[bronzeage]

There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead. And it's not like that option is unfathomable to the media. When the truth is aligned with their agenda, they are already experts in "fact-checking" and pointing out where their opponents are wrong.

The rules of debate say it's always better to refute the main argument and to address their issues. If you resort to ad-hominem attacks, appeal to authority, or just plain censorship, to me it is a confession that you do not have better information to add to the debate. Which implies that I'm right.

[jasonlaramburu]

>There's a third option of actually engaging in the discussion. You know, actually investing the efforts of silencing anti-vaxers into explaining the truth instead

A good faith discussion between opposing parties requires establishment of some common ground and a set of rules of engagement (eg 'claims must be supported with facts/data'). Cult leaders foster a sense of paranoia among their followers which makes a good faith debate virtually impossible.

[mythrwy]

Yes but who are the cult followers and bad faith arguers?

In this case you may think you know. Maybe you are even correct. But maybe you won't be next time.

[jasonlaramburu]

>who are the cult followers

Anyone who won’t accept that vaccines save lives

[mythrwy]

It's not a great idea to suggest everyone who has come to a different conclusion then you is a cult follower and a bad faith arguer.

That is itself both cult like and in bad faith.

There are probably better ways to structure your arguments for whatever it's worth.

[jasonlaramburu]

Ok, it's not possible to have a good faith discussion about covid with someone who does not accept that vaccines save lives.

[mythrwy]

You aren't after a good faith discussion and the vast majority of people with reasonable knowledge, myself included, accept that in general, vaccines save lives.

Please stop with the cult like behavior.

[allenu]

Ideally, a debate would be best. The challenge is that it's very easy to make false statements. It takes very little effort. You can "Gish gallop" your way through a discussion and the other side is forced to refute every single false statement. A lot of conspiracy theories spread and are believed because their narratives are so simple and easy to understand. Showing that they're wrong takes a lot of explaining, which often strengthens the conspiracy. I can't say I have a solution to it, but it's worth recognizing that discussion doesn't, unfortunately, always work to educate the masses.

[t43562]

Lovely idea but what happens when reason cannot convince someone e.g. people who believe in religion?

At that point you have to work out whether offering them a platform is something you want to do.

[ofou]

Censor someone because disagrees with your position is plain stupidity. Keep the conversation going is a healthy path. The problem is that currently social platform want to CONTROL full the discourse in their platforms. By the way, it's the pandora's box of censorship. Hold my comments.