80
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Subject6051@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

To know what I am talking about, let me give you an example. I have this friend who went crazy over the vaccine issue. She's done so much research into it that I feel like I can't talk to her about her vaccine skepticism. Whenever I start to talk about something, she would drown me with a ton of articles and youtube videos and most of the times from the actual websites of UN health and stuff. It would have taken me a day to just go through that stuff. So I gave up on convincing her about vaccines. Might seem cruel but even I lost my certainty about vaccines after I met her. There's just too much to know and I don't completely trust the institutions either, but I do trust the institutions enough to vaccinate myself and my kids but not enough to you know, hold a debate about it with someone who has spent days researching this stuff.

You can take any topic which is divisive, which basically looms over the media all day and you can find a ton of articles to either support it or "debunk" it. I think 9/11 wasn't caused by Bush, I am almost certain, but I won't bet my house on it. I mean, this is almost a certainty, but yeah.

On other issues which are not this much of a certainty I fail to see how to convince a person who thinks something that they are wrong.

Stuff like earth is round or not, I can prove. But was the virus from Chinese market or from a lab, I can't.

Have aliens visited earth? I don't know. It would be wicked if we make first contact, but as awesome as this is, I am not motivated to search about this on the internet. I don't think I would search anything about the not so cool topics of life. I don't know enough to hold an informed debate about capitalism vs socialism or any other hot button issue for that moment.

What do you do in these situations?

I can sense that this is poorly written, but I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] flooppoolf@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

These “hot-topics” glazed all over American News Media are designed to be just how you describe them to be. Divisive.

The vaccine works, and because it’s a new kind of vaccine it’s not exactly what we were used to. It works as in “there is a really good chance that you will not die gasping for air.”

Once you get into semantics like origin and all that, why does it matter? It happened and we’re here now.

You can’t argue about something that isn’t known, it would be an astronomical feat for humanity to have the ability to track origins of viruses down to the exact organism in its cage. We’re lucky enough to have a geographical reference.

Socialism, Capitalism? It’s not in our control really, I usually tell colleagues or friends that bring this up that “well we’re here now, so all we can do is make the best of it.” Be active within your local government, inform yourself about local politics, inspire change with your community so that they can inspire change elsewhere.

Fighting about the execs on 49th floor won’t do squat for us if we’re all fighting over who gets to sleep on the buildings heat exhausts.

[-] applejacks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

While I do agree the vaccine does work, the medical community did itself no favors with constant backtracking and shifting narratives/goalposts.

It is not surprising to see people being skeptical of them.

[-] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Better to be honest and backtrack IMO, than to be caught lying. The problem is that they were projecting unwarranted certainty from the start. I can understand why: they were probably afraid of not reaching herd immunity otherwise.

But I think there are ways around that. For example they could have said "yeah, there is definitely a certain risk in taking the vaccine. But the risk is much, much higher if you don't vaccinate. And for solidarity with your elders you should risk the vaccine. Be a hero for them."

[-] flooppoolf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Dude I totally agree. In the pharmacy you have no idea how many meetings were held and calls were made to clarify with the manufacturers worldwide every time a revision is made. I think it made people complacent rather than skeptical.

Most patients are the one and done type, where they get told they need a lifestyle change or something that is then met with resistance. As with the vaccine, I assume it’s because they already feel safe with the 1 jab if they don’t have the other 2 etc.

[-] Subject6051@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

interesting take. Thank you!

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
80 points (96.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43965 readers
1332 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS