[baxtr]

You will not convince them by saying things over and over again. It’s not like they haven’t heard the facts. It might have even have the opposite effect, increasing their unwillingness to believe it’s more than just a hoax.

Ask yourself: when was the last time vigorous repetition of a position has convinced you personally?

You will convince them by showing them how to do it properly. Show them the way and they might follow.

[Loquebantur]

You're very wrong.

The propaganda practice of incessant repetition being effective even in face of blatantly obvious contradicting facts is well established.

The reason climate catastrophe deniers incessantly repeat their nonsense isn't because they like to hear themselves talk, it's because it works.

The majority of people are never convinced by rational arguments or facts, they act solely on subjectively perceived personal outcomes. Facing social opposition and loss of face very well can sway them.

[baxtr]

If I repeat here a thousand times that you’re wrong and we should focus on the effects of climate change and not the deniers will you believe me then?

[Loquebantur]

That propaganda trick isn't "one guy repeats stuff a thousand times" and works on a substantial subset of the population.

Human society isn't restricted to "focusing on one thing or the other".

That false dichotomy is another rhetoric trick utilized by interested parties that essentially follow the tobacco industry's playbook.

Deniers finally are a serious problem, as they provide social cover for those putting their personal interests even over human survival.

[watwut]

Then focus on effects of climate rather then trying to make the rest of us shut up.

[baxtr]

The likelihood of me getting you to focus on the effects on climate change are much higher than you convincing some lunatics. So I try not to shut you up, I try to funnel your energy. We both have the same ultimate goal.

[watwut]

First of all, "lunatics" are on the rise. They are largely winning and one of contributing factors is that non-lunatics did not opposed them for the sake of peace again and again.

Second, effects of climate change will just get worst if climate change itself is not addressed.

Third, you cant address effects of climate change if the only voices speaking are the "actually there is no climate change" voices.

> So I try not to shut you up, I try to funnel your energy.

We are talking about HN comments. Not about some grand advocacy. The only effect of us listening to you here is ... write nothing and move to comments thread about AI.

[watwut]

Vigorous repetition of position when you are facing opposition that vigorously repeats their position ... is the only option.

What you suggest leads to a word where only deniers tall, thus only their side is heard and thus they win. And yes, I was convinced by people I heard talking. I was never convinced by people who said nothing.