Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PanOfCakes t1_ivukmrj wrote

Reply to comment by mean11while in [OC] Who Targets You? Top Contested Facebook & Instagram Ad Audiences in US 2022 midterms by fabiofavusmaximus

> What? The question isn’t “does population cause climate change?” The question is “why wouldn’t you do everything in your power to prevent climate change since you know your kids are going to have to deal with it?” If parents are change-averse, preventing massive environmental shifts should be near the top of their priorities.

That was one of the several potential reasons, I gave several….

Dude, you’re coming after me like these are my beliefs the only one I stated was mine was the first one, all I was doing was giving potential reasons that someone asked me for.

7

mean11while t1_ivvd7ze wrote

I don't care whether you believe the lies or not. Stop repeating them.

−5

PanOfCakes t1_ivvz59o wrote

So what? I don’t give the potential reasons when asked? I just say “well I would tell you but u/mean11while told me not to.” And because they’re in charge of me I can’t because they don’t believe that people can hear them without instantly believing them.

If you’d been less of an instant dickhole then I may feel more inclined to do as you demand, but currently I do not.

5

mean11while t1_ivyq1el wrote

In general, yes: you don't have to respond, even if you assume the question isn't rhetorical and the person is actually looking for an answer that they don't already know. Those answers are very easy to find and the major online resources do a decent job of debunking them.

But if you do decide that you really have to answer it, you need to be careful to clearly and systematically undermine each aspect of mis/disinformation that your response includes.

First, distance yourself from each incorrect belief: "they might think that...". I would even be inclined to add "but that doesn't make sense, because...". This addresses the faulty arguments.

Second, point out each individual factual inaccuracy as it's mentioned: "they might have been told that Earth has gone back and forth between heating up and cooling down in the last hundred years, but that's not true. Climate scientists have consistently been discussing global warming since at least the 1950s." This addresses the faulty factual claims behind those faulty arguments.

Science communicators and scientific skeptics have wrestled with this problem for decades: even the process of debunking an idea can help cement it in people's minds - and that's when it's clearly being debunked. Your intentions may have been good, but your comment didn't clearly distance the ideas and it made no effort at all to point out the inaccuracies buried under the argument.

Don't do anything because some random person online told you to - do things because you don't want to spread lies about the climate. I'm sorry that I was excessively terse. It seemed clear that all three of those statements were your opinions, especially since you said you were not going to speak for everyone who is conservative. That's a disclaimer that I only add before I present my opinions.

0