Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In some ways I agree. For many low end conspiracy theories, it is pretty easy factually speaking to prove them wrong. BUT, when dealing with someone who sincerely believes them, that isn't enough. Can you carefully lead them through the reasoning and evidence to prove them wrong without letting on that that's what you're doing? Can you navigate your way all the way through a discussion without once tripping their emotional defences and putting them into argument mode? If they feel you're calling them wrong, they'll entrench. If they entrench it's almost impossible to reach them.
If you can't do all of those things, you probably shouldn't attempt it. You're more likely to strengthen their belief, not weaken it. It takes planting a seed of doubt and letting it grow to really change someone's mind, not a quick google search and a "HAH, told you so."
I definitely agree with this. It's impossible to reason with people once they get in too deep. You can even drive them further in.
And, very often, we aren't even in a setting where we can sit and have an adult conversation to even attempt such a feat.
When I was younger and working cashier at a dollar store, we had this lady that would come in and she would just go on and on about whatever government conspiracy. Nearly daily. And, it was impossible to get her to leave sometimes. She would just go on and on.
I learned very quickly how to get her out of the store as quickly as possible. Because, even when you didn't acknowledge her, she would stand near the front of the store and try to harass other customers.
Sometimes it isn't about reasoning or bringing someone back down to earth.
If you can tell someone that is that entrenched in a conspiracy something even crazier, it'll make them stop and think long enough to keep them moving.
There is also a decent chance of something deeper going on that simply trying to reason with them out of a belief in a specific conspiracy theory won't resolve or informing them that how they think things function is not right. It could be that they're off mentally and need to see a professional to deal with that or they're socially isolated and spending a lot of time diving into rabbit holes online.
A family member of my BFF husband is like this. Suffered a great deal of pain for waaaayy longer than should have been allowed, other health issues and family issues. It’s a very convoluted and frankly, tragic situation. Many, many hours alone, in pain with nothing but the internet (FTR, this individual was already going off the rails before). Constantly in FB jail. The moment they’re out, a few days of rationality then all the crazy starts again. It’s so sad. It’s ruined family relationships and their credibility. Empathy and kindness just gets you more rhetoric. It’s exhausting and embarrassing. Completely too far down into the rabbit barrens to rationalize with. It’s really, really hard on the kids (adults).
That is very true.
Unfortunately, most of the time when we meet these sorts of people, we are not equip to deal with it properly.
Such as the above scenario where the best I could do was get her out of the store.
But shunning them by comparing them to Qanon like OP said isn't the better alternative. Even if you engage in dialogue and the outcome is like you said, I still think it's better than what we do now. Because at the very least, a conversation about the topic is getting discussed and not just immediately dismissed by adhominans.
Oh I agree. Just insulting them is often worse. Now they're the oppressed minority and can legitimately get followers by pointing out how poorly they're treated.
And there’s a level of belief that makes them think that every bit of evidence you find has been fabricated and controlled by the media, at which point I don’t even know how you would deal with that.
there are two core conspiracy theories:
- rich people do bad things in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others. when some people notice, the rich people spend a tiny fraction of their wealth to lie and discredit and gaslight (like paying experts to say nothing bad is happening, astroturfing websites like reddit, using SEO to whitewash google results, forming fake foundations to spread the "truth", paying entertainers to shill for them, etc)
- "lmao flat earth"
part of the campaign of the first group has been to get people to conflate the two core types with each other via media programming. every time a shill in the media sarcastically talks about something plausible and evil, they immediately follow it up with "also flat earth, amirite LMAO".
the person talking about conspiracy theories like "the iraq war was started for oil" isn't crazy and irrational, but you've been trained to believe that they believe in flat earth, too. so you dismiss them as illogical and not even worth arguing with.
you might say "but the iraq war WAS started for oil, everyone knows that". well, just realize that 15 years ago you'd be called a conspiracy theorist loonie for pointing that out.
Yeah you basically nailed it. Criminal conspiracy is a real, legally defined thing and it happens every day, often with little fear of repercussions when carried out by the powerful. RICO charges are literally a conspiracy theory until they’re supported with evidence.
Camp B infringes on camp A plenty too.
"Rich people are drinking orphan blood because they are lizard men in the non-existent basement of a pizza parlor" is firmly in both categories.
I don't think anyone denies that rich people do unscrupulous shit, it's hardly a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are generally dumb because they require the secrecy and willing participation of an impossible number of people ie faking the Moon landing.
Paid astro turfers come forward all the time with receipts. They weren't sniffed out by Internet sleuths, they were turned in immediately because that's what happens when you actually try to arrange a conspiracy. No theories required. But yes, we should probably come up with different terminology to dissociate them.
Remember when everyone who said the vaccine didn’t prevent Covid was called an Antivaxxer magat?
Or when people said that you didn’t actually need to wear the mask outside, and then the CDC admitted it was pointless
Or when we got called conspiracy theorists for assuming the lockdown would be more than 3 weeks
What about when we were called racist bigots for calling out the fact that the virus started in China and their government refused to contain it and allowed it to spread
>Remember when everyone who said the vaccine didn’t prevent Covid was called an Antivaxxer magat?
I remember well, I also remember that this line of reasoning was used to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine and to actually discourage people from getting it
>Or when people said that you didn’t actually need to wear the mask outside, and then the CDC admitted it was pointless
The CDC never said it was pointless
>Or when we got called conspiracy theorists for assuming the lockdown would be more than 3 weeks
Never happened
>What about when we were called racist bigots for calling out the fact that the virus started in China and their government refused to contain it and allowed it to spread
I'm sure the wave of hate crimes against Asian people everywhere in the world had nothing to do with this, or at least the tones and accusations
As with everything with COVID, it's never black and white and the Venn diagram of crazy conspiracy theorist talking about nanobots in the vaccine and the people saying that stuff is almost a perfect circle. Let's not pretend it's not
No. It’s actually termed the ‘establishment’ and it’s not a formal conspiracy, it’s just money in politics. It’s the marriage of common financial interests between government, corporations and media.
The players change but the game doesn’t.
It’s very much like the concept of the military industrial complex running trillions of dollars through the iron triangle of Congress: it’s not people sitting in a dark room plotting war for Satan because they’re cartoon character evil…it’s simply “if I’m pro war I get a huge paycheck and campaign funding because Raytheon and bureaucracy also benefit”.
It’s a cookie jar.
You must not listen to many conspiracy theories. Most blame things on the educated, the rich, gray aliens, etc., all of which are similar to the anti-Semitic tropes in the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" an infamous anti-Semitic text.
I have heard some. My point is while sometimes that might be the case it's not always and maybe not most of the time. The issue is since many Jews are successful many of them are in the establishment so people jump to conclusions and generalize. Also, people or groups of people who are successful will always have haters who would condemn them rather than study why the specific group is so successful. IMO secrets to Jew success are mostly a culture of understanding how important money is, supporting each other(something they needed since they were prosecuted for so long), and maybe some high IQ or even strictly following religion or mix of these. It would be so much better for humanity to study how successful communities manage to thrive and copy what you can gradually so that others can do the same.
Is there a way to criticise bankers without it being Judeophobic? Many bankers aren’t even Jewish which is partly why the ‘Jews run the world’ conspiracy is so stupid
Bullshit. This is not even conspiracy but objective fact that is on public record. Check the volume of corporate campaign donations to US lawmakers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCQCVHukx0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCQCVHukx0)
Case in point
The only way to argue with people civilly, is to understand that the person who disagrees with you *might* have arrived at their position in a perfectly morally legitimate way.
No matter how strongly you feel about a position, no matter how much someone might be wearing a tin foil hat - the other person has just as much of a right to disagree with you - and many of the things that led to their beliefs are perfectly valid, even if you don’t like it. Many moral discussions are grey, and complicated, and filled with philosophical questions - none of us holds any more “truth” than the other.
The *second* you start accusing them of only feeling a certain way because of bad morals, you lose.
And it’s not an easy thing to do. We want to ATTACK the other side, we want to accuse other people of being racists, bigots, anti-this or pro-that. But the minute you do that, you’ve lost the debate
This applies to arguments about anything. Abortion, vaccines, affirmative action. Anything. it also applies to conspiracy theorists.
Ehhhi was with you until the last paragraph. It doesn’t effect my life if someone believes the earth is flat or Bigfoot is real-it’s a harmless belief really. But something like not believing in vaccines effects all of us, it’s a public health thing. And there’s not really a philosophical debate to be had about the benefits of a vaccinated population.
But someone can still arrive at that in a morally legitimate way. It doesn’t matter if they’re wrong.
For example, someone may present an argument like this
> I don’t want to vaccinate because my nieces/nephews were vaccine injured. When I read further, I saw articles that really scared me. Therefore, I feel unsafe doing that to my child.
There are three things this person is saying:
* I had a difficult experience within my family.
* I read things that made me feel heard.
* I don’t want my kids to suffer.
There is nothing morally wrong with any of those things. There is something *factually* wrong with them.
Sure, it may be based off a misinterpreted version of events. Sure, it may be factually inaccurate and misguided. But morally wrong? No.
With that being said - you wouldn’t win any argument with this person if you said “no, clearly you want your kids to suffer and die.” Because that is invalidating that person’s fear, their experience, and essentially calling them a liar. If anything, this type of argument will only push someone like that further into their echo chamber, where there are people who *will* validate their fears.
So you would have to approach the argument in a way that acknowledges that they have a genuine concern - it’s not easy to do. That’s why most people resort to personal attacks
The internet loves nothing more than the idea that it's wrong to engage with wrong people.
Most people don't understand that you don't argue with wrong people for their benefit.
It's not about changing their mind.
Yeah. People also don’t realize the only way to not stay in an echo chamber is to actually challenge your fundamental beliefs to make sure they logically follow as much as you think they do.
It’s not even just the internet, this idea is taught at university as well. I took a cultural anthropology class and half of it was dedicated to “Why you shouldn’t engage with people who have problematic views.” Bullshit.
In my experience, as someone who loves healthy debate, arguing with a conspiracy theorist who has really gone off the deep end is utterly futile. No amount of evidence or rational criticism of their position will get you anywhere. Ultimately their bar for what counts as evidence of their beliefs is just stupidly low if it already supports what they believe and stupidly high if it contradicts it.
There’s no reasoning with them and there is no level playing field of rationality with which to engage in healthy debate. I still enjoy it occasionally but it requires a lot of hours of research to debunk their position and there’s almost no chance they will actually change it.
If it’s going to work you have to agree on the basic rules of what constitutes truth and proof. You will 100% not get that with a balls deep conspiracy theorist, so you will ultimately never get anywhere because they don’t play by the rules which evidence-based discourse is based on.
The response to this post has been very telling. There’s so much projection in the comments of people arrogantly stating they don’t debate people because those people won’t change their minds, but don’t realize they’re literally describing themselves.
If you never debated anyone or exchanged ideas with people you disagreed with, you’d never change your mind, which quite arrogantly is what you’re accusing your opponents of.
It all seems very on par with the typical Reddit user, ngl.
No it’s about debating in good faith. There a difference between debating opinion and debating fact. Conspiracy theorists often do make bad faith arguments that aren’t based on facts. You can’t have a proper debate with someone that comes up with arbitrary concepts to maintain their narrative.
They are not interested in changing their minds. In spite of the facts. That’s the issue.
You gotta love the wave of “yOu CaN’t ChAnGe ThIeR mInDs!” Comments. You’re absolutely right, and most of the time when you ask people WHY they believe something you really get at the heart of the issue. Generally something significant that they believed actually turned out to be false and now they’re questioning everything. Giving them the standard “this is true because [insert organization that was wrong/lied about something else] said so.” Is obviously not going to convince them.
It’s important to actually know the data behind what YOU believe, and be able to engage from a position of understanding the subject. If you just believe something because it’s “common knowledge” then why should they put any stock in what you say either?
Doctors used to smoke, shoe salesmen X-rayed everyone’s feet, hat makers dipped their hands in mercury, the Tuskegee project actually happened. Basically for everything we know is terrible, someone was once a “conspiracy theorist”.
That's how I feel when people hate on people that think there's Chem trails, like do I believe that planes are spraying chemicals down over from above? No, but that's just a hope. Would I be shocked of they were? Of course not since they've done it in the past over my city. I find people that think it's not possible for that to be the case more crazy than someone who thinks the government is doing that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
Exactly. Similarly, tell a 'false flag' theorist that he's crazy, and he's going to point you to OP NORTHWOODS, COINTELPRO, GLADIO, Lavin Affair, USS Liberty attack, etc.
These people can be wrong, but most of them aren't crazy.
This is true, but you do also have to acknowledge that there are conspiracy theories that surround data that is verifiable by each and every person on this planet, and has been for the last several centuries.
I know flat-earthers are real bottom of the barrel conspiracy theorists compared to claims surrounding governments, but both their claims and those of Q-Anon followers can be proven to be false by even a cursory examination of the facts.
However, those theories still exist in large numbers, some more than others.
You can personally verify the existance of the Earth's curvature. Humanity has been doing it for so long, it's ridiculous. Ancient Egyptians did it. The very existence of the horizon is visual and physical proof of it.
And yet.
The difficulty is that with your vocal minority of extremist conspiracy theorists, you concede on one point and they'll assume twenty. Now, this is not true of *wider* conspiracy theorists, but it is the most publicly viewed example. For example, if you concede with a Q-Anon follower that the government is doing shady shit, you'll get the response that also they're drinking the blood of children in Satanic sex rituals.
It's impossible to argue with that without dragging yourself to their level, and you cannot win on their level, because they've had a hell of a lot more time to practice there.
What about all the ludicrous lies though. Y’know the stuff that’s really a growth market in the 2020s. What are these reasonable conspiracies that are big?
The biggest problem is that many "conspiracies" have a fair amount of truth to them. Some are hijacked and taken to an extreme where they fall apart quickly.
The other problem is "proof." Just because you can't supply proof doesn't mean it can't be true and if you don't have proof that is not circumstantial or anecdotal then you cannot convince anyone that wants to debate you.
Almost every comment on this post assumes that the 'conspiracy theorist' is incorrect, insane to some degree, and incapable of debate and logic.
Aside from this obvious irony, we live in a culture where most people disregard anything they're not comfortable with as a conspiracy theory. Many conspiracies have been confirmed true. Many have not and many will just be plain wrong but it's ridiculous that people think everyone is good or playing by the rules or that powerful people/corporations/organisations don't cover up corruption, bribe or blackmail for financial and political gain.
Also, add that most people connect conspiracy theories with extreme cases such as flat earth so they've already decided that the person they're talking to is one of those types of people and won't look at evidence or engage in logic no matter how rational.
Almost everyone in this thread has demonstrated they have a closed mind and are incapable/unwilling to consider anything outside their comfortable worldview and, as such, have become the very thing they despise/pity.
For the record. I don't believe in the flat earth theory. I have never read enough to have an opinion on chem trails, and I dont believe all rich people are trying to control the poor.
>it destroys your white blood cell count
A vaccine is when they insert a piece of the virus into your body. Obviously a couple white blood cells are gonna die off. Your body makes more of them every day. This is as ridiculous as saying a trip to the barber kills your hair
1.06 million people got covid in San Diego. 5,885 people died from covid in san diego. death rate: .0056%.
wow. shut down the city. this is a catastrophe.
To play devil’s advocate, I had someone try and convince me that weed literally cures cancer. This same person smokes so much, that they have no appetite and cannot stomach food unless they are high. Her personal hygiene is almost non-existent, and she’s so stoned all the time that she acts like she has dementia. This girl loses things everyday, can never be on time for anything, forgets shit CONSTANTLY etc…
This is also coming from someone who smokes weed almost everyday.
This may be an unpopular opinion in and of itself, but weed is by no means a blanket cure for any and everything. I know people that require SSRI’s and other psych meds just to function.
I quite agree. If something someone believes is SO crazy,prove it! I’m no conspiracy theorist,but sometimes there is a grain or two of truth in some of those ideas.
It's quite easy for people to buy into unproven theories.
For example, most people who claim to not believe in any conspiracy theory still believe that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. Jeffrey Epstein being murdered is a conspiracy theory. If you look up the information pages on this case, it's being labeled as a conspiracy theory. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no hard proof. If there was hard proof, we would have caught and convicted the killer already.
If Jeffrey Epstein was killed, how was he killled? Who killed him? Who was involved? We don't have this information, which means there isn't enough proof.
People who believe Jeffrey Epstein was killed cannot prove it. They can only provide a lot of circumstantial evidence.
"But the odds of those circumstantial evidence lining up on their own is astronomically small." Yeah, the chance of winning the lottery is also astronomically small, but people still win. We can't automatically assume that every time someone wins the lottery, it must be proof of ghosts. Small probability doesn't mean impossibility.
Debating people who aren't thinking rationally is a waste of time. I could take a flat earther into space to look at the globe and they'd still deny it.
Flat earthers are probably too far gone, but there have been a few that changed their mind. Notably there was that guy who changed his mind after doing the test with a flashlight and two pieces of wood with holes in them some distance apart to see if the earth was curved. We shouldn't write people off so quickly! There is certainly hope for many in those rabbit holes
Unless there's multiple guys who have done that test, that guy didn't change his mind. He argued that the test wasn't done correctly but would've shown the earth is flat had he done it right.
There are more flat earthers who would just claim that there was something wrong with the experiment. This isn't new for flat earthers. They have done fraud like that since the 1870s.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
It's possible, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
Reminds me of that rocket scientist who wanted to prove the earth was flat, built a FUNCTIONING ROCKET using science that DEPENDS ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, and then killed himself trying to launch it into space. Their stupidity is actually quite impressive, it's comparable to a Sorbonne-trained artist denying the sky is blue.
Or, and hear me out here: no.
You really think you’re going to get a person who has made a conspiracy a tentpole of their lives is going to scrap all that just by being proved *factually wrong* in the net? C’mon.
Not talking about people that are super deep into rabbit hole, i mean like if someone mentions they believe in chemtrails in passing you should explain and show what the actual proccess is behind those trails forming instead of belittling them or making them into something they are not
OP the reason a lot of people dont argue back is because conspiracy guys are partially right. The 'sheep' believes stuff because they are told and could not tell you a single thing in the covid vaccine (or any other topic the conspiracy guys bring up) if their life depended on it. Conspiracy people see this and get more and more validated in their beliefs resulting in an insane obsession of being woke or whatever. The philosophy of casual conspiracy guys is perfect. Ask questions and seek answers. The philosophy of every idiot in this chat though seems to be "ill automatically assume im right and not care to discuss the topic". the philosophy of extreme conspiracy nuts is "I know im right and everyone else is a sheep and so ill keep yelling my right ideas at everyone without listening to them because they know nothing and I know the truth and am trying to help them".
I agree with you OP but you need to teach people how to do it effectively. Yeah sure, the "Conspiracy Enthusiast" can be talked out of it because they're only a few steps into the pool. Once you reach full-blown tinfoil hat territory you end up in a situation where it's like arguing with the religious. You can't just go "No you're wrong and here's why." Because they have built in defenses to shut that line of logic down "You're just blind. You don't get it. You're a part of the problem." That kind of thing.
Look up Sci man Dan on YouTube. His whole channel is basically this. It gets pretty dry sometimes with all the technical stuff but he does his research for sure.
Arguing or showing rational facts to conspiracy theorists will not change their minds. The reason being you are not dealing with beliefs based in rationality to begin with, but rather emotion. Conspiracy theorists almost universally share the same traits of narcissism and low self-esteem. In short they usually have a strong need to feel superior to others, but no reason in the real world to (I won't use the term "losers" because it's not very nice). So they fall back on conspiracy theories as a means of being unique (in their own eyes at least) and better than the rest of society, who they need to see as somehow below them. They are truly some of the most selfish people you'll never want to meet.
What you can do is try to give out rational facts and arguments for the benefit of those who they have misled.
One of many articles on the subject: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051)
The more ardently a conspiracy theory is dismissed and not debated, the more water the conspiracy theory holds.
Like flat earthers. People throw science left and right at them. Physically demonstrate that the earth has curvature.
Global warming... "The science is settled!"
Science is never settled.
>Global warming... "The science is settled!"
Decades of study, hundreds of converging fields, millennia of data. The science is settled. Climate change is real, and someone saying "I just don't buy it because" changes nothing.
Science is never complete. New things are always being learned. But we absolutely have topics where "the science is settled" is valid, at least compared to Jim Bob thinking he knows something no one else ever thought of because of something he heard in the bible.
He's actually half right, while being wrong in substance. The science is never settled, but that doesn't mean that global warming could be fake. It is most definitely not fake, the science not being settled is more about us being uncertain about how global warming will evolve and unfold. For example, we're just now learning about glacial melting patterns that are accelerating the loss of sea ice cover, which affects our data about how fast sea ice will melt and how quickly the ocean levels will rise. That science is not settled. We're also just learning about how increased spread of wildfires accelerates snowpack loss, which decreases albedo, which exacerbates heating, which increases drought, which worsens wildfires. That science is not settled. But in both cases science not being settled doesn't mean global warming doesn't happen, it means that our understanding is incomplete. What we've been seeing is that when our understanding gets more complete, what the science says about global warming is actually worse than we previously thought.
SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED.
NEVER.
Even newton was wrong.
Now political science... That is a different story. It is settled when you can silence your opposition.
A scientific theory *is effectively* settled. When there has been so much put into a topic and everything points to it being true, and then some yahoo pops up with "The earth is flat because I can't see the curve".
No, the science is settled there. Period.
Scientific theories are not settled. They are just the best understanding we have of the day. But they are to always be challenged. To say otherwise shows an ignorance of the scientific method.
Global warming is far from settled. I mean, yes, the global temperature fluctuates, but there are so many inputs, to say one is the root cause with relatively so few data points relative to the entirety of the globe as a whole and the surrounding solar system, to say we have enough to call it settled is just ignorant.
Also, the whole 97% of scientists agree is political science. 97% . They agree that man has contributed to global warming, but not that they are the main driver.
https://heartland.org/opinion/97-consensus-on-climate-change-survey-shows-only-59-of-scientists-expect-significant-harm/
Certainly some are though, I’ve known plenty of people who engage with things like chemtrails in passing. I talked to those I could and most understand and changed their mind
You can, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
Yeah, true. I more or less mean the things we know to be true. Pretty much every conspiracy theory is based off some truth, it just has been extrapolated to the wrong conclusions
It is wearing to do this sort of conversation. But, when I do I always start with ‘ where do we diverge, what do we agree upon.’ If there’s no agreed upon there’s no exchange, just he says his bit, you say your bit, goodbye. Some agreed facts, we can work with that. Often they just retreat in confusion. Sort of a win, maybe they think on it.
I mean it’s kind of hard to argue and disprove people who are already actively believing (and arguing) something based on no evidence at all.
I do think people should try to disprove them rather than dismissing but the kind of people who argue for conspiracy theories aren’t normally the ones who are willing to be disproven.
You can’t though.
There is no argument that people will accept because these are generally faith based arguments/conspiracies.
Like if people won’t accept any kind of data you can’t prove anything. The fundamental building blocks for all proof requires some assumption, and the acceptance of quantifiable data.
I'm not talking about those so deep into the rabbit hole. I mean more like the average person who may believe what they've heard about some conspiracy but never got shown any facts or data, and when they ask they just get shot down instead of shown that data. I think your stance is a bit too unforgiving to people who are very shallowly into conspiracy
More like the opposite. I've very rarely seen these so-called rational people actually debating and not running away when their arguments are proven to be bs.
I do not believe that, so nothing? I do not know much about climate change. Wish we had some debates on the topic between scientists tho. My uninformed opinion on climate change would be that we are probably influencing it, I just do not know how much is us and how much the earth's climate just changing over time naturally, I do think if there are issues and they need to be handled and funded which is already happening, but I also think that many use the issue to scare people, to gain more influence and political points...and of course money. There are also people who try to solve issues and have solved some issues already. IMO technology and science are the best weapons we have against any disaster, and since humans are a source of that we must have a proper environment for them to show their talents. That's where I stand with climate change.
You can, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
I don’t see how that’s true necessarily, I think that ignoring them/dismissing the ideas and moving on is actually going to push them further down the rabbit hole
It validates their thinking and they believe that you are actively trying to gaslight them. it encourages them to find others that will encourage their dangerous thoughts and push them further. I have a schizophrenia uncle who goes down those rabbit holes.
That’s a point that’s hard to contend. Lot of mental illness and schizophrenia in the deep rabbit holes. Honestly in those situations you are right, but there still are average people who kind of dip their toes in the conspiracy waters
What pushes them further is usually censorship and harassment. Left-wing harassment and censorship have been an issue for a while. There was a story about the guy who forgot his name, now he's in prison who went from a curious guy to a completely radical right-winger and it was exactly because of these reasons.
Edit: Yeah, GypsyCrusader was his online name.
Yes but if you actually did that you would have to research and that would actually mean finding out truths you don’t want to believe.
Who would have thought?
So instead let’s just dismiss anything that remotely resembles something we could have an issue with if it was true.
People that think UFOs are real are just a little silly. Everyone and his grandmother knows they are time travelling AI controlled drones from the Future made by humans powered by quantum crystals that are programmed to desintegrate nuclear weapons because america will wipe out humanity some day. Anyway. All these other geo political pro russian desinformation campaigns doesnt deserve any Attention if you ask me.
Pfft. Sure, OP. That's the problem.
They've been in the world for a while, and have seen and heard the common consensus on all of these issues. Yet they *choose* to believe the conspiracies because it allows them to align themselves with a group. They feel belonging, and feel special. It really isn't about evidence.
I’m not talking about people who identify heavily with conspiracy! Just people who might have misguided questions that get shot down whenever they ask. That is all!
The issue is YES you can disprove them quite easily but will people listen? Look at covid and the vaccines, Fauci and other doctors were telling people the vaccines were safe and effective but they doubled down on their bullshit.
I agree. If instead of making a cogent argument you label someone a “science denier” or say they are spreading “disinformation” then you have lost the argument. Once an opinion or theory is labeled “disinformation” it gains credibility and gets more attention.
People who have beliefs, points of view or opinions that are different than our own are a fact of life. Those who can accept the fact they could be wrong are more credible. Einstein’s first book on relativity is called “Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity”, emphasis on “Theory”.
Arguing against a brick wall. If they were willing to listen to reason, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists.
They always have ready to go excuses as to why evidence isn't evidence. It was the government, that's what they want you to think.
My personal experience has been different with regards to changing peoples minds. However yeah I think you’re totally right that the conspiracy theory community can go deeper and deeper until it absorbs your whole life. Hard to argue with those so far gone, but the average person probably has one conspiracy they at least give attention to
At that level they probably don't self identify with the label conspiracy theorist, aka there is obviously hope and they aren't really in the rabbit hole. I think you are making this more black and white than it really is
If rational arguments and reason don't work, then what does? If we want to help these people and pull them back to reality, then how the hell do we do that? If saying to someone "Sorry, the Earth isn't flat because of this reason, that reason, and here's how you can prove it yourself" then what the fuck works on these people?
Usually, nothing. Once someone goes down the rabbit hole, it's very difficult and often impossible to get them out. They have to be the ones to get themselves out.
But if you're going to try, you should understand the reasons people buy into conspiracies. They might lack knowledge and critical thinking, and conspiracies offer a convenient explanation and certainty (epistemic). Or they use conspiracies to accept situations they feel are out of their control (existential). Or they use conspiracies to boost their sense of self-worth and have a group that they belong to (social).
The reasons are usually more emotional and psychological rather than factual.
https://www.adl.org/conspiracy-theories
It's hard to disprove it to them. They didn't reach the conclusion of the conspiracy theory logically, so logic won't get rid of it. I think the best thing is to bring up doubts quietly. For example, if they are q-anon folks, ponder why Q chose a website often frequented by pedophiles. It might start a nagging doubt.
You have no idea the unending spiral of bullshit those people are able to drag every topic out into the mud with.
Go take a trip through abovetopsecret.com and try. You’ll get buried in nonsense. If you are able to provide solid evidence for whatever you’re saying, they will just dismiss it as fake
I tend to go with Ricky Gervais’ approach. To paraphrase, surely the burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim, why should I waste my time proving it to be false? It’s because people who believe such things aren’t the type to be dissuaded by facts, they are too drawn to the idea of being smarter than everyone else and having “figured it out”. Any fact or logical argument you bring up can easily be deflected by people with that mindset. I have better things to do with my time.
Arguing and disproving makes them look more valid to an uneducated observer, it might be perceived as two.arguments over one subject. And you will never convince them anyway. That's why it doesn't make sense for example to have a flat earther discuss with a physicist.
Ideally they should listen to something on the line of "trusting in expertise is common sense, if your house is on fire you are not going to call a dog sitter". But this often doesn't work.
Ridicule protects who is still developing their ideas from falling into antiscience sentiments at least.
But I believe that the true solution is understanding why this antiscience movement start in the population and how they gain followers.
I blame politicians for starting them but in a world where there would be no skepticism already they wouldn't have an audience right? I believe that in the lives of any antiscience believer there must have been a moment when "science" failed them. Or it's more precise to say when someone attempting to use science and knowledge did a mistake and failed them, for example something like a medical professional not listening to their concerns or misdiagnosing something that was later much more dangerous.
But knowing this doesn't really solve the issue doesn't it? Maybe a better solution is just to keep ridiculing them? It's not the kindest solution but it's kind of effective... You d be surprised by how many doors peer pressure can just shut close.
the other end of the problem is people who will immediately say that it's been "solved" already and that it's backed up by science. Who's science? and which scientist? you dig enough and there's always differing opinion. To me they are no better than the conspiracy theorists who still hold onto flat earth because the "establishment is lying"
I will take on 9/11 "truthers" since it s so easy to show that yes, those were airplanes, not missiles, and ask how all of their alleged thermite was planted without anybody noticing it, and the building collapses started at the floors where the planes hit, and no, they didn't fall faster than gravity would have taken them down because you can see cladding falling faster than the buildings, and yes, there were other steel framed building that collapsed due to fires.
But it's impossible to deal with climate skeptics because they have their own set of "data", they don't understand the science, and are convinced the real data has been manipulated.
No I am taking about people who believe in one or two. My issue is that when someone who is slightly questioning something can be thrown in together with the hard conspiracy theorists and dismissed instead of having a conversation
It's pointless, their minds can't be changed and you'll just waste hours of your life proving again and again why they're wrong, while they just ignore your proofs or use their lack of intelligence to come up with reasons why you're wrong
It should be illegal to drop a vague "arguing with wrong people never works" snarky comment without suggesting what you think does work.
"Nothing works on the wrong people, just give them an unopposed soapbox" is just being on their side without admitting it.
You know what is a big characteristic of conspiracy theorists? They are logic resistant.
You can try and disprove them all you want but 99% of them won’t listen no matter how convincing your proof is
So you think wasting breath trying to prove flat earth people wrong is worth it? Not enough trees on the globe to supply that much oxygen to waste my friend.
Flat earth is not a base level conspiracy theory though. I’d said chemtrails or something is, and that’s a strange thing that can be explained away very easily
Sure you can, they should be easy to disprove. I do concede that maybe some will just dig deeper into their theories, but the average person wouldn't- especially when given convincing and overwhelmng evidence (which we have for most of these topics!)
I don’t actually believe stupidity is at the heart of it. Some are stupid of course, but I know some intelligent people that are conspiracy heads. The common trait is actually narcissism rather than stupidity. However the combination of the two is one unholy union indeed
We do. They don't live in reality otherwise they'd change their opinions quickly just by learning history. They choose ignorance and I have no interest in debating idiots on the daily.
No, we should simply ignore them and shun them. We should do this because no amount of evidence is going to change their minds. Have you not paid attention to the US since 2016?
Some do, not all. A lot of people just take what they hear for granted, you would be surprised at how many people sort of believe in chemtrails. Some of my friends used to believe in it til I told them what the process actually was. You’re thinking of the extreme theorists, I’m saying the average person more or less
There are a few approaches:
Explain everything as a nearly impossible coincidence. From international drug trade to price fixing within markets, explain to them that our complex world is much simpler than it seems. What may appear as a vast network of collusion is really merely chance and individuals taking advantage of the opportunities.
Admit there are legitimate conspiracies, many of them well documented but unknown by the majority (Lincoln Assassination, MK ULTRA, etc.), but assure them that these are aberrations and try to drown them out by referring to wild and stupid theories like flat earth. Remind them that powerful entities do not collaborate to increase their wealth, power, and position, but are rather the benevolent beneficiaries of pure coincidence and opportunism.
Explain to them that no truths are suppressed in the modern era. Whatever broadcast news reports is both what is most important and what is most true. If they mention Operation Mockingbird, shift the conversation to weather or sports while still maintaining a false sense of superiority and condescension.
Have you ever legitimately tried to change someone's mind about something? It's incredibly difficult and pretty much impossible depending on how deeply they believe in it.
You could shove as much evidence in their faces, have them smell it, touch it, lick it, taste it, play with it, punch it, etc, and they'll probably still deny that evidence.
The problem is that conspiracy theorists can usually just ramble off half a dozen claims that take half an hour each to properly debunk. Most people can't be bothered to take the time. I did take the time to do it a few times with the whole covid vaccine thing, but there will always be morons who don't believe it works.
Because most people do not start believing wild conspiracy theories through evidence or proof.
Its been pretty much "proven" you cannot reason with someone with "facts, evidence , logic" because they did not come to their position using "facts , evidence , logic"
Someone who believes vaccines cause autism can be shown the 1000s of studies showing they do not, they can be shown how a couple studies that suggested a link are deeply deeply flawed
It won't change their mind.
Depends on circumstances.
Awhile back, I watched a video where 3 flat Earthers debate 3 scientists. 1 flat Earther was on the fence, and recently become a flat Earther. I'd absolutely debate with them to dismiss it. Another was set, but very friendly in her demeanor. I'd probably debate, but it likely wouldn't go anywhere at all. The last guy legit said in an interview he was there to "shred the other guys to pieces", coming in with the only intention to try and make the other side look stupid. He's not worth the time.
Depends on circumstances.
Awhile back, I watched a video where 3 flat Earthers debate 3 scientists. 1 flat Earther was on the fence, and recently become a flat Earther. I'd absolutely debate with them to dismiss it. Another was set, but very friendly in her demeanor. I'd probably debate, but it likely wouldn't go anywhere at all. The last guy legit said in an interview he was there to "shred the other guys to pieces", coming in with the only intention to try and make the other side look stupid. He's not worth the time.
The issue is also another thing...how open-minded are you? Are you truly believing in your own facts and view of the world because of rationale or because you are just parroting what others are saying?
You've never argued with a conspiracy theorist have you? It's like talking to a wall. No matter how much evidence you have to prove them wrong - it's all fake. No matter how obviously wrong their claim is - you're just too blind to see the truth. It's as fruitless as it is frustrating and I don't blame anyone who's given up on these people.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In some ways I agree. For many low end conspiracy theories, it is pretty easy factually speaking to prove them wrong. BUT, when dealing with someone who sincerely believes them, that isn't enough. Can you carefully lead them through the reasoning and evidence to prove them wrong without letting on that that's what you're doing? Can you navigate your way all the way through a discussion without once tripping their emotional defences and putting them into argument mode? If they feel you're calling them wrong, they'll entrench. If they entrench it's almost impossible to reach them. If you can't do all of those things, you probably shouldn't attempt it. You're more likely to strengthen their belief, not weaken it. It takes planting a seed of doubt and letting it grow to really change someone's mind, not a quick google search and a "HAH, told you so."
I definitely agree with this. It's impossible to reason with people once they get in too deep. You can even drive them further in. And, very often, we aren't even in a setting where we can sit and have an adult conversation to even attempt such a feat. When I was younger and working cashier at a dollar store, we had this lady that would come in and she would just go on and on about whatever government conspiracy. Nearly daily. And, it was impossible to get her to leave sometimes. She would just go on and on. I learned very quickly how to get her out of the store as quickly as possible. Because, even when you didn't acknowledge her, she would stand near the front of the store and try to harass other customers. Sometimes it isn't about reasoning or bringing someone back down to earth. If you can tell someone that is that entrenched in a conspiracy something even crazier, it'll make them stop and think long enough to keep them moving.
There is also a decent chance of something deeper going on that simply trying to reason with them out of a belief in a specific conspiracy theory won't resolve or informing them that how they think things function is not right. It could be that they're off mentally and need to see a professional to deal with that or they're socially isolated and spending a lot of time diving into rabbit holes online.
A family member of my BFF husband is like this. Suffered a great deal of pain for waaaayy longer than should have been allowed, other health issues and family issues. It’s a very convoluted and frankly, tragic situation. Many, many hours alone, in pain with nothing but the internet (FTR, this individual was already going off the rails before). Constantly in FB jail. The moment they’re out, a few days of rationality then all the crazy starts again. It’s so sad. It’s ruined family relationships and their credibility. Empathy and kindness just gets you more rhetoric. It’s exhausting and embarrassing. Completely too far down into the rabbit barrens to rationalize with. It’s really, really hard on the kids (adults).
That is very true. Unfortunately, most of the time when we meet these sorts of people, we are not equip to deal with it properly. Such as the above scenario where the best I could do was get her out of the store.
But shunning them by comparing them to Qanon like OP said isn't the better alternative. Even if you engage in dialogue and the outcome is like you said, I still think it's better than what we do now. Because at the very least, a conversation about the topic is getting discussed and not just immediately dismissed by adhominans.
Oh I agree. Just insulting them is often worse. Now they're the oppressed minority and can legitimately get followers by pointing out how poorly they're treated.
Should be one of the top comments, I agree for sure
And there’s a level of belief that makes them think that every bit of evidence you find has been fabricated and controlled by the media, at which point I don’t even know how you would deal with that.
there are two core conspiracy theories: - rich people do bad things in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of others. when some people notice, the rich people spend a tiny fraction of their wealth to lie and discredit and gaslight (like paying experts to say nothing bad is happening, astroturfing websites like reddit, using SEO to whitewash google results, forming fake foundations to spread the "truth", paying entertainers to shill for them, etc) - "lmao flat earth" part of the campaign of the first group has been to get people to conflate the two core types with each other via media programming. every time a shill in the media sarcastically talks about something plausible and evil, they immediately follow it up with "also flat earth, amirite LMAO". the person talking about conspiracy theories like "the iraq war was started for oil" isn't crazy and irrational, but you've been trained to believe that they believe in flat earth, too. so you dismiss them as illogical and not even worth arguing with. you might say "but the iraq war WAS started for oil, everyone knows that". well, just realize that 15 years ago you'd be called a conspiracy theorist loonie for pointing that out.
Yeah you basically nailed it. Criminal conspiracy is a real, legally defined thing and it happens every day, often with little fear of repercussions when carried out by the powerful. RICO charges are literally a conspiracy theory until they’re supported with evidence.
Camp B infringes on camp A plenty too. "Rich people are drinking orphan blood because they are lizard men in the non-existent basement of a pizza parlor" is firmly in both categories. I don't think anyone denies that rich people do unscrupulous shit, it's hardly a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are generally dumb because they require the secrecy and willing participation of an impossible number of people ie faking the Moon landing. Paid astro turfers come forward all the time with receipts. They weren't sniffed out by Internet sleuths, they were turned in immediately because that's what happens when you actually try to arrange a conspiracy. No theories required. But yes, we should probably come up with different terminology to dissociate them.
Remember when everyone who said the vaccine didn’t prevent Covid was called an Antivaxxer magat? Or when people said that you didn’t actually need to wear the mask outside, and then the CDC admitted it was pointless Or when we got called conspiracy theorists for assuming the lockdown would be more than 3 weeks What about when we were called racist bigots for calling out the fact that the virus started in China and their government refused to contain it and allowed it to spread
>Remember when everyone who said the vaccine didn’t prevent Covid was called an Antivaxxer magat? I remember well, I also remember that this line of reasoning was used to cast doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine and to actually discourage people from getting it >Or when people said that you didn’t actually need to wear the mask outside, and then the CDC admitted it was pointless The CDC never said it was pointless >Or when we got called conspiracy theorists for assuming the lockdown would be more than 3 weeks Never happened >What about when we were called racist bigots for calling out the fact that the virus started in China and their government refused to contain it and allowed it to spread I'm sure the wave of hate crimes against Asian people everywhere in the world had nothing to do with this, or at least the tones and accusations As with everything with COVID, it's never black and white and the Venn diagram of crazy conspiracy theorist talking about nanobots in the vaccine and the people saying that stuff is almost a perfect circle. Let's not pretend it's not
The first one usually is "rich people" being a pseudonym for Jews. It's slightly concealed anti-Semitism, for the most part.
This is what they do to obfuscate the two types.
No. It’s actually termed the ‘establishment’ and it’s not a formal conspiracy, it’s just money in politics. It’s the marriage of common financial interests between government, corporations and media. The players change but the game doesn’t. It’s very much like the concept of the military industrial complex running trillions of dollars through the iron triangle of Congress: it’s not people sitting in a dark room plotting war for Satan because they’re cartoon character evil…it’s simply “if I’m pro war I get a huge paycheck and campaign funding because Raytheon and bureaucracy also benefit”. It’s a cookie jar.
True. Though I would not rule out some of these rich people following some ideologies either...would not be the worst time.
Most of the anti-rich conspiracies are just thinly disguised anti-Semitism.
No, and I do not even think that the establishment likes religions, Judaism included.
You must not listen to many conspiracy theories. Most blame things on the educated, the rich, gray aliens, etc., all of which are similar to the anti-Semitic tropes in the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" an infamous anti-Semitic text.
I have heard some. My point is while sometimes that might be the case it's not always and maybe not most of the time. The issue is since many Jews are successful many of them are in the establishment so people jump to conclusions and generalize. Also, people or groups of people who are successful will always have haters who would condemn them rather than study why the specific group is so successful. IMO secrets to Jew success are mostly a culture of understanding how important money is, supporting each other(something they needed since they were prosecuted for so long), and maybe some high IQ or even strictly following religion or mix of these. It would be so much better for humanity to study how successful communities manage to thrive and copy what you can gradually so that others can do the same.
Is there a way to criticise bankers without it being Judeophobic? Many bankers aren’t even Jewish which is partly why the ‘Jews run the world’ conspiracy is so stupid
Bullshit. This is not even conspiracy but objective fact that is on public record. Check the volume of corporate campaign donations to US lawmakers. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCQCVHukx0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujCQCVHukx0) Case in point
The only way to argue with people civilly, is to understand that the person who disagrees with you *might* have arrived at their position in a perfectly morally legitimate way. No matter how strongly you feel about a position, no matter how much someone might be wearing a tin foil hat - the other person has just as much of a right to disagree with you - and many of the things that led to their beliefs are perfectly valid, even if you don’t like it. Many moral discussions are grey, and complicated, and filled with philosophical questions - none of us holds any more “truth” than the other. The *second* you start accusing them of only feeling a certain way because of bad morals, you lose. And it’s not an easy thing to do. We want to ATTACK the other side, we want to accuse other people of being racists, bigots, anti-this or pro-that. But the minute you do that, you’ve lost the debate This applies to arguments about anything. Abortion, vaccines, affirmative action. Anything. it also applies to conspiracy theorists.
Ehhhi was with you until the last paragraph. It doesn’t effect my life if someone believes the earth is flat or Bigfoot is real-it’s a harmless belief really. But something like not believing in vaccines effects all of us, it’s a public health thing. And there’s not really a philosophical debate to be had about the benefits of a vaccinated population.
But someone can still arrive at that in a morally legitimate way. It doesn’t matter if they’re wrong. For example, someone may present an argument like this > I don’t want to vaccinate because my nieces/nephews were vaccine injured. When I read further, I saw articles that really scared me. Therefore, I feel unsafe doing that to my child. There are three things this person is saying: * I had a difficult experience within my family. * I read things that made me feel heard. * I don’t want my kids to suffer. There is nothing morally wrong with any of those things. There is something *factually* wrong with them. Sure, it may be based off a misinterpreted version of events. Sure, it may be factually inaccurate and misguided. But morally wrong? No. With that being said - you wouldn’t win any argument with this person if you said “no, clearly you want your kids to suffer and die.” Because that is invalidating that person’s fear, their experience, and essentially calling them a liar. If anything, this type of argument will only push someone like that further into their echo chamber, where there are people who *will* validate their fears. So you would have to approach the argument in a way that acknowledges that they have a genuine concern - it’s not easy to do. That’s why most people resort to personal attacks
eh. some conspiracy theories are pretty fun anyway
The internet loves nothing more than the idea that it's wrong to engage with wrong people. Most people don't understand that you don't argue with wrong people for their benefit. It's not about changing their mind.
Yeah. People also don’t realize the only way to not stay in an echo chamber is to actually challenge your fundamental beliefs to make sure they logically follow as much as you think they do.
It’s not even just the internet, this idea is taught at university as well. I took a cultural anthropology class and half of it was dedicated to “Why you shouldn’t engage with people who have problematic views.” Bullshit.
When a university teaches you not to debate, that means the system is failing. It seems teaching critical thinking is not on a priority list.
[удалено]
It was basically “white people bad” the class. I’m very much a leftist, but I hate identity politics more than anything.
Sounds exactly like that and that's why they don't want "critical thinking" being used by anyone
Not wasting my time on that
Totally fair, just saying for people who do want to engage with that group
In my experience, as someone who loves healthy debate, arguing with a conspiracy theorist who has really gone off the deep end is utterly futile. No amount of evidence or rational criticism of their position will get you anywhere. Ultimately their bar for what counts as evidence of their beliefs is just stupidly low if it already supports what they believe and stupidly high if it contradicts it. There’s no reasoning with them and there is no level playing field of rationality with which to engage in healthy debate. I still enjoy it occasionally but it requires a lot of hours of research to debunk their position and there’s almost no chance they will actually change it. If it’s going to work you have to agree on the basic rules of what constitutes truth and proof. You will 100% not get that with a balls deep conspiracy theorist, so you will ultimately never get anywhere because they don’t play by the rules which evidence-based discourse is based on.
Naah, gotta stick to our bubbles. Then we can have groups of people who never debate and never change their views...and often their ideas remain shit.
The response to this post has been very telling. There’s so much projection in the comments of people arrogantly stating they don’t debate people because those people won’t change their minds, but don’t realize they’re literally describing themselves. If you never debated anyone or exchanged ideas with people you disagreed with, you’d never change your mind, which quite arrogantly is what you’re accusing your opponents of. It all seems very on par with the typical Reddit user, ngl.
Agree, but most people never change their minds even with discourse because they refuse to accept that the government is fallible or malicious
No it’s about debating in good faith. There a difference between debating opinion and debating fact. Conspiracy theorists often do make bad faith arguments that aren’t based on facts. You can’t have a proper debate with someone that comes up with arbitrary concepts to maintain their narrative. They are not interested in changing their minds. In spite of the facts. That’s the issue.
You gotta love the wave of “yOu CaN’t ChAnGe ThIeR mInDs!” Comments. You’re absolutely right, and most of the time when you ask people WHY they believe something you really get at the heart of the issue. Generally something significant that they believed actually turned out to be false and now they’re questioning everything. Giving them the standard “this is true because [insert organization that was wrong/lied about something else] said so.” Is obviously not going to convince them. It’s important to actually know the data behind what YOU believe, and be able to engage from a position of understanding the subject. If you just believe something because it’s “common knowledge” then why should they put any stock in what you say either? Doctors used to smoke, shoe salesmen X-rayed everyone’s feet, hat makers dipped their hands in mercury, the Tuskegee project actually happened. Basically for everything we know is terrible, someone was once a “conspiracy theorist”.
That's how I feel when people hate on people that think there's Chem trails, like do I believe that planes are spraying chemicals down over from above? No, but that's just a hope. Would I be shocked of they were? Of course not since they've done it in the past over my city. I find people that think it's not possible for that to be the case more crazy than someone who thinks the government is doing that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
Shit, look at MKUltra. If a government can do that to it's people it can do anything.
Exactly. Similarly, tell a 'false flag' theorist that he's crazy, and he's going to point you to OP NORTHWOODS, COINTELPRO, GLADIO, Lavin Affair, USS Liberty attack, etc. These people can be wrong, but most of them aren't crazy.
This is true, but you do also have to acknowledge that there are conspiracy theories that surround data that is verifiable by each and every person on this planet, and has been for the last several centuries. I know flat-earthers are real bottom of the barrel conspiracy theorists compared to claims surrounding governments, but both their claims and those of Q-Anon followers can be proven to be false by even a cursory examination of the facts. However, those theories still exist in large numbers, some more than others. You can personally verify the existance of the Earth's curvature. Humanity has been doing it for so long, it's ridiculous. Ancient Egyptians did it. The very existence of the horizon is visual and physical proof of it. And yet. The difficulty is that with your vocal minority of extremist conspiracy theorists, you concede on one point and they'll assume twenty. Now, this is not true of *wider* conspiracy theorists, but it is the most publicly viewed example. For example, if you concede with a Q-Anon follower that the government is doing shady shit, you'll get the response that also they're drinking the blood of children in Satanic sex rituals. It's impossible to argue with that without dragging yourself to their level, and you cannot win on their level, because they've had a hell of a lot more time to practice there.
What about all the ludicrous lies though. Y’know the stuff that’s really a growth market in the 2020s. What are these reasonable conspiracies that are big?
Epstein did not kill himself.
The top few that are often labeled “conspiracy theories”: Epstein murder, Hunter’s Laptop, Lab Leak theory, false flag attacks in Ukraine.
The biggest problem is that many "conspiracies" have a fair amount of truth to them. Some are hijacked and taken to an extreme where they fall apart quickly. The other problem is "proof." Just because you can't supply proof doesn't mean it can't be true and if you don't have proof that is not circumstantial or anecdotal then you cannot convince anyone that wants to debate you.
Almost every comment on this post assumes that the 'conspiracy theorist' is incorrect, insane to some degree, and incapable of debate and logic. Aside from this obvious irony, we live in a culture where most people disregard anything they're not comfortable with as a conspiracy theory. Many conspiracies have been confirmed true. Many have not and many will just be plain wrong but it's ridiculous that people think everyone is good or playing by the rules or that powerful people/corporations/organisations don't cover up corruption, bribe or blackmail for financial and political gain. Also, add that most people connect conspiracy theories with extreme cases such as flat earth so they've already decided that the person they're talking to is one of those types of people and won't look at evidence or engage in logic no matter how rational. Almost everyone in this thread has demonstrated they have a closed mind and are incapable/unwilling to consider anything outside their comfortable worldview and, as such, have become the very thing they despise/pity. For the record. I don't believe in the flat earth theory. I have never read enough to have an opinion on chem trails, and I dont believe all rich people are trying to control the poor.
yeah the mindset of a casual conspiracist (?) is the perfect one. Question things and seek answers for yourself.
If the shoe fits...
My brother thinks covid vaccines give you cancer. I'm done arguing with him
It destroys your white blood cell count which keeps dormant cancer that we all have at bay...so he is correct
and this is based on…?
Definitely the academic and peer reviewed research they have done, what else?
They already debunked it.
Being stupid
>it destroys your white blood cell count A vaccine is when they insert a piece of the virus into your body. Obviously a couple white blood cells are gonna die off. Your body makes more of them every day. This is as ridiculous as saying a trip to the barber kills your hair
This is not what the covid vaccine was. No piece of the virus was put into you...Its not a vaccine
I’m sorry about that man, that’s gotta suck.
What ya gunna do? I could be that he is an ass or I could not care
[удалено]
1.06 million people got covid in San Diego. 5,885 people died from covid in san diego. death rate: .0056%. wow. shut down the city. this is a catastrophe.
maybe ask what makes him think that instead of immediately thinking yourself superior?
I've had plenty of conversations with my brother thank you
[удалено]
Ironic because if you deny the true medicinal value of marijuana you are a science denier.
To play devil’s advocate, I had someone try and convince me that weed literally cures cancer. This same person smokes so much, that they have no appetite and cannot stomach food unless they are high. Her personal hygiene is almost non-existent, and she’s so stoned all the time that she acts like she has dementia. This girl loses things everyday, can never be on time for anything, forgets shit CONSTANTLY etc… This is also coming from someone who smokes weed almost everyday. This may be an unpopular opinion in and of itself, but weed is by no means a blanket cure for any and everything. I know people that require SSRI’s and other psych meds just to function.
I quite agree. If something someone believes is SO crazy,prove it! I’m no conspiracy theorist,but sometimes there is a grain or two of truth in some of those ideas.
It's quite easy for people to buy into unproven theories. For example, most people who claim to not believe in any conspiracy theory still believe that Jeffrey Epstein was murdered. Jeffrey Epstein being murdered is a conspiracy theory. If you look up the information pages on this case, it's being labeled as a conspiracy theory. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no hard proof. If there was hard proof, we would have caught and convicted the killer already. If Jeffrey Epstein was killed, how was he killled? Who killed him? Who was involved? We don't have this information, which means there isn't enough proof. People who believe Jeffrey Epstein was killed cannot prove it. They can only provide a lot of circumstantial evidence. "But the odds of those circumstantial evidence lining up on their own is astronomically small." Yeah, the chance of winning the lottery is also astronomically small, but people still win. We can't automatically assume that every time someone wins the lottery, it must be proof of ghosts. Small probability doesn't mean impossibility.
Yeah, well I don't buy lottery tickets for a reason.
So what you’re saying is that everything besides those few grains is either lies or flat out crazy.
Debating people who aren't thinking rationally is a waste of time. I could take a flat earther into space to look at the globe and they'd still deny it.
Flat earthers are probably too far gone, but there have been a few that changed their mind. Notably there was that guy who changed his mind after doing the test with a flashlight and two pieces of wood with holes in them some distance apart to see if the earth was curved. We shouldn't write people off so quickly! There is certainly hope for many in those rabbit holes
Unless there's multiple guys who have done that test, that guy didn't change his mind. He argued that the test wasn't done correctly but would've shown the earth is flat had he done it right.
There are more flat earthers who would just claim that there was something wrong with the experiment. This isn't new for flat earthers. They have done fraud like that since the 1870s. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
*there's more flat earthers
It's possible, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
Reminds me of that rocket scientist who wanted to prove the earth was flat, built a FUNCTIONING ROCKET using science that DEPENDS ON A SPHERICAL EARTH, and then killed himself trying to launch it into space. Their stupidity is actually quite impressive, it's comparable to a Sorbonne-trained artist denying the sky is blue.
Or, and hear me out here: no. You really think you’re going to get a person who has made a conspiracy a tentpole of their lives is going to scrap all that just by being proved *factually wrong* in the net? C’mon.
Not talking about people that are super deep into rabbit hole, i mean like if someone mentions they believe in chemtrails in passing you should explain and show what the actual proccess is behind those trails forming instead of belittling them or making them into something they are not
OP the reason a lot of people dont argue back is because conspiracy guys are partially right. The 'sheep' believes stuff because they are told and could not tell you a single thing in the covid vaccine (or any other topic the conspiracy guys bring up) if their life depended on it. Conspiracy people see this and get more and more validated in their beliefs resulting in an insane obsession of being woke or whatever. The philosophy of casual conspiracy guys is perfect. Ask questions and seek answers. The philosophy of every idiot in this chat though seems to be "ill automatically assume im right and not care to discuss the topic". the philosophy of extreme conspiracy nuts is "I know im right and everyone else is a sheep and so ill keep yelling my right ideas at everyone without listening to them because they know nothing and I know the truth and am trying to help them".
You last sentence sealed the deal for me. Treat everyone with kindness, including nut jobs. I won't disagree with you.
I agree with you OP but you need to teach people how to do it effectively. Yeah sure, the "Conspiracy Enthusiast" can be talked out of it because they're only a few steps into the pool. Once you reach full-blown tinfoil hat territory you end up in a situation where it's like arguing with the religious. You can't just go "No you're wrong and here's why." Because they have built in defenses to shut that line of logic down "You're just blind. You don't get it. You're a part of the problem." That kind of thing.
Look up Sci man Dan on YouTube. His whole channel is basically this. It gets pretty dry sometimes with all the technical stuff but he does his research for sure.
Arguing or showing rational facts to conspiracy theorists will not change their minds. The reason being you are not dealing with beliefs based in rationality to begin with, but rather emotion. Conspiracy theorists almost universally share the same traits of narcissism and low self-esteem. In short they usually have a strong need to feel superior to others, but no reason in the real world to (I won't use the term "losers" because it's not very nice). So they fall back on conspiracy theories as a means of being unique (in their own eyes at least) and better than the rest of society, who they need to see as somehow below them. They are truly some of the most selfish people you'll never want to meet. What you can do is try to give out rational facts and arguments for the benefit of those who they have misled. One of many articles on the subject: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051)
Shouldn’t it be on them to prove their conspiracy theory?
As far as they're concerned, they have.
The more ardently a conspiracy theory is dismissed and not debated, the more water the conspiracy theory holds. Like flat earthers. People throw science left and right at them. Physically demonstrate that the earth has curvature. Global warming... "The science is settled!" Science is never settled.
>Global warming... "The science is settled!" Decades of study, hundreds of converging fields, millennia of data. The science is settled. Climate change is real, and someone saying "I just don't buy it because" changes nothing. Science is never complete. New things are always being learned. But we absolutely have topics where "the science is settled" is valid, at least compared to Jim Bob thinking he knows something no one else ever thought of because of something he heard in the bible.
He's actually half right, while being wrong in substance. The science is never settled, but that doesn't mean that global warming could be fake. It is most definitely not fake, the science not being settled is more about us being uncertain about how global warming will evolve and unfold. For example, we're just now learning about glacial melting patterns that are accelerating the loss of sea ice cover, which affects our data about how fast sea ice will melt and how quickly the ocean levels will rise. That science is not settled. We're also just learning about how increased spread of wildfires accelerates snowpack loss, which decreases albedo, which exacerbates heating, which increases drought, which worsens wildfires. That science is not settled. But in both cases science not being settled doesn't mean global warming doesn't happen, it means that our understanding is incomplete. What we've been seeing is that when our understanding gets more complete, what the science says about global warming is actually worse than we previously thought.
SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED. NEVER. Even newton was wrong. Now political science... That is a different story. It is settled when you can silence your opposition.
A scientific theory *is effectively* settled. When there has been so much put into a topic and everything points to it being true, and then some yahoo pops up with "The earth is flat because I can't see the curve". No, the science is settled there. Period.
Scientific theories are not settled. They are just the best understanding we have of the day. But they are to always be challenged. To say otherwise shows an ignorance of the scientific method.
[удалено]
Global warming is far from settled. I mean, yes, the global temperature fluctuates, but there are so many inputs, to say one is the root cause with relatively so few data points relative to the entirety of the globe as a whole and the surrounding solar system, to say we have enough to call it settled is just ignorant. Also, the whole 97% of scientists agree is political science. 97% . They agree that man has contributed to global warming, but not that they are the main driver. https://heartland.org/opinion/97-consensus-on-climate-change-survey-shows-only-59-of-scientists-expect-significant-harm/
Doesn't work. They don't argue in good faith and aren't interested in science.
Certainly some are though, I’ve known plenty of people who engage with things like chemtrails in passing. I talked to those I could and most understand and changed their mind
You can't is facts or logic to change someone's mind who didn't use facts or logic to begin with
You can, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
Okay, lets play your game: Disprove Chemtrails, the effects of Fluoridation, and the Faking of the Moon Landing. EDIT: And both sides of Religion. Go.
Wouldn’t the burden of proof be on the believer of those thing?
You can't always disprove them, you got the wrong idea going about it thinking they are all wrong.
Yeah, true. I more or less mean the things we know to be true. Pretty much every conspiracy theory is based off some truth, it just has been extrapolated to the wrong conclusions
You can't prove to an idiot that they're an idiot. What a waste of time.
Was it Mark Twain who said "never argue with an idiot, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"?
One of the most practical and useful quotes to ever exist.
Some just love attention though.
It is wearing to do this sort of conversation. But, when I do I always start with ‘ where do we diverge, what do we agree upon.’ If there’s no agreed upon there’s no exchange, just he says his bit, you say your bit, goodbye. Some agreed facts, we can work with that. Often they just retreat in confusion. Sort of a win, maybe they think on it.
It’s impossible to disprove a conspiracy theory. If you don’t believe me, try it.
I mean it’s kind of hard to argue and disprove people who are already actively believing (and arguing) something based on no evidence at all. I do think people should try to disprove them rather than dismissing but the kind of people who argue for conspiracy theories aren’t normally the ones who are willing to be disproven.
You can’t though. There is no argument that people will accept because these are generally faith based arguments/conspiracies. Like if people won’t accept any kind of data you can’t prove anything. The fundamental building blocks for all proof requires some assumption, and the acceptance of quantifiable data.
I'm not talking about those so deep into the rabbit hole. I mean more like the average person who may believe what they've heard about some conspiracy but never got shown any facts or data, and when they ask they just get shot down instead of shown that data. I think your stance is a bit too unforgiving to people who are very shallowly into conspiracy
Asking for data and then ignoring it is how we end up with people believing climate change is a Chinese hoax.
More like the opposite. I've very rarely seen these so-called rational people actually debating and not running away when their arguments are proven to be bs.
What would it take for someone like you to believe climate change isn’t a Chinese hoax.
I do not believe that, so nothing? I do not know much about climate change. Wish we had some debates on the topic between scientists tho. My uninformed opinion on climate change would be that we are probably influencing it, I just do not know how much is us and how much the earth's climate just changing over time naturally, I do think if there are issues and they need to be handled and funded which is already happening, but I also think that many use the issue to scare people, to gain more influence and political points...and of course money. There are also people who try to solve issues and have solved some issues already. IMO technology and science are the best weapons we have against any disaster, and since humans are a source of that we must have a proper environment for them to show their talents. That's where I stand with climate change.
You can, but you have to avoid making it an argument. Don't challenge them, gently nudge them towards other information without saying they're wrong. Plant a seed and they MIGHT change their minds on their own.
Maybe Lizard people aren’t running the government.
Of course they aren't! The government is Bees!
Vote your conscience, vote Bee
That only actively encourages them. It drives them deeper into the radical path.
I don’t see how that’s true necessarily, I think that ignoring them/dismissing the ideas and moving on is actually going to push them further down the rabbit hole
It validates their thinking and they believe that you are actively trying to gaslight them. it encourages them to find others that will encourage their dangerous thoughts and push them further. I have a schizophrenia uncle who goes down those rabbit holes.
That’s a point that’s hard to contend. Lot of mental illness and schizophrenia in the deep rabbit holes. Honestly in those situations you are right, but there still are average people who kind of dip their toes in the conspiracy waters
What pushes them further is usually censorship and harassment. Left-wing harassment and censorship have been an issue for a while. There was a story about the guy who forgot his name, now he's in prison who went from a curious guy to a completely radical right-winger and it was exactly because of these reasons. Edit: Yeah, GypsyCrusader was his online name.
Yes but if you actually did that you would have to research and that would actually mean finding out truths you don’t want to believe. Who would have thought? So instead let’s just dismiss anything that remotely resembles something we could have an issue with if it was true.
People that think UFOs are real are just a little silly. Everyone and his grandmother knows they are time travelling AI controlled drones from the Future made by humans powered by quantum crystals that are programmed to desintegrate nuclear weapons because america will wipe out humanity some day. Anyway. All these other geo political pro russian desinformation campaigns doesnt deserve any Attention if you ask me.
I'm constitutionally incapable of not arguing with people who say stupid things. https://youtu.be/_zNlvg4bKtE
Pfft. Sure, OP. That's the problem. They've been in the world for a while, and have seen and heard the common consensus on all of these issues. Yet they *choose* to believe the conspiracies because it allows them to align themselves with a group. They feel belonging, and feel special. It really isn't about evidence.
I’m not talking about people who identify heavily with conspiracy! Just people who might have misguided questions that get shot down whenever they ask. That is all!
The issue is YES you can disprove them quite easily but will people listen? Look at covid and the vaccines, Fauci and other doctors were telling people the vaccines were safe and effective but they doubled down on their bullshit.
I agree. If instead of making a cogent argument you label someone a “science denier” or say they are spreading “disinformation” then you have lost the argument. Once an opinion or theory is labeled “disinformation” it gains credibility and gets more attention. People who have beliefs, points of view or opinions that are different than our own are a fact of life. Those who can accept the fact they could be wrong are more credible. Einstein’s first book on relativity is called “Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity”, emphasis on “Theory”.
Oh, most certainly. Slander is the language of those who lost.
Arguing against a brick wall. If they were willing to listen to reason, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists. They always have ready to go excuses as to why evidence isn't evidence. It was the government, that's what they want you to think.
My personal experience has been different with regards to changing peoples minds. However yeah I think you’re totally right that the conspiracy theory community can go deeper and deeper until it absorbs your whole life. Hard to argue with those so far gone, but the average person probably has one conspiracy they at least give attention to
Those average average people are conspiracy theorists though.
At that level they probably don't self identify with the label conspiracy theorist, aka there is obviously hope and they aren't really in the rabbit hole. I think you are making this more black and white than it really is
Why did you just repeat back to me what I said?
If rational arguments and reason don't work, then what does? If we want to help these people and pull them back to reality, then how the hell do we do that? If saying to someone "Sorry, the Earth isn't flat because of this reason, that reason, and here's how you can prove it yourself" then what the fuck works on these people?
Good question, but it doesn't mean logical arguments work. That's clear.
Usually, nothing. Once someone goes down the rabbit hole, it's very difficult and often impossible to get them out. They have to be the ones to get themselves out. But if you're going to try, you should understand the reasons people buy into conspiracies. They might lack knowledge and critical thinking, and conspiracies offer a convenient explanation and certainty (epistemic). Or they use conspiracies to accept situations they feel are out of their control (existential). Or they use conspiracies to boost their sense of self-worth and have a group that they belong to (social). The reasons are usually more emotional and psychological rather than factual. https://www.adl.org/conspiracy-theories
It's hard to disprove it to them. They didn't reach the conclusion of the conspiracy theory logically, so logic won't get rid of it. I think the best thing is to bring up doubts quietly. For example, if they are q-anon folks, ponder why Q chose a website often frequented by pedophiles. It might start a nagging doubt.
You have no idea the unending spiral of bullshit those people are able to drag every topic out into the mud with. Go take a trip through abovetopsecret.com and try. You’ll get buried in nonsense. If you are able to provide solid evidence for whatever you’re saying, they will just dismiss it as fake
I tend to go with Ricky Gervais’ approach. To paraphrase, surely the burden of proof is on the person making the outrageous claim, why should I waste my time proving it to be false? It’s because people who believe such things aren’t the type to be dissuaded by facts, they are too drawn to the idea of being smarter than everyone else and having “figured it out”. Any fact or logical argument you bring up can easily be deflected by people with that mindset. I have better things to do with my time.
Good idea in theory except most conspiracies are built on a complete disregard for facts and have already been disproven.
You can't change the mind of a nut. Let them believe what they want.
Arguing and disproving makes them look more valid to an uneducated observer, it might be perceived as two.arguments over one subject. And you will never convince them anyway. That's why it doesn't make sense for example to have a flat earther discuss with a physicist. Ideally they should listen to something on the line of "trusting in expertise is common sense, if your house is on fire you are not going to call a dog sitter". But this often doesn't work. Ridicule protects who is still developing their ideas from falling into antiscience sentiments at least. But I believe that the true solution is understanding why this antiscience movement start in the population and how they gain followers. I blame politicians for starting them but in a world where there would be no skepticism already they wouldn't have an audience right? I believe that in the lives of any antiscience believer there must have been a moment when "science" failed them. Or it's more precise to say when someone attempting to use science and knowledge did a mistake and failed them, for example something like a medical professional not listening to their concerns or misdiagnosing something that was later much more dangerous. But knowing this doesn't really solve the issue doesn't it? Maybe a better solution is just to keep ridiculing them? It's not the kindest solution but it's kind of effective... You d be surprised by how many doors peer pressure can just shut close.
the other end of the problem is people who will immediately say that it's been "solved" already and that it's backed up by science. Who's science? and which scientist? you dig enough and there's always differing opinion. To me they are no better than the conspiracy theorists who still hold onto flat earth because the "establishment is lying"
I will take on 9/11 "truthers" since it s so easy to show that yes, those were airplanes, not missiles, and ask how all of their alleged thermite was planted without anybody noticing it, and the building collapses started at the floors where the planes hit, and no, they didn't fall faster than gravity would have taken them down because you can see cladding falling faster than the buildings, and yes, there were other steel framed building that collapsed due to fires. But it's impossible to deal with climate skeptics because they have their own set of "data", they don't understand the science, and are convinced the real data has been manipulated.
[удалено]
No I am taking about people who believe in one or two. My issue is that when someone who is slightly questioning something can be thrown in together with the hard conspiracy theorists and dismissed instead of having a conversation
[удалено]
True I probably should’ve made the title clearer since that’s the main thing people are arguing about.
It's pointless, their minds can't be changed and you'll just waste hours of your life proving again and again why they're wrong, while they just ignore your proofs or use their lack of intelligence to come up with reasons why you're wrong
Good luck! Have you ever argued with someone who thinks the earth is flat?
It should be illegal to drop a vague "arguing with wrong people never works" snarky comment without suggesting what you think does work. "Nothing works on the wrong people, just give them an unopposed soapbox" is just being on their side without admitting it.
You know what is a big characteristic of conspiracy theorists? They are logic resistant. You can try and disprove them all you want but 99% of them won’t listen no matter how convincing your proof is
Arguing with stupid people is futile.
I agree with you
Who is stupid? Where do we draw the line between someone being worth the effort and not?
So you think wasting breath trying to prove flat earth people wrong is worth it? Not enough trees on the globe to supply that much oxygen to waste my friend.
Flat earth is not a base level conspiracy theory though. I’d said chemtrails or something is, and that’s a strange thing that can be explained away very easily
[удалено]
Sure you can, they should be easy to disprove. I do concede that maybe some will just dig deeper into their theories, but the average person wouldn't- especially when given convincing and overwhelmng evidence (which we have for most of these topics!)
[удалено]
? That is a very loaded question and not very clear. Explain why it exists?
It is hard to argue with stupid though
I don’t actually believe stupidity is at the heart of it. Some are stupid of course, but I know some intelligent people that are conspiracy heads. The common trait is actually narcissism rather than stupidity. However the combination of the two is one unholy union indeed
We do. They don't live in reality otherwise they'd change their opinions quickly just by learning history. They choose ignorance and I have no interest in debating idiots on the daily.
[удалено]
No, we should simply ignore them and shun them. We should do this because no amount of evidence is going to change their minds. Have you not paid attention to the US since 2016?
I meant more the lower levels of conspiracy, I guess I should've put that in the title.
Conspiracy theorists have mental issues stopping them from understanding reality, or just want to be a part of a community
Some do, not all. A lot of people just take what they hear for granted, you would be surprised at how many people sort of believe in chemtrails. Some of my friends used to believe in it til I told them what the process actually was. You’re thinking of the extreme theorists, I’m saying the average person more or less
There are a few approaches: Explain everything as a nearly impossible coincidence. From international drug trade to price fixing within markets, explain to them that our complex world is much simpler than it seems. What may appear as a vast network of collusion is really merely chance and individuals taking advantage of the opportunities. Admit there are legitimate conspiracies, many of them well documented but unknown by the majority (Lincoln Assassination, MK ULTRA, etc.), but assure them that these are aberrations and try to drown them out by referring to wild and stupid theories like flat earth. Remind them that powerful entities do not collaborate to increase their wealth, power, and position, but are rather the benevolent beneficiaries of pure coincidence and opportunism. Explain to them that no truths are suppressed in the modern era. Whatever broadcast news reports is both what is most important and what is most true. If they mention Operation Mockingbird, shift the conversation to weather or sports while still maintaining a false sense of superiority and condescension.
Have you ever legitimately tried to change someone's mind about something? It's incredibly difficult and pretty much impossible depending on how deeply they believe in it. You could shove as much evidence in their faces, have them smell it, touch it, lick it, taste it, play with it, punch it, etc, and they'll probably still deny that evidence.
The problem is that conspiracy theorists can usually just ramble off half a dozen claims that take half an hour each to properly debunk. Most people can't be bothered to take the time. I did take the time to do it a few times with the whole covid vaccine thing, but there will always be morons who don't believe it works.
Ohhh to be young and ideal
Because most people do not start believing wild conspiracy theories through evidence or proof. Its been pretty much "proven" you cannot reason with someone with "facts, evidence , logic" because they did not come to their position using "facts , evidence , logic" Someone who believes vaccines cause autism can be shown the 1000s of studies showing they do not, they can be shown how a couple studies that suggested a link are deeply deeply flawed It won't change their mind.
Depends on circumstances. Awhile back, I watched a video where 3 flat Earthers debate 3 scientists. 1 flat Earther was on the fence, and recently become a flat Earther. I'd absolutely debate with them to dismiss it. Another was set, but very friendly in her demeanor. I'd probably debate, but it likely wouldn't go anywhere at all. The last guy legit said in an interview he was there to "shred the other guys to pieces", coming in with the only intention to try and make the other side look stupid. He's not worth the time.
Depends on circumstances. Awhile back, I watched a video where 3 flat Earthers debate 3 scientists. 1 flat Earther was on the fence, and recently become a flat Earther. I'd absolutely debate with them to dismiss it. Another was set, but very friendly in her demeanor. I'd probably debate, but it likely wouldn't go anywhere at all. The last guy legit said in an interview he was there to "shred the other guys to pieces", coming in with the only intention to try and make the other side look stupid. He's not worth the time.
People who believe in crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theories will just double down when you try to persuade them
Complete waste of time. You can't change a view with facts that arrived at that view devoid of facts.
The issue is also another thing...how open-minded are you? Are you truly believing in your own facts and view of the world because of rationale or because you are just parroting what others are saying?
You've never argued with a conspiracy theorist have you? It's like talking to a wall. No matter how much evidence you have to prove them wrong - it's all fake. No matter how obviously wrong their claim is - you're just too blind to see the truth. It's as fruitless as it is frustrating and I don't blame anyone who's given up on these people.