Thread by @conor64

I've been thinking a lot about this. I share @radleybalko's view that far more damage is being done by Tucker Carlson (e.g.) than people making horse paste jokes. I disagree that a profusion of condemnatory pieces would improve things. Here's my thinking for your consideration:

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1434908913275707393

1. While I have long believed that e.g. Tucker Carlson is acting in bad faith on many things, I don't think, e.g., Joe Rogan is acting in bad faith on Ivermectin, and condemning people who are wrong in damaging ways but are acting in good faith automatically loses a lot of people

2. Likewise, the premise that one *must* be acting in bad faith and/or be worthy of condemnation for believing in the promise of Ivermectin obviously rings hollow to *people who believe Ivermectin has promise to treat Covid*

3. On the other hand, the subset of people who've turned to Ivermectin does overlap heavily with people who *don't trust expert consensus* but *are willing to think through things* (however good or bad at that they are) to reach their own conclusions.

4. That's why *this* is the sort of piece I want to see more of medium.com/rebel-wisdom/o…

5. It's not perfect, as it relies a bit too much on meta appeals, but it's pretty careful and earnest and pretty well done, which is to say: it lays out relevant facts and tries to persuade people with them as if they aren't contemptible idiots, which they mostly aren't.

6. Like the author of that piece, I don't think one of its targets, @BretWeinstein, is acting in bad faith. Quite the contrary. I do think he has been wrong about Ivermectin in important ways. Laying out why strikes me as a better path than condemnation.

7. All of this is informed by a belief in something like the thesis in Revolt of the Public, and the related insight that the surfeit of information available to everyone makes being *directionally correct* insufficient to persuade if you're *sloppy and wrong on details*

8. And to me, the reason to criticize media outlets and elites on Ivermectin coverage is that * so many* have let their feelings of contempt make them *egregiously sloppy and wrong on details* in a way that is further undermining trust in my conclusion:

9. That conclusion is that *almost everyone* should get vaccinated and *should not rely on Ivermectin as if it will protect you from getting Covid*. If I could, I would bet my savings on those propositions, it is what I did, and it's what I urged my loved ones to do, not because

10. I mindlessly trust public health authorities or the media--I am constantly critical of both--but because I treated the matter as a very important one for me personally, did lots of reading and interviews with knowledgeable people I trust, and that's the conclusion I reached.

11. If you're someone who believes that *disdainful ridicule* would be preferable to and more effective than my method when it comes to persuading people on this matter of public health (I'm not talking about @radleybalko here), then I have a parting challenge for you:

12. Give me another example when you think *disdainful ridicule* is the best way forward that involves a target audience to whom you're sympathetic rather than one that is, for you, the outgroup. If you can't, is effectiveness really your lodestar here?