zlacker

>>diablo+(OP)
How do you deal with this strategy? A lot of hyper partisans and conspiracy theorists hammer you with a ton of “facts” that sometimes are correct but most of the times with half truths, misinterpretations and a pinch of things that are plain wrong. If you are lucky you can refute immediately but often it takes a lot of time and effort to research the topic. In a debate or discussion with friends I often feel stupid saying things like “I don’t believe the stuff you are saying but I need to research things for a while before I can tell you what exactly is wrong.” .

The current pandemic is a good example. The “Plandemic” movie is making its rounds in the neighborhood but all I can say is that I can’t imagine that thousands of researchers around the world are part of a conspiracy. It just doesn’t make sense.

>>Ididnt+av
Often, people aren't intentionally try to flood you with crap, they just want to tell their story. And they're told that people should have facts and evidence, so they go find facts and evidence.

The intractable problem is their sources are junk, and you're not going to refute them to their satisfaction.

You want to figure out where you are, and where you can realistically get to.

Much of what's achievable revolves around defeating the caricature. To them, you are a caricature of a person (and you've caricatured them, this cuts both ways) and your goal is to establish that you are a real person who has some relevant experience and views grounded in reality.

And your ideas are often grossly oversimplified, and often by your own side; everyone implicitly engages in the motte and bailey because we all need to develop an elevator pitch for our belief systems. E.g. "feminism is just about equality," "conservatism is simply common sense."

So when they pitch the soundbite version of your beliefs at you, you can expand on it, and explain your point of view.

The third thing you can do is some troubleshooting. For example, people don't go to antivaxx sites because they suddenly have a deep interest in immunology. You can probably find areas of common ground, very few people find large corporations and the government above reproach. And then you just lay out that while you don't implicitly trust large bureaucracies, you've nevertheless had positive experiences, etc.

So, you're not "winning" these arguments, but rather pushing the needle a bit and establishing a few facts in that person's mind. And, understand, they're going to change your mind a bit, too.

>>ben509+RD
I think the problem is that the facts are often very complex and don’t provide a simple solution. So a lot of misinformation is basically information fast food. Very convenient but not good for you.

>>Ididnt+GI
That's a fair point in two ways: most media outlets can't really deliver much more than a soundbite, and people experienced in communicating with them know this and simplify what they say to a soundbite. That's also true for all the memes, what can you fit into a GIF?

It's also affected by what motivates people to share something:

"Natural products produce fewer side-effects." Interesting.

"Pharmaceutical company disparages a study about negative impacts of their products." Also interesting.

"Big Pharma conspired to shut down revolutionary natural cures and push poisons!" The us vs them aspect is an implicit call to action, as marketing guys put it.