Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Anti-vaxxers are already too stupid or too mentally ill to be swayed by things like facts or evidence. Engaging them would not only be a waste of time, it would paint a target on this scientist’s back for ever kook and nutter whose delusion is threatened by them. And the last thing that any expert should do is give these nutbags any legitimacy by engaging with them.
If I were him I would accept, but no public broadcasting whatsoever.
Maybe I’m a bit too idealistic, but I don’t think ignoring them is the best thing to do. We should talk, and talk, and talk, responding to the same stupid arguments over and over and over again, just not turning it into fucking entertainment like everything is nowadays.
It’s surprising how reasonable most people are once you talk to them outside of social media.
Giving them any attention whatsoever, even in private, legitimizes them— even in their own minds. This is why they do whatever they can to provoke you into giving them attention in the first place. The minute you give them any attention, you give them power, and that’s what they truly crave the most. Because they are weak, and that’s why they cling to these delusional beliefs in the first place; they’re desperately grasping for control over their own lives in a world where they have no control, and that terrifies them. As a result, that manifests in an absolute need to control everything and everyone around them.
This will make sense if you are debating one-on-one within the context of a well-organized debate. However, they are not looking to debate, but to amplify their message in a well-known platform, like a big fishing net that catches whatever it can drag to the surface.
I agree that people should learn all the time and as much as they can, but they don’t respect the science and would use this to give weight to their argument while trying to look as calm and collected so that some viewers would believe that they know what they are talking about.
You shouldn’t engage them. You play on your rules, not theirs. I like the analogy of “It is like playing chess with a pigeon: Because it doesn’t matter how masterfully tutored you’ve been in the theory, how sound your thinking and strategy is, or how good you are at the game in general, the pigeon is always going to knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Anti-vaxxers are already too stupid or too mentally ill to be swayed by things like facts or evidence. Engaging them would not only be a waste of time, it would paint a target on this scientist’s back for ever kook and nutter whose delusion is threatened by them. And the last thing that any expert should do is give these nutbags any legitimacy by engaging with them.
1000% this. It will do good and only bring harm to the scientist.
If I were him I would accept, but no public broadcasting whatsoever.
Maybe I’m a bit too idealistic, but I don’t think ignoring them is the best thing to do. We should talk, and talk, and talk, responding to the same stupid arguments over and over and over again, just not turning it into fucking entertainment like everything is nowadays.
It’s surprising how reasonable most people are once you talk to them outside of social media.
Giving them any attention whatsoever, even in private, legitimizes them— even in their own minds. This is why they do whatever they can to provoke you into giving them attention in the first place. The minute you give them any attention, you give them power, and that’s what they truly crave the most. Because they are weak, and that’s why they cling to these delusional beliefs in the first place; they’re desperately grasping for control over their own lives in a world where they have no control, and that terrifies them. As a result, that manifests in an absolute need to control everything and everyone around them.
This will make sense if you are debating one-on-one within the context of a well-organized debate. However, they are not looking to debate, but to amplify their message in a well-known platform, like a big fishing net that catches whatever it can drag to the surface.
I agree that people should learn all the time and as much as they can, but they don’t respect the science and would use this to give weight to their argument while trying to look as calm and collected so that some viewers would believe that they know what they are talking about.
You shouldn’t engage them. You play on your rules, not theirs. I like the analogy of “It is like playing chess with a pigeon: Because it doesn’t matter how masterfully tutored you’ve been in the theory, how sound your thinking and strategy is, or how good you are at the game in general, the pigeon is always going to knock over the chess pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”