I can’t roll my eyes harder.
-
-
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @MarkHoofnagle and
That’s nice, but it doesn’t change that, for example, the antivaccine movement is at its heart a conspiracy theory that posits that “they” (CDC, medicine, pharma, government, etc.) “knew” that vaccines cause autism/are dangerous/are ineffective/etc. but covered it up.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
I'm rolling my eyes because this is liberal Twitter thing: "I agree with your point, so now let me expand your point to include Ronald Reagan and the GOP in 1952." Anti-vaxxers are conspiracy types, I agree. But not everyone who denies science is about conspiracy theories. /1
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @gorskon and
Motivated reasoning is behind a lot of it. "If I believe X, I will have to do something I don't like. So therefore I will disbelieve X and all things that could possibly lead to having to believe X." This is why people think MDs don't understand diets: Because they won't diet. /2
2 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @gorskon and
I will even agree with you that conservatives, whose politics are naturally more pessimistic and fearful, are more prone to conspiracism. But "everyone who won't agree me is a science-denying conspiracy theorist" is just the usual "I want what I want" politics. /3
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @gorskon and
It's a short jump from "accept my policy preferences" to "otherwise, you're a conspiracy theorist." It's annoying as hell and it's lazy reasoning. /4x
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @MarkHoofnagle and
Nice straw man ya got there. You’re conflating policy preferences with the science used to justify them. The two are NOT the same. Disagreeing with a specific policy to mitigate, for example, climate change is NOT the same as denying that human activity is causing climate change.
2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @RadioFreeTom and
What you’re doing is akin to likening disagreement over, for example, which specific vaccines are safe and effective enough and beneficial to a broad enough swath of the population to be included in the CDC become schedule to the antivax claim that vaccines do more harm than good
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
I know plenty of people who deny climate science purely because they don't want to open the door to climate solutions that would be unpleasant to them. They're not conspiracy theorists; really, they're not even science-deniers. They're just stubborn and dumb.
3 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @MarkHoofnagle and
And who’s pushing those climate solutions, in their eyes? I’d bet their blame starts sounding like a conspiracy theory over liberals, “globalists,” or whoever wanting to impose their will.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
Also, it’s a common mistake to dismiss denialists as stupid or dumb or lazy. Many of them are not either. Stupid people aren’t very good at motivated reasoning, after all. Nor are lazy people.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
I'll just go back to what I said about the beginning: Not everyone who disagrees with things you value are conspiracy theorists. To me, that's just lazy labeling, like "fascists" or "socialists." Some people are just ignorant, others are fearful of what they don't understand.
3 replies 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @gorskon and
Then you are missing the point about how denialism works and not paying attention to what they're saying. In the end, they have to come up with an explanation for why all these scientists are apparently lying, in concert, across the world, across dozens of journals.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.