Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[faible]

It's probably just best to engage with what people are saying rather than focus on who is saying it and dismissing it on that basis. If their ideas are bad or misinformed it should be straightforward to refute them.

It's really not.

Brandolini's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.

 

[Kong]

Even comments on Instagram pages, where 2 or 3 post a bullshit "fact", lead to this.

Suddenly the posts have 30,000 likes and other similar comments pop up, on that post and others.

Given this is accessed by average Joe's across the world, it suddenly becomes borderline fact and difficult to convince people otherwise.

 

[Darealrath]

It's really not.

Brandolini's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, it depends. Dumb flat earth or anti vaxx takes take little effort to debunk. More complex ideas can require a lot more effort.

If people aren't experts or willing to make that effort I still think it's much better for the overall discourse and the way people interact, especially online, to be quiet rather than play the person instead of the idea. Playing the person just seems to push people further apart and result in the dumb polarisation we have now.

 

[boncer34]

Well, it depends. Dumb flat earth or anti vaxx takes take little effort to debunk. More complex ideas can require a lot more effort.

If people aren't experts or willing to make that effort I still think it's much better for the overall discourse and the way people interact, especially online, to be quiet rather than play the person instead of the idea. Playing the person just seems to push people further apart and result in the dumb polarisation we have now.

Strongly agree.

The problem is that playing the man is very much encouraged in echo chambers, such as this website for instance, if you're on the side of the majority.

Or if the people moderating the content agree with you.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Well, it depends. Dumb flat earth or anti vaxx takes take little effort to debunk. More complex ideas can require a lot more effort.

If people aren't experts or willing to make that effort I still think it's much better for the overall discourse and the way people interact, especially online, to be quiet rather than play the person instead of the idea. Playing the person just seems to push people further apart and result in the dumb polarisation we have now.

Debunking something isn't just posting a retort or whatever, it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do.

 

[boncer34]

Debunking something isn't just posting a retort or whatever, it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do.

Is it? Why?

 

[Old Campaigner]

Is it? Why?

Because people read bullshit and get attached to it. It agrees with their political leanings or some other pre-existing biases or they just like the sound of it.

If it was easy anti vaxxers wouldn't be a thing. Posting about their efficacy, how the benefits outweigh the risks for most people etc would make that problem go away. But it hasn't and now we're getting measles and polio outbreaks

 

[boncer34]

Because people read bullshit and get attached to it. It agrees with their political leanings or some other pre-existing biases or they just like the sound of it.

If it was easy anti vaxxers wouldn't be a thing. Posting about their efficacy, how the benefits outweigh the risks for most people etc would make that problem go away. But it hasn't and now we're getting measles and polio outbreaks

I don't think debunking is convincing everybody they're wrong and you're right. I think it's exposing how their idea is false, if they still choose to cling to the belief that doesn't mean you haven't debunked it.

 

[Darealrath]

Debunking something isn't just posting a retort or whatever, it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do.

Can't convince everyone every time (and would you even want to? Getting a bit philosophical here...).

 

[dank420_]

Is it? Why?

Just think about when someone tries to convince you, the Scales award winner, that you’re wrong.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Can't convince everyone every time (and would you even want to? Getting a bit philosophical here...).

I think it depends on the context and consequences of being wrong. A flat earther on their own is only damaging their dignity and credibility, flat earthers becoming a populist political movement that wants to shoot down satellites (or something, idk) is a situation where people need to be convinced they're wrong

 

[Darealrath]

I think it depends on the context and consequences of being wrong. A flat earther on their own is only damaging their dignity and credibility, flat earthers becoming a populist political movement that wants to shoot down satellites (or something, idk) is a situation where people need to be convinced they're wrong

Fair on the surface but where does "need to be convinced" lead if they aren't willing?

 

[boncer34]

Just think about when someone tries to convince you, the Scales award winner, that you’re wrong.

I don't think debunking is convincing everybody they're wrong and you're right. I think it's exposing how their idea is false, if they still choose to cling to the belief that doesn't mean you haven't debunked it.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Fair on the surface but where does "need to be convinced" lead if they aren't willing?

More forcible action? Examples surface from time to time particularly when a parent is withholding lifesaving medical treatment from their kid

 

[Beerfish]

Strongly agree.

The problem is that playing the man is very much encouraged in echo chambers, such as this website for instance, if you're on the side of the majority.

Or if the people moderating the content agree with you.

 

[boncer34]

View attachment 2203684

I'm referring to SRP.

Mainly.

 

[Kong]

I don't think debunking is convincing everybody they're wrong and you're right. I think it's exposing how their idea is false, if they still choose to cling to the belief that doesn't mean you haven't debunked it.

I think you're being quite literal by focusing on "debunk".

I read his post to mean "convince others".

 

[boncer34]

I think you're being quite literal by focusing on "debunk".

I read his post to mean "convince others".

I mean the original post I quoted was defining debunking, so yes I agree, I did focus on the post I responded too.

Debunking something isn't just posting a retort or whatever, it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do.

 

[faible]

Well, it depends. Dumb flat earth or anti vaxx takes take little effort to debunk. More complex ideas can require a lot more effort.

If people aren't experts or willing to make that effort I still think it's much better for the overall discourse and the way people interact, especially online, to be quiet rather than play the person instead of the idea. Playing the person just seems to push people further apart and result in the dumb polarisation we have now.

Even flat earth takes time to debunk, and that’s one of the most basic, absurd ones.

Finding actual references, addressing nebulous claims, writing it all up. It takes a lot of time because just saying ‘nuh uh’ doesn’t actually work.

This is the problem fact checkers have had with Trump, he spouts bullshit on such an immense scale, with such frequency, that it’s simply impossible to keep on top of it. It’s become a common tactic utilised by a lot of these online grifters; they’ll pick a couple of factual things they can point to as ‘anchors’ of their reliability, then surround it in a sea of absolute hogwash.

Individually maybe it's not something to worry about, but collectively it's already become a major problem for society to grapple with, especially when people in positions of power or authority do it.

 

[Kong]

I mean the original post I quoted was defining debunking, so yes I agree, I did focus on the post I responded too.

Which also says "it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do."

 

[boncer34]

Which also says "it's also convincing people that the bullshit is in fact bullshit. That's much harder to do."

Yes he said that is part of debunking. And I'm saying its not.

Or to simplify. He said debunking isn't just ABC it's also XYZ.

I'm simply saying I don't think the XYZ part is right.

 

[Old Campaigner]

In fairness to the reigning poster of the year I think in a very literal sense debunking doesn’t include convincing anyone, but in a practical sense it kinda has to otherwise why bother making the attempt?

Putting forward a well reasoned/researched argument is probably sufficient in an academic setting where people are debating largely in good faith but in the realm of conspiracy theories and woo where people are making that shit part of their identity the process of convincing is a major battle.

 

[boncer34]

In fairness to the reigning poster of the year I think in a very literal sense debunking doesn’t include convincing anyone, but in a practical sense it kinda has to otherwise why bother making the attempt?

Putting forward a well reasoned/researched argument is probably sufficient in an academic setting where people are debating largely in good faith but in the realm of conspiracy theories and woo where people are making that shit part of their identity the process of convincing is a major battle.

Because if you don't present the other side then shit becomes a conspiracy fuelled echo chamber.

For example I recently read a post on Facebook claiming the LA Wildfires were set to clear land for California's high speed rail project. Somebody debunked the shit out of the theory, they didn't convince the OP they were wrong (shock) but they demonstrated quite comprehensively why they were wrong.

Which means if someone with 0 knowledge reads the post, they'll now see both sides to make their judgement as opposed to just one.

 

[dank420_]

Because if you don't present the other side then shit becomes a conspiracy fuelled echo chamber.

For example I recently read a post on Facebook claiming the LA Wildfires were set to clear land for California's high speed rail project. Somebody debunked the shit out of the theory, they didn't convince the OP they were wrong (shock) but they demonstrated quite comprehensively why they were wrong.

Which means if someone with 0 knowledge reads the post, they'll now see both sides to make their judgement as opposed to just one.

wow you convinced me.

And some people say bigfooty is an echo chamber!

 

[Kong]

Because if you don't present the other side then shit becomes a conspiracy fuelled echo chamber.

For example I recently read a post on Facebook claiming the LA Wildfires were set to clear land for California's high speed rail project. Somebody debunked the shit out of the theory, they didn't convince the OP they were wrong (shock) but they demonstrated quite comprehensively why they were wrong.

Which means if someone with 0 knowledge reads the post, they'll now see both sides to make their judgement as opposed to just one.

Unless the OP is so popular that the factual one fades into obscurity and isn't easily seen. Which seems to happen a lot, sadly.