Support NeoGAF

[The_blonde_and_blue]

That's giving up. That's surrendering to their bigotry. You disengage and it allows them to continue unchallenged.

I asked you if you leaned toward authoritarianism earlier in this thread. I do. One of the functions of government should be to protect marginalized and persecuted groups. But we also have a social responsibility to defend these groups, and to work toward reducing oppression against them.

If you do not challenge a bigot, you are essentially handing them the reigns. They may be trying to get a rise out of you, but this isn't as trivial as kids poking each other on the playground. Letting them go unchallenged can lead to regressive policies. It can leave ignorant onlookers thinking the bigot has the upper hand, that you do not have the capacity to defend your views because the bigot has the stronger argument. This allows bigoted thought, like a virus, to spread. In a perfect world bigotry and chauvinism and stupidity would be self evident. This is not a perfect world.

You have the capacity to prevent this. Challenging bigots is not some idealist principle. It is practical. Without challenging these people, you cannot affect change. You relinquish all power to them.

Don't you recognize that people are listening to them? They don't need your recognition to know this. Look at the GOP right now. Look at the anti-vax movement, creationists, or any other group founded on intentional or unintentional ignorance. Do you think if we suddenly stopped acknowledging them they would go away? They have plenty of support from their base; they do not need us to respond to them for them to know they have an influence. But by responding, we can at least curb their influence.

There are people out there listening. To assume maliciousness from your opposition is unwise. Ignorance is not always held out of spite. It can be remediated. It does not have to be permanent.

Well freaking said.
/slowclap.gif

 

[Mailbox]

Fear is one hell of a drug, huh?

 

[pigeon]

This could be true too.

Autism may have ALWAYS been this widespread, but since it's such a wide-range spectrum of disorders and developmental issues, people in the past would shrug a lot of the less-severe cases off as "late bloomers" or some other non-specific reason.

It's so hard to nail down the cause of something like this.

I mean, this is kind of a lot of handwaving here.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that autism has become much more common and therefore we should figure out what's changed to make that true.

That's fine, as far as that goes. But you can't then say "or maybe autism hasn't become much more common at all." If that's true then everything else you've said is nonsensical! It can't just sit calmly next to the rest of your arguments.

If you're really convinced that there's a potential danger here, you should be focusing much more on how to identify whether autism has actually become more common -- because it's probably worth knowing that. Otherwise it kind of looks like you're just foggying the issue with uncertainty, when your actual argument requires a lot of certainty to make.

 

[Vyer]

Honestly the scariest part of this horseshit is that there are so many sites that say they do.

well $100 bucks and some free time and you can have a 'source' of your very own!

 

[hammysaurusrex]

yeah i know and like everything in science theres two sides to the debate

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/

now im sure there is another page one link below that one that endorses the definition of herd immunity and then a link below that that advocates healthy exposure to pathogens for the body to fight it naturally.

I think the right to decide what goes into your body by consent should stand regardless.

First, Humphries is a retired physician that was not involved in any way with infectious diseases or vaccines. If the article was of an academic quality, this wouldn't be a huge issue because the data would speak for itself - but since it's just her personal opinion for the most part, it's hard to take seriously.

This also commits a very common trope within the anti-vaccine community - the conflation of incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases with mortality from vaccine-preventable diseases. To explain why this is incredibly dishonest - look at polio. The mortality from polio was falling before the vaccine was released, because we were able to start throwing children into iron lungs to prevent death from respiratory paralysis. However, the incidence of polio and with it its mangling complications did not begin to fall until the vaccine was released.

Adults have the freedom to make health care decisions for themselves, but children are not "property" for their parents to martyr. Children, even those born to stupid parents, deserve to be healthy - and going further, I deserve that their parent's ignorance not place my or other children at risk.

 

[Fink]

It's weirdly bi-partisan stupidity. I recently moved to Northern Colorado from Texas and the amount of anti-vaxxers here is absolutely crazy. One of the schools in the district at which I I work is 30% non-vaccinated. From what I understand, Colorado is 2nd to only Oregon when it comes to anti-vaxxers.

Was just gonna say, my gramps lives in Colorado and he is anti-vaxx. I love the state but numbers like that are pretty scary.

 

[Zhengi]

computers cause autism.

ever notice how computers are so much more prominent over the past twenty years? just like autism diagnoses? observe

further: ever notice how autistic kids tend to be NERDS that like COMPUTERS? case closed america

Looks legit.

Case closed.

 

[Currygan]

because certain Americans are, well, kind of lacking in the brain department

 

[Goldenroad]

This "age of information", as you put it, allows anyone to spread misinformation around at an alarming rate. At this point, in the internet age, I'd say we are in more of an age of misinformation than ever. Some things are going to have to seriously change to remedy this problem, and unfortunately those things have some major downsides to them.

 

[aeolist]

because certain Americans are, well, kind of lacking in the brain department

uh

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/07/anti-vaxxer-disease-spreads-to-europe.html

it's everywhere

edit: found this too, great stuff: http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map

 

[The Technomancer]

That's giving up. That's surrendering to their bigotry. You disengage and it allows them to continue unchallenged.

I asked you if you leaned toward authoritarianism earlier in this thread. I do. One of the functions of government should be to protect marginalized and persecuted groups. But we also have a social responsibility to defend these groups, and to work toward reducing oppression against them.

If you do not challenge a bigot, you are essentially handing them the reigns. They may be trying to get a rise out of you, but this isn't as trivial as kids poking each other on the playground. Letting them go unchallenged can lead to regressive policies. It can leave ignorant onlookers thinking the bigot has the upper hand, that you do not have the capacity to defend your views because the bigot has the stronger argument. This allows bigoted thought, like a virus, to spread. In a perfect world bigotry and chauvinism and stupidity would be self evident. This is not a perfect world.

You have the capacity to prevent this. Challenging bigots is not some idealist principle. It is practical. Without challenging these people, you cannot affect change. You relinquish all power to them.

Don't you recognize that people are listening to them? They don't need your recognition to know this. Look at the GOP right now. Look at the anti-vax movement, creationists, or any other group founded on intentional or unintentional ignorance. Do you think if we suddenly stopped acknowledging them they would go away? They have plenty of support from their base; they do not need us to respond to them for them to know they have an influence. But by responding, we can at least curb their influence.

There are people out there listening. To assume maliciousness from your opposition is unwise. Ignorance is not always held out of spite. It can be remediated. It does not have to be permanent.

Well that's part of why I don't advocate for ignoring them, I advocate for kicking them out of the conversation. Of course we need to be out there calling the anti-vac movement stupid. Of course we need to be out there distributing the facts. But that's not enough, we also need to stop them spreading their bullshit, and inviting them to talk just invites them to be discovered by a new audience. Its about shutting these sorts of movements down, not just counterbalancing with the appropriate information. We are social creatures. Cut off their social oxygen.

Of course we respond. But we respond with hostility, not with just "oh, uhm, well actually..."

 

[teruterubozu]

Because misinformation is also part of the Information Age.

 

[Red]

Well that's part of why I don't advocate for ignoring them, I advocate for kicking them out of the conversation. Of course we need to be out there calling the anti-vac movement stupid. Of course we need to be out there distributing the facts. But that's not enough, we also need to stop them spreading their bullshit, and inviting them to talk just invites them to be discovered by a new audience. Its about shutting these sorts of movements down, not just counterbalancing with the appropriate information. We are social creatures. Cut off their social oxygen.

Do you really think by shutting them out of the conversations you are having, that you are shutting them down? There is no way to police them completely. You have no way to correct misinformation if you do not confront it. By attempting to shut them down, you are stoking the flames of perceived oppression and mistrust that are already burning in these communities. You are working against your own self-interest and the interests of those you are obstensibly trying to protect.

Responding with hostility only pushes your goal further away. Why would they even want to understand you if you do not treat them with respect? How can you advocate for hostility while tying to teach people?

 

[The Technomancer]

Do you really think by shutting them out of the conversations you are having, that you are shutting them down? There is no way to police them completely. You have no way to correct misinformation if you do not confront it. By attempting to shut them down, you are stoking the flames of perceived oppression and mistrust that are already burning in these communities. You are working against your own self-interest and the interests of those you are obstensibly trying to protect.

Both personal experience and some recent science seem to back up my belief that peer pressure is at least more effective then factual presentation. You can't really change the minds of the converted with facts (actually it just entrenches them further). But you can if enough people around them think they're stupid. This works better on a personal level than it does on an internet based level where everyone can find their own little enclave, but the impetus for me changing more than a few opinions was knowing that everyone I was talking to thought they were dumb, even if that's only what sparked me to reconsider them and later revise my views based on evidence

At a certain point every person is either going to reach a "either I'm wrong or everyone else is wrong" moment. If they really double down on "everyone else is wrong", I'm not sure what you can do about that. But at least we can reach the people who might realize "I'm wrong"

 

[BocoDragon]

Ironic.

It is a thing precisely because of the information age.

It's largely a post-2000 phenomenon that spread through the Internet, thanks to that scam artist Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

 

[Red]

Both personal experience and some recent science seem to back up my belief that peer pressure is at least more effective then factual presentation. You can't really change the minds of the converted with facts. But you can if enough people around them think they're stupid. This works better on a personal level than it does on an internet based level where everyone can find their own little enclave, but the impetus for me changing more than a few opinions was knowing that everyone I was talking to thought they were dumb, even if that's only what sparked me to reconsider them and later revise my views based on evidence

I hope you are right, but I cannot sympathize. If one of the opinions you changed due to peer pressure was your old view on arguing, which I think is fair to say was closer to mine, to your new view, advocating suppression and ridicule, it should be obvious that I disagree with how effective that method is.

At a certain point every person is either going to reach a "either I'm wrong or everyone else is wrong" moment. If they really double down on "everyone else is wrong", I'm not sure what you can do about that. But at least we can reach the people who might realize "I'm wrong"

I don't think every person will fall to this. I think you might be projecting whatever views you've absorbed when you say people might double down on "everyone else is wrong." I don't see how your method can at all reach people who might realize they are wrong. You don't give them an opportunity to realize that. You dismiss them out of hand.

 

[The Technomancer]

I hope you are right, but I cannot sympathize. If one of the opinions you changed due to peer pressure was your old view on arguing, which I think is fair to say was closer to mine, to your new view, advocating suppression and ridicule, it should be obvious that I disagree with how effective that method is.

Well, no, my opinion changed because of a few things:
-Realizing that factual argument wasn't actually getting very far outside of carefully controlled spaces like this forum
-Research coming out that actually validated that realization, that people just become more entrenched in their opinions when evidence is presented to the contrary
-This exact anti-vaccine movement, which is when I realized that actual harm was being done and if just presenting the facts and saying "those people are wrong" was ineffectual then there had to be other ways to discredit them

 

[Red]

Well, no, my opinion changed because of a few things:
-Realizing that factual argument wasn't actually getting very far outside of carefully controlled spaces like this forum
-Research coming out that actually validated that realization, that people just become more entrenched in their opinions when evidence is presented to the contrary
-This exact anti-vaccine movement, which is when I realized that actual harm was being done and if just presenting the facts and saying "those people are wrong" was ineffectual then there had to be other ways to discredit them

I would like to see that research.

I don't think the "better argument" method of trying to change minds is 100% effective–I think that's obvious. But it is hard for me to swallow that it is less effective than simply kicking opposition out of the conversation entirely.

Your approach reminds me of a quote I once heard, along the lines of, "yesterday's revolutionaries are today's despots." The idea of suppressing ideas is anathema to everything I believe, no matter how sickening I find many ignorant ideas. It is a tactic used when authoritarianism gets out of hand, when the prevailing hegemony is challenged, and exploiting it even for favorable ends opens the door for its misuse.

I want to mention that I've been strongly influenced by proponents of critical pedagogy, and that education and reframing information are the thrust of what I believe to be the bedrock of true revolutionary change.

 

[The Technomancer]

I would like to see that research.

I don't think the "better argument" method of trying to change minds is 100% effective–I think that's obvious. But it is hard for me to swallow that it is less effective than simply kicking opposition out of the conversation entirely.

Well its not just that its ineffective, its that oftentimes its counterproductive. There was a bit of buzz around at least one, maybe a few papers on this a few years ago, I'll track them down

 

[BearFlexington]

It's probably less about people being "stupid" and more about trust. A lot of people have had their trust is big pharma damaged, either by personal experience or consumption of anti-big pharma media. Calling anyone who takes issue with the current vaccine model in this country "anti-vax" is lazy. Some people want "greener" vaccines, some want fewer vaccines, and some want greater transparency into the industry as a whole. The Supreme Court stepping in to protect big pharma from lawsuits left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and could probably be credited with much of the distrust. In my opinion, there are areas of grey that the classification of "anti-vax" ignores. This is dangerous and prevents conversations that might better educate the people you would call "stupid."

 

[aeolist]

I would like to see that research.

I don't think the "better argument" method of trying to change minds is 100% effective–I think that's obvious. But it is hard for me to swallow that it is less effective than simply kicking opposition out of the conversation entirely.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-cling-to-beliefs-when-theyre-threatened-by-facts/

here's one, i know i've seen others

 

[The Mule]

There'll always be someone on the internet telling these people what they want to hear. That's all it boils down to.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

 

[Red]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/why-do-we-cling-to-beliefs-when-theyre-threatened-by-facts/

here's one, i know i've seen others

This focuses only on immediate reactions after a single exposure to opposing information, and I do not see how it is relevant to what I am arguing.

 

[The Technomancer]

I would like to see that research.

I don't think the "better argument" method of trying to change minds is 100% effective–I think that's obvious. But it is hard for me to swallow that it is less effective than simply kicking opposition out of the conversation entirely.

Here are a couple good recent ones, although I'm not sure if either is the one I'm thinking about, they're concerned mostly with how selective filtering even in the face of robust and easily available information results in reinforcement of pre-concieved notions. There was one in particular that specifically tested frequency and strength of belief around claims like "global warming exists" or "gun violence is on the decline" but I haven't found it yet, I'll keep digging because I'd like to re-read it myself.

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/l...ed-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444 (this should be free to download)

Your approach reminds me of a quote I once heard, along the lines of, "yesterday's revolutionaries are today's despots." The idea of suppressing ideas is anathema to everything I believe, no matter how sickening I find many ignorant ideas. It is a tactic used when authoritarianism gets out of hand, when the prevailing hegemony is challenged, and exploiting it even for favorable ends opens the door for its misuse.

I want to mention that I've been strongly influenced by proponents of critical pedagogy, and that education and reframing information are the thrust of what I believe to be the bedrock of true revolutionary change.

The idea of the revolutionary becoming the despot is, interestingly, not something I find distasteful. I mean, it would be nice if it wasn't true, but its sort of inevitable. No-one remains on the bleeding edge of "progress" forever, and new revolutionaries have to rise up against something. I don't think we ever actually achieve perfect progressivism, and I've sort of resigned myself to probably ending up on the wrong side of history about something thirty years from now, no matter how open minded and rational I try to be.

or to put it more simply, there will always be friction to change and progress. And that friction has to come from somewhere. A generation progressive on one set of issues will still probably be regressive on another

But that's all sort of besides the point. Education is amazing. I try to engage in it whenever possible, especially on an interpersonal level. What this really comes down to is, I think, that I've realized that with limited time and attention there are times and places where, instead of trying to educate someone truly dead set on harmful beliefs, my energy is better spent trying to support those around me instead. This gets off of the anti-vaccine thing and more onto traditionally social issues, but is my time really better spent on arguing with that racist on Twitter, with whom I will almost certainly make no progress, or is it better spent being there for my friend who was his target and making it clear that I, and those I know, aren't going to tolerate that dumbassery to any degree?

 

[NervousXtian]

As much as this is the information age, it's also the mis-information age. It's as easy to get "false" facts as it is to get actual facts these days.

You can find people posting "facts" about how the world is flat, how 9/11 was an inside job, how the world is ran by lizard people, how Obama really is Muslim and born in Kenya, climate change being false, or any other conspiracy bull crap that's out there.

Hell, even the actual news is falsely or misleadingly reported to make it more exciting or polarizing for ratings.

Not surprised people are confused about vacs.. there's so much mis-information it's hard for a lot of people to come to honest conclusions about the subject. Vaccines are more than likely probably safe, safer than not giving them.. but trying to convince a anti-vaxxer is tough as they have their own "facts" and those sites typically talk about how the pro-vaxxers are trying to fool them.

So it's an endless circle of bullshit basically.

 

[Red]

Here are a couple good recent ones, although I'm not sure if either is the one I'm thinking about, they're concerned mostly with how selective filtering even in the face of robust and easily available information results in reinforcement of pre-concieved notions. There was one in particular that specifically tested frequency and strength of belief around claims like "global warming exists" or "gun violence is on the decline" but I haven't found it yet, I'll keep digging because I'd like to re-read it myself.

http://synapse.princeton.edu/~sam/l...ed-assimilation-and-attitude-polarization.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444 (this should be free to download)


The idea of the revolutionary becoming the despot is, interestingly, not something I find distasteful. I mean, it would be nice if it wasn't true, but its sort of inevitable. No-one remains on the bleeding edge of "progress" forever, and new revolutionaries have to rise up against something. I don't think we ever actually achieve perfect progressivism, and I've sort of resigned myself to probably ending up on the wrong side of history about something thirty years from now, no matter how open minded and rational I try to be.

or to put it more simply, there will always be friction to change and progress. And that friction has to come from somewhere. A generation progressive on one set of issues will still probably be regressive on another

But that's all sort of besides the point. Education is amazing. I try to engage in it whenever possible, especially on an interpersonal level. What this really comes down to is, I think, that I've realized that with limited time and attention there are times and places where, instead of trying to educate someone truly dead set on harmful beliefs, my energy is better spent trying to support those around me instead. This gets off of the anti-vaccine thing and more onto traditionally social issues, but is my time really better spent on arguing with that racist on Twitter, with whom I will almost certainly make no progress, or is it better spent being there for my friend who was his target and making it clear that I, and those I know, aren't going to tolerate that dumbassery to any degree?

Thank you for linking those papers. I look forward to reading them.

I have to go, but I want to respond to a couple of points.

I don't think it is fair to say that it is inevitable for a revolution to become an autocracy, if you focus less on enforcing rule of law (or social norms, etc) and more on establishing a process of evaluating law (& etc). An ideal society is not top down, but bottom-up, and strives to give its populace the ability to critically reflect on themselves instead of taking norms and values superficially. If critical thinking is cultivated, instead of appeals to authority, there will be less worry about being on the wrong side of history–course correction will be a part of the society itself, and would not need to be spurred by special interest groups. But I concede, this is only the ideal (which is why, in the absence of a perfect society, I advocate for a kind of liberal authoritarianism which protects the disenfranchised, so that at least by law they are not treated unfairly).

When you argue with a staunch racist on Twitter, you may not change his mind, but you create a new source of information that bystanders can process & use to approach their own conclusions. On the internet especially, you rarely argue in a vacuum. Your words are documented for the world. Whatever argument you have may be the first exposure for an onlooker to the information you provide.

Glancing at those papers, they seem only to confirm the obvious emotional bias people have for information that resonates to their values. This kind of thing has been written about extensively by psychologists like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. I need to print and read the rest but right now do not see how they contradict what I have been arguing.

I do think it is important for you to stand in solidarity with your friends, and I respect you for that.

 

[Brhoom]

Off topic but why people take flu shots?
I took all the vaccines that I was told to take but we don't have flu shots, the doctor at our university ( she is pro vaccination btw) said that it's useless to take a flu shot because it protects againts 13 kinds of germs that causes the flu from the 600 ones avaiable.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Off topic but why people take flu shots?
I took all the vaccines that I was told to take but we don't have flu shots, the doctor at our university ( she is pro vaccination btw) said that it's useless to take a flu shot because it protects againts 13 kinds of germs that causes the flu from the 600 ones avaiable.

I find it hard to believe a licensed medical doctor would say a flu shot is useless.

 

[Red]

Off topic but why people take flu shots?
I took all the vaccines that I was told to take but we don't have flu shots, the doctor at our university ( she is pro vaccination btw) said that it's useless to take a flu shot because it protects againts 13 kinds of germs that causes the flu from the 600 ones avaiable.

This year's shot (at least in the US) is quadrivalent, meaning it protects against 4 strains. I am not aware of any flu shot which protects against 13. There are many variations of the flu, but the shot attempts to preempt the most likely prominent strains year by year (which is researched by government agencies meticulously). Even if the "wrong" strains are chosen, the flu shot can confer some benefit if a person contracts any flu at all. It can lessen the severity of any strains a person may contract.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

The influenza viruses in the seasonal flu vaccine are selected each year based on surveillance on which viruses are circulating and forecasts about which viruses are the most likely to circulate during the coming season. WHO recommends specific vaccine viruses for inclusion in influenza vaccines, but then each individual country makes their own decision about which viruses should be included in influenza vaccines licensed in their country. In the United States, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines which vaccine viruses will be used in U.S.-licensed vaccines.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Off topic but why people take flu shots?
I took all the vaccines that I was told to take but we don't have flu shots, the doctor at our university ( she is pro vaccination btw) said that it's useless to take a flu shot because it protects againts 13 kinds of germs that causes the flu from the 600 ones avaiable.

because the flu is debilitating and can be serious or you can spread the virus to weak and or immunocompromised people. Many confuse the reactions to the shot, or a common cold for the flu.

the different types of flu shots

http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...e-and-new-production-methods/20069647.article

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

A lotta people thought that making it easy to spread information communicate on a global scale would shine a light on ignorance, everyone would have access to the facts and would be able to make considered decisions. Instead, a huge amount of information is utterly wrong at its source, and there is so much of it, both correct, incorrect and debatable, that the only way an average person can even compute anything is by having trusted sources and subscribing to some kind of coherent narrative about issues or the world in general. The internet has put so much information out there, but it's also made it easier than ever to tune into the exact thing you want to hear and already believe and get positive reinforcement from a seemingly massive community (even if its actually small). Fringe ideas can really thrive in a new way when they're not contained to some tiny newsletter. Mass media has already done this in the past, the printing press all the way up through to talk radio. This is just the latest update.

 

[Guess Who]

A lotta people thought that making it easy to spread information communicate on a global scale would shine a light on ignorance, everyone would have access to the facts and would be able to make considered decisions. Instead, a huge amount of information is utterly wrong at its source, and there is so much of it, both correct, incorrect and debatable, that the only way an average person can even compute anything is by having trusted sources and subscribing to some kind of coherent narrative about issues or the world in general. The internet has put so much information out there, but it's also made it easier than ever to tune into the exact thing you want to hear and already believe and get positive reinforcement from a seemingly massive community (even if its actually small). Fringe ideas can really thrive in a new way when they're not contained to some tiny newsletter. Mass media has already done this in the past, the printing press all the way up through to talk radio. This is just the latest update.

Or in other words:

Because The Patriots were right.