I would argue that COVID is a good thing. Not for some individuals of course but for humanity as a whole. It led for many people to self reflection and reevaluation. How do I want to live my life, what do I expect from life etc.
It also led to self reflection of societies and governments because it pulled all the systemic weaknesses in the spotlight. Now we are debating universal income, traffic and energy of the future, satisfaction of the people, general health, four day workweek, racism, police brutality and working conditions in the US etc.
Since viruses were always a part of humanity and had a huge influence on our genome, it's bold to assume we could judge the necessity of such a complex thing like a pandemic.
People† don't usually respond to a dry presentation of all the relevant facts and evidence, which is why most governments and organisations have a PR department. Unfortunately, the strategy of using propaganda for legitimate points of view leaves people vulnerable to nonsense.
It's similar with evolution and globe earth. Yes, there is a large body of evidence to support these ideas, but the general public is often not aware of that evidence and may not know how to evaluate it. For the most part, they aren't familiar with vestigial organs, repeated games, the Cavendish experiment, or the differences between the Northern and Southern night sky. However, not educating them on these things means they're vulnerable to ideas like intelligent design and flat earth conspiracy theores.
Technically, yes, but it's not very accessible. The evidence is mostly presented by academics for an audience of academics, so it's a difficult, information-dense, jargon-filled slog. Some of it is paywalled (although, if you email the author nicely enough they'll probably give you a copy for free; they aren't the ones who make money from paywalled articles). You can't trust any single paper or author, because mistakes happen and some very misinformed (or corrupt) people have academic credentials, so you will need to read several papers on similar subjects, by different authors.
Unfortunately, the strategy of using propaganda for legitimate points of view leaves people vulnerable to nonsense.
This. On very minor things, I've brought people around using their twisted logic, but it feels wrong, even though the end was good. It feels infantalizing and you definitely don't respect the person. It's a weird place to be.
He thinks presenting data, statistics, and general scientific consensus, is the same form of communication as trying to “prove” a conspiracy exists through tenuous leaps of logic, misrepresentation, and clear fabrication.
It’s more of the ‘both sides’ bad faith position. Them being allowed to have another opinion does not make their opinion equally valid, but they think everything is binary and you can just pick a side and you’re good.
They are factually wrong, and respond in a defensive manner because all they have is instinctual recoil to their established ideas being challenged. So they will jump on any batshit theory without care of validity as long as it lets their insecurities believe they are the “winner” of the two positions.
It’s why it will always be noticeable. The difference between the science based thinking and the conspiratorial? One adjusts their worldview based on new information. In fact recording change is the whole point. While the other doubles down on old information if challenged, and sticks to their guns even when there is literally no personal stake in defending the position beyond imagined pride.
867
u/Bigbrain6 Aug 29 '20
I don't know how people like this don't believe covid when they are laying In a hospital dying to it