue with emotion because logic is hard. — Derrick Huestis

“Logic.” :rofl:

“Against climate change? Then don’t drive a car or heat your house!”

How original! Because we haven’t heard this denialist bullshit (sorry, I mean “logic”) a million times before. You seem satisfied with it, so I’ll let you be.

Pathetic, naïve, ignorant morons. — protonoia

:lol:

Why do they all sound the same?

Matrix Resurrections.

More like “Matrix Exhumed.”

Go ahead and call me "conspiracy theorist" or whatever you've been programmed to label anyone who has an opposing view (based on long research). — protonoia

:lol:

“Long research.”

Tired denialist thinking.
Common.
Boring.

It does matter when it effects other people.
— Xtrix

You can justify anything on that basis. — Derrick Huestis

No, you can't.

it isn't worth pissing people off for — Derrick Huestis

It is. I don't care who it pisses off. Smoking laws piss people off -- doesn't give them a right to make everyone take in secondhand smoke.

For what it's worth, not that you will change your opinion, drunk driving kills many people, but banning alcohol didn't work so well. — Derrick Huestis

Drunk driving is illegal.

If we could put a prohibition on the coronavirus, I'd be for that.

I think a great option is for private insurers to up the cost for those unvaccinated. That's a very sensible move, on top of other measures.

My tax money shouldn't be going to pay for the medical bills of those that could easily have avoided this by getting a shot.

Most Americans support vaccine mandates in certain public spaces, survey finds

"In an ideal world, vaccine requirements (or weekly testing) wouldn’t be necessary. Americans would see that the coronavirus has already killed more than 4.6 million people worldwide. They would understand that vaccines are the single best tool we have to protect lives and restore the economy. They would be racing to the nearest pharmacy and consider themselves fortunate to be living in one of the few nations in the world where that’s possible."

If only...

Meant to post this here:

Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

[...]

Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. — NY Times

It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html

Very good editorial in the NY Times, worth quoting at length.

As Americans contemplate the prospect of a second winter trapped in the grip of Covid-19, remember that it didn’t need to be this way. Vaccines were developed in record time, and have proved to be both incredibly safe and stunningly effective. Nearly two-thirds of eligible Americans have accepted these facts and done their part by getting fully vaccinated.

Yet tens of millions more have not, allowing the more contagious Delta variant to sweep across the country, where it is now killing more than 1,500 people in the United States daily. Right now, the list of the very sick and the dead is made up almost entirely of the unvaccinated. But as long as the virus continues to spread widely, it can and will evolve in ways that put everyone at risk.

Faced with this avoidable catastrophe, President Biden is right to order tighter vaccine rules, which he did for roughly two-thirds of the nation’s work force on Thursday. “We’ve been patient,” Mr. Biden told vaccine holdouts. “But our patience is wearing thin. And your refusal has cost all of us.”

The president moved to require all executive branch employees, federal contractors and millions of health care workers to be vaccinated. Workers at private businesses with 100 or more employees will have to either get vaccinated or take a weekly Covid test. Any business covered by the order must offer its employees paid time off to get their shots or recover from any side effects.

[...]

Yet vaccine resisters carry on about violations of their freedom, ignoring the fact that they don’t live in a bubble, and that their decision to stay unvaccinated infringes on everyone else’s freedom — the freedom to move around the country, the freedom to visit safely with friends and family, the freedom to stay alive.

The Supreme Court made this point more than a century ago, when it upheld a fine against a Massachusetts man who refused to get the smallpox vaccine. In a majority opinion that echoes powerfully today, Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote, “Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

Refusers’ hollow appeals to “freedom” are especially hard to take considering that Americans already accept countless restrictions in the name of safety: We are required to wear seatbelts, for example, and to get vaccinations to attend public school.

Speaking of school vaccination requirements, they’ve proven wildly effective. Thanks to vaccines, measles and the mumps were essentially eradicated in children, at least until vaccine opponents opened the door for them to return.

A small number of people have a legitimate reason to decline the vaccine — say, those with an allergy. Others, particularly racial minorities, are mistrustful because of their personal experiences with the health care system, or because the vaccines are relatively new. Still others have struggled to get time off work or have worried (mistakenly) about the cost.

Beyond these, it’s hard to understand any arguments against getting the shot. The vaccine made by Pfizer is now fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the one by Moderna is expected to be shortly. — NY Times

It goes on, and worth a read. Says it all quite nicely, I think.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/10/opinion/biden-covid-vaccine.html

:100: :up: I got it April 1st but I had waited until those more vulnerable and the health care workers had had a fair shot. I didn't want to take up a shot from those who need it more. I self isolate real well and masks don't bother me. But once it was clear they had plenty, I got it. Wife and kid too. — James Riley

I would have done the same, but my clients are mostly high risk, and so they were encouraging all staff as well.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how stupid someone else's idea is, at least they're free to it and we don't have to fight each other- — Derrick Huestis

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.

They'll cry like little puppies about big bad authoritarian gubmn't treading on them, but they had their chance to debate politely on the merits of the science and consider what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say about what the experts had to say. Their bed may be uncomfortable, but they made it. — James Riley

Yeah -- at what point do we say "enough is enough, this case is settled"? When the vaccines were first rolled out, I was one of the first ones in line -- and many friends, family, and co-workers were hesitant. I totally understood their hesitancy. While I didn't accept them myself, I could see why they would have fears -- about how quickly it was created, about FDA approval, about side-effects, and generally about it's safety.

8 months, 5.4 billion shots later, FDA approval, and rigorous safety monitoring -- almost all of them have come around and gotten the vaccine. The ones who refuse even now are doing so because it's been politicized. The demographics bear this out -- Republicans being far less likely to get the vaccine.

So we're talking about all this as if this weren't the case. But it's very clear. The question is what to do about it. How many times can experts explain things, field question after question, concern after concern? It's like playing whack-a-mole.

It reminds me of the Creationists: "Where's the missing link between x fossil and z fossil?" A missing link, y, is provided. Then: "Where's the missing link between x and y, y and z?"

Time is of the essence, both with this and with climate change. Lives are on the line. Denial and immovable ignorance cannot be tolerated forever -- even if one is the Dalai Lama. The world is burning, people are dying, while we're "debating" this issue over and over again.

Sorry, but eventually we have to move on and take action. Sometimes there's simply no amount of goodwill, reasoned argument, evidence, or logic that will sway people who don't want to know or understand. Yes, they will complain, mock, sue, kick and scream -- in other words, they'll try their best to keep this pandemic going, accelerate climate change, etc. But given that their choices effects everyone else, and their choices are dangerous, I don't see any alternative beside them isolating themselves.

Blaming people, limiting your goodwill, showing contempt, considering them infantile, irrational, and so on is _not_ effective in changing people's mind. — baker

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way. — Xtrix

If most of those attributes are true, then there's no point in doing so in the first place.

I don't assume every anti-vaxxer is irrational, however. Most are; some are reachable. The question is whether it's worthwhile making the attempt, or if time is better spent on other things. I think the latter is the case, at this point.

Then it wasn't goodwill in the first place. — baker

It was goodwill.

Do you want to be effective or not? — baker

Effective at changing minds? Surely.

If I have to engage in endless debate while the planet burns around me, in the name of goodwill, then no— I don’t want to be effective in that way.

Imagine needing state officials to decide your health and safety. — NOS4A2

So doctors and the overwhelming medical consensus become “state officials” now. Got it.

So you took a vaccine shot because your state official told you to? How sad.

Well, expect backlash — baker

There was backlash before as well. So what does it matter.

The thing is that you see yourself as the arbiter of rationality. — baker

:yawn: More diagnoses.

I’m not doing that.

You treat people like they are your underlings. — baker

I do not.

Again, there's that authoritarianism. — baker

Nothing to do with authoritarianism.

And blaming them is helping you how exactly? — baker

Helping with what? They are to blame, bringing everyone down with them, and patience is rightfully wearing thin.

Goodwill doesn’t last forever.

Then, once the left stands up on it's hind legs and starts bringing them some of their own shit, they all of a sudden starting crying foul. Fuck them. And the gurney they are rolled in on. — James Riley

Basically, yes.

Suddenly it’s all about empathy, contempt, and how generally mean we are.

Patience and empathy have their limits. If you don’t listen to reason, evidence, and argument — you leave little recourse.

People get persuaded by goodwill, not by arguments, nor by force. — baker

So you’re indirectly answering my question: it’s not worth engaging with people who are actively harming others, the planet, etc.

Why? Because having “goodwill” towards those who are actively harming you is not only next to impossible, but undesirable.

If they’re not persuaded by reason, then force is all that remains. Hence the vaccine mandates.

You have not demonstrated goodwill toward them, and that's why they don't listen to you. — baker

Quite the opposite. I have— they haven’t.

Which is exactly what the question pertains to. If anyone wants to enter a discussion in good faith and a spirit if goodwill, I’m all for it. But not only do they not do so, their views (through their actions or non-actions) harm everyone.

You just expect others to be other than they are, as if they owed you that. — baker

I’m not interested in your continual projections and diagnoses.

They don’t “owe” me anything.

If it prevents one from becoming a Nazi then maybe it's a worthwhile consideration. — Cheshire

It worked wonders for Chamberlain. :roll:

Governments aren't doing this because they have a hard-on for telling people what to do. They're doing this because that's what the medical science recommends. — Michael

Sorry, but NOS is a medical expert, with years of experience with epidemics and infectious diseases and, more importantly, has a simple, handy-dandy principle on which to judge things — as articulated by Saint Reagan: government is not the solution, only the problem.


Case closed. The rest is your non-thinking obsequiousness to Big Government. Which is the problem.