[q1w2]

He's making the same mistake we see all over social media these days. The collective assumption that everyone who disagrees with any ONE popular narrative, must also disagree with ALL other popular narratives.

Anti-vaxxers must also be climate change deniers and racists and anti-abortion, etc...

It makes it easier to hate people you disagree with if they're fundamentally evil in all the same ways. It saves you from having to have discussions with them, from having to think for yourself, and from any ethical dilemma when you mistreat them.

[rayiner]

It also doesn’t matter what people’s beliefs are. In my (Muslim) home country homosexuality and abortion are illegal. But they’re still entitled to public health services. For public health, and science more generally, to be trusted, it must be above all the other political, religious, etc., debates.

[Spivak]

There’s more nuance to this than you’re portraying because wedge issues exist. Once groups take sides on an issue the predictive power of knowing what someone thinks on one issue implying their stance on every issue skyrockets.

It’s not about thinking for yourself more than it’s a consequence of people being good at mounting a defense for their own ideas whatever they are or wherever they originate. The more “research” you do on an issue the more likely you’ll come away with nothing more than better arguments for your existing stance.

And I’m not claiming to be above it, you can play this game with me too. I am exactly the bleeding heart snowflake liberal.