![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribI lurk on a few right-wing sites. (A man's got to have a hobby, after all.) On one of them, the proprietor has announced he's "agnostic" on whether or not NASA landed on the moon. He's agnostic not because he has any evidence, mind you, but because he's always suspicious of The Official Story (capitalization his).
This willingness to question things based not on facts but a gut feeling is a major problem with more than a few right-wingers. I think I've addressed that problem before, but if not, I'll get around to it, right after I re-organize my sock drawer. (Actually, can one re-organize that which never was organized? Inquiring minds want to know.)
What I do want to address is the mode in which the topic of moon landings came up. Our right-winger shared a video from one of his fellow travelers. I have come to the opinion that argument via video is a strong warning that the argument is crap and the argue-er is a crank.
Unlike writing, video is a linear format. You can't easily go back to a specific spot on a video and check what was said. Emotions are more easily manipulated in videos via music and lighting. Finally, repetition is much easier in a video. If I write the same statement five times, you'll start skimming. If I say the same thing five times, you won't.
This repetition is key to the "success" of a video. By saying something a lot, some people can be convinced of the validity of the argument. It shouldn't work but it does.
This willingness to question things based not on facts but a gut feeling is a major problem with more than a few right-wingers. I think I've addressed that problem before, but if not, I'll get around to it, right after I re-organize my sock drawer. (Actually, can one re-organize that which never was organized? Inquiring minds want to know.)
What I do want to address is the mode in which the topic of moon landings came up. Our right-winger shared a video from one of his fellow travelers. I have come to the opinion that argument via video is a strong warning that the argument is crap and the argue-er is a crank.
Unlike writing, video is a linear format. You can't easily go back to a specific spot on a video and check what was said. Emotions are more easily manipulated in videos via music and lighting. Finally, repetition is much easier in a video. If I write the same statement five times, you'll start skimming. If I say the same thing five times, you won't.
This repetition is key to the "success" of a video. By saying something a lot, some people can be convinced of the validity of the argument. It shouldn't work but it does.
Sounds familiar
Date: 2018-12-14 10:45 pm (UTC)No amount of explaining that the radiowaves in question are non-ionizing, the only known biological effect is through heating, and comparing the levels with WiFi made any difference. They remained skeptical and held on to the idea that the power utility is Hiding The Truth.
Even a picture of oscilloscope connected to the wall socket closest to the power meter (showing perfectly smooth sine wave) was not persuasive, despite the obvious stark contrast with the scary pictures from "the scientific article".