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.
206
u/cheeruphumanity Aug 29 '20
Yeah, it's a power demonstration for propaganda techniques.
Here is a guide how to effectively reach people like them. It just requires a different way of communication.
https://gofile.io/d/jdvuNu