I tried watching it and couldn’t finish because the anti vax were so fucking dumb that it wasn’t even entertaining. But yeah, first point of discussion the bottom right guy brings up one of his citations and when asked about the data he admits he didn’t read the data. Pro-vax side keeps asking them questions to try to lead them to their misunderstanding (connecting the dots) and the anti vax get upset that they’re being “quizzed” on their own citations
It doesn’t matter how clueless the antivaxxers looked; they already won by getting a platform to debate in the first place. Their ideas do not deserve the respect of being on an equal stage with the scientific consensus.
I’ve been quite torn on this because that was what Dawkins did on the creationism vs evolution debate due to what others have told him. Like platforming these weirdoes exposes them to others and then their clips can get chopped up to sound like they’re smart if they get a good “gotcha”.
However, then they go on JRE or some other shit anyways and go into the ecosystem another way and it seems they’re seemingly unchallenged and they get to push the ridiculous narrative that “our ideas are so good that they won’t even face us”. It’s complete rubbish … but I just don’t know anymore.
they already won by getting a platform to debate in the first place
They certainly didn’t. The reason why we are in this position in the first place is that the scientific community has ignored these charlatans for so long. Science communicators like Professor Dave actively working to dismantle the talking points of these figures works to at least make it possible for science-minded people to be able to defend their ideas more easily, make it so that people unsure about these topics stop considering conspiratorial views, and just maybe make people deep in the conspiracy theory at least be unable to sleep at night thinking about what they’ve heard. This stuff does actually help people.
Their ideas do not deserve the respect of being on an equal stage with the scientific consensus.
Yes, that’s why they should get humiliated publicly in exchanges like this.
There is a world of difference between debating someone on stage and addressing misinformation. Providing people with the tools to dismantle misinformation is useful, as it’s creating and promoting strong counter narratives that appeal to the same emotions that cause people to become antivaxxers in the first place. However, do not assume logic can ever help the non receptive. If they feel their beliefs are under attack, reaching them becomes harder, not easier.
The antivaxxers who watch that debate already have their minds made up. They will largely ignore any examples of their side losing, and find countless reasons to only further enshrine their view. They’ll get mad at the scientists for being too mean, dismiss any evidence as lies, and use fear that the antivaxxers exploit to wipe away any cognitive dissonance. Debates on these sort of issues mostly reinforce already existing beliefs and rarely change people’s minds. It’s not a weakness of the people debating, but how the format plays with such charged issues.
We didn’t get to this point because scientists refused to publicly humiliate antivaxxers; antivaxxers have always been masters at getting humiliated by scientists. We got here because anti-intellectual grifting is profitable, while education is a money sink at scale. Anti-intellectual movements systemically gain more money and attention than science education, as it doesn’t require resources for them to get their information, and they generate a lot of the viral attention that advertisers crave. Add onto that social media platforms under moderating right wing drivel for years, and you have an ecosystem where the conspiracy theorists have the advantage.
In order to keep the bullshit at bay, you’d need a ton of resources put towards salient education campaigns. It’s not enough to shame antivax influencers, it needs to encouraged culturally to shame individual antivaxxers. Non aligned parents need to see advertisements warning of the dangers of disease, and be convinced to keep their kids from playing with unvaccinated children. The revenue streams and voices of grifters need to be cut, encouraged by the government, the public, and capitalists looking to avoid heat. Like all things for public good, it comes down to resources and political motivation, two things that neoliberal systems usually lack.
The old strategies didn’t fail because they don’t work, they failed because they weren’t profitable. They failed because the oligarchs either allowed it, or wanted it to happen. They put politicians in place who either made the government do too little for the public good, or used the government to work against it. It always comes back to capitalism and the rich; always.
I tried watching it and couldn’t finish because the anti vax were so fucking dumb that it wasn’t even entertaining. But yeah, first point of discussion the bottom right guy brings up one of his citations and when asked about the data he admits he didn’t read the data. Pro-vax side keeps asking them questions to try to lead them to their misunderstanding (connecting the dots) and the anti vax get upset that they’re being “quizzed” on their own citations
In any other “examine the evidence” space this should be a self-exile in disgrace
You’re missing out honestly, it was absolutely amazing. They got probably the best people they could get for the scientific side.
And I think this is the clip you’re talking about:
https://youtu.be/T8T3pv9h5uQ
This clip is also legendary. It was so awesome to see such a huge piece of shit get exposed directly to his face:
https://youtu.be/Jjdq1c6-MZo
It doesn’t matter how clueless the antivaxxers looked; they already won by getting a platform to debate in the first place. Their ideas do not deserve the respect of being on an equal stage with the scientific consensus.
I’ve been quite torn on this because that was what Dawkins did on the creationism vs evolution debate due to what others have told him. Like platforming these weirdoes exposes them to others and then their clips can get chopped up to sound like they’re smart if they get a good “gotcha”.
However, then they go on JRE or some other shit anyways and go into the ecosystem another way and it seems they’re seemingly unchallenged and they get to push the ridiculous narrative that “our ideas are so good that they won’t even face us”. It’s complete rubbish … but I just don’t know anymore.
They certainly didn’t. The reason why we are in this position in the first place is that the scientific community has ignored these charlatans for so long. Science communicators like Professor Dave actively working to dismantle the talking points of these figures works to at least make it possible for science-minded people to be able to defend their ideas more easily, make it so that people unsure about these topics stop considering conspiratorial views, and just maybe make people deep in the conspiracy theory at least be unable to sleep at night thinking about what they’ve heard. This stuff does actually help people.
Yes, that’s why they should get humiliated publicly in exchanges like this.
There is a world of difference between debating someone on stage and addressing misinformation. Providing people with the tools to dismantle misinformation is useful, as it’s creating and promoting strong counter narratives that appeal to the same emotions that cause people to become antivaxxers in the first place. However, do not assume logic can ever help the non receptive. If they feel their beliefs are under attack, reaching them becomes harder, not easier.
The antivaxxers who watch that debate already have their minds made up. They will largely ignore any examples of their side losing, and find countless reasons to only further enshrine their view. They’ll get mad at the scientists for being too mean, dismiss any evidence as lies, and use fear that the antivaxxers exploit to wipe away any cognitive dissonance. Debates on these sort of issues mostly reinforce already existing beliefs and rarely change people’s minds. It’s not a weakness of the people debating, but how the format plays with such charged issues.
We didn’t get to this point because scientists refused to publicly humiliate antivaxxers; antivaxxers have always been masters at getting humiliated by scientists. We got here because anti-intellectual grifting is profitable, while education is a money sink at scale. Anti-intellectual movements systemically gain more money and attention than science education, as it doesn’t require resources for them to get their information, and they generate a lot of the viral attention that advertisers crave. Add onto that social media platforms under moderating right wing drivel for years, and you have an ecosystem where the conspiracy theorists have the advantage.
In order to keep the bullshit at bay, you’d need a ton of resources put towards salient education campaigns. It’s not enough to shame antivax influencers, it needs to encouraged culturally to shame individual antivaxxers. Non aligned parents need to see advertisements warning of the dangers of disease, and be convinced to keep their kids from playing with unvaccinated children. The revenue streams and voices of grifters need to be cut, encouraged by the government, the public, and capitalists looking to avoid heat. Like all things for public good, it comes down to resources and political motivation, two things that neoliberal systems usually lack.
The old strategies didn’t fail because they don’t work, they failed because they weren’t profitable. They failed because the oligarchs either allowed it, or wanted it to happen. They put politicians in place who either made the government do too little for the public good, or used the government to work against it. It always comes back to capitalism and the rich; always.
Idiots need to find out they are idiots.
Memetic viruses are real and the strongest vaccine is ridicule, but gentler variants like education exist. (citation needed)