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
-
-
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 -
Replying to @gorskon @RadioFreeTom and
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
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 -
Replying to @MarkHoofnagle @RadioFreeTom and
Exactly. When your beliefs are so contrary to science, you have to find a way to justify them, to explain why nearly all the scientists/experts in the world support the conventional science you reject. That almost always takes a conspiracy theory —often more than one.
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
Yes, everyone who doesn’t understand you or who doesn’t want to heed you is a conspiracy theorist. I get it. Every guy who ever argued with his doctor about smoking and drinking is a science denier. I surrender.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
Given the size of this particular straw man you’ve been torching, that is probably for the better, because I’m tired too. Denialism is not about heeding one person or arguing with one’s doctor about smoking and drinking.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @MarkHoofnagle and
No, it’s about agreeing with you :)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @RadioFreeTom @gorskon and
It’s a shame that a person like yourself, intelligent educated. Is arguing with what you THINK others are saying, not what they are actually saying. Note your use of ‘absolute terms’ is a tell tale. Any sentences that as the word, Everyone, is suspect
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.