People who have good reasoning skills can see it for what it is, so we need to collectively get into the habit of calling out disingenuous manipulation and put a stop to it. Rather than focusing on refuting each specific point, draw attention to the most ridiculous points, refute one or two, then stop engaging entirely because it is self-defeating.
The fact that this man is still given televised platforms after everything is unreal. All that does is give the illusion that there is substance to his manipulation. He needs to be shunned to his echo chamber and the world needs to move on.
Person A: (regurgitates really stupid talking point)
Person B: “I don’t believe that’s accurate, study (x) shows this, (y) action was completed by (z), there’s recordings of this happening”
Person A: “Well what about (less stupid regurgitated talking point)?”
Person B: “I don’t have the time/energy to personally refute all this stupid bullshit.”
Person A: “You see? You can’t deny it! I knew you were full of crap. I’m going to disregard all of the evidence you presented from the first point because of this.”
The other problem is, a large portion of the population is now vocally anti-science. “If (thing I’ve always been told by my elders/peers) conflicts with (hard data from peer-reviewed sources), I’m going to believe (the former), because the ‘scientific community’ is controlled by the boogyman that’s out to turn our kids Jewish with space lasers and melt their genitals with chemtrails.”
Ask me why I don’t speak with my father anymore lol.
My father: “This ‘Climate change’ is a hoax perpetuated by political parties to redistribute financial power away from the opposition, under the guise of this ‘saving the planet’ bullshit.”
Me: (provides hard data refuting this)
My father: “You actually believe that so-called ‘science?’ This is why I regret sending you to college.”
Your first example is exactly what I wish we would collectively agree to avoid as a society. Recognizing when someone’s trying to scam you (such as in a dishonest debate) needs to be taught in school starting young. When everyone has the skills necessary to recognize that Person A cannot be trusted, it becomes easy to solve the problem.
The times when you are ethically allowed to or even obliged to disregard someone’s blatantly dishonest message can be taught to anyone if we all decide that is important enough. Freedom of speech is vulnerable to bad actors, and it’s only the people who are willing to play fair who will suffer without better education and regulations put in place.
That is very true. But he is given televised platforms because a lot of ppl listen to him. They lack the reasoning skills you were mentioning, or they are too emotional involved in a specific topic.
Thats how ppl like Trump rise to power, its too much BS
People who have good reasoning skills can see it for what it is, so we need to collectively get into the habit of calling out disingenuous manipulation and put a stop to it. Rather than focusing on refuting each specific point, draw attention to the most ridiculous points, refute one or two, then stop engaging entirely because it is self-defeating.
The fact that this man is still given televised platforms after everything is unreal. All that does is give the illusion that there is substance to his manipulation. He needs to be shunned to his echo chamber and the world needs to move on.
The other problem is, a large portion of the population is now vocally anti-science. “If (thing I’ve always been told by my elders/peers) conflicts with (hard data from peer-reviewed sources), I’m going to believe (the former), because the ‘scientific community’ is controlled by the boogyman that’s out to turn our kids Jewish with space lasers and melt their genitals with chemtrails.”
Ask me why I don’t speak with my father anymore lol.
Your first example is exactly what I wish we would collectively agree to avoid as a society. Recognizing when someone’s trying to scam you (such as in a dishonest debate) needs to be taught in school starting young. When everyone has the skills necessary to recognize that Person A cannot be trusted, it becomes easy to solve the problem.
The times when you are ethically allowed to or even obliged to disregard someone’s blatantly dishonest message can be taught to anyone if we all decide that is important enough. Freedom of speech is vulnerable to bad actors, and it’s only the people who are willing to play fair who will suffer without better education and regulations put in place.
That is very true. But he is given televised platforms because a lot of ppl listen to him. They lack the reasoning skills you were mentioning, or they are too emotional involved in a specific topic.