There is a world of difference between debating someone on stage and addressing misinformation. Providing people with the tools to dismantle misinformation is useful, as it’s creating and promoting strong counter narratives that appeal to the same emotions that cause people to become antivaxxers in the first place. However, do not assume logic can ever help the non receptive. If they feel their beliefs are under attack, reaching them becomes harder, not easier.
The antivaxxers who watch that debate already have their minds made up. They will largely ignore any examples of their side losing, and find countless reasons to only further enshrine their view. They’ll get mad at the scientists for being too mean, dismiss any evidence as lies, and use fear that the antivaxxers exploit to wipe away any cognitive dissonance. Debates on these sort of issues mostly reinforce already existing beliefs and rarely change people’s minds. It’s not a weakness of the people debating, but how the format plays with such charged issues.
We didn’t get to this point because scientists refused to publicly humiliate antivaxxers; antivaxxers have always been masters at getting humiliated by scientists. We got here because anti-intellectual grifting is profitable, while education is a money sink at scale. Anti-intellectual movements systemically gain more money and attention than science education, as it doesn’t require resources for them to get their information, and they generate a lot of the viral attention that advertisers crave. Add onto that social media platforms under moderating right wing drivel for years, and you have an ecosystem where the conspiracy theorists have the advantage.
In order to keep the bullshit at bay, you’d need a ton of resources put towards salient education campaigns. It’s not enough to shame antivax influencers, it needs to encouraged culturally to shame individual antivaxxers. Non aligned parents need to see advertisements warning of the dangers of disease, and be convinced to keep their kids from playing with unvaccinated children. The revenue streams and voices of grifters need to be cut, encouraged by the government, the public, and capitalists looking to avoid heat. Like all things for public good, it comes down to resources and political motivation, two things that neoliberal systems usually lack.
The old strategies didn’t fail because they don’t work, they failed because they weren’t profitable. They failed because the oligarchs either allowed it, or wanted it to happen. They put politicians in place who either made the government do too little for the public good, or used the government to work against it. It always comes back to capitalism and the rich; always.
There is a world of difference between debating someone on stage and addressing misinformation. Providing people with the tools to dismantle misinformation is useful, as it’s creating and promoting strong counter narratives that appeal to the same emotions that cause people to become antivaxxers in the first place. However, do not assume logic can ever help the non receptive. If they feel their beliefs are under attack, reaching them becomes harder, not easier.
The antivaxxers who watch that debate already have their minds made up. They will largely ignore any examples of their side losing, and find countless reasons to only further enshrine their view. They’ll get mad at the scientists for being too mean, dismiss any evidence as lies, and use fear that the antivaxxers exploit to wipe away any cognitive dissonance. Debates on these sort of issues mostly reinforce already existing beliefs and rarely change people’s minds. It’s not a weakness of the people debating, but how the format plays with such charged issues.
We didn’t get to this point because scientists refused to publicly humiliate antivaxxers; antivaxxers have always been masters at getting humiliated by scientists. We got here because anti-intellectual grifting is profitable, while education is a money sink at scale. Anti-intellectual movements systemically gain more money and attention than science education, as it doesn’t require resources for them to get their information, and they generate a lot of the viral attention that advertisers crave. Add onto that social media platforms under moderating right wing drivel for years, and you have an ecosystem where the conspiracy theorists have the advantage.
In order to keep the bullshit at bay, you’d need a ton of resources put towards salient education campaigns. It’s not enough to shame antivax influencers, it needs to encouraged culturally to shame individual antivaxxers. Non aligned parents need to see advertisements warning of the dangers of disease, and be convinced to keep their kids from playing with unvaccinated children. The revenue streams and voices of grifters need to be cut, encouraged by the government, the public, and capitalists looking to avoid heat. Like all things for public good, it comes down to resources and political motivation, two things that neoliberal systems usually lack.
The old strategies didn’t fail because they don’t work, they failed because they weren’t profitable. They failed because the oligarchs either allowed it, or wanted it to happen. They put politicians in place who either made the government do too little for the public good, or used the government to work against it. It always comes back to capitalism and the rich; always.