Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 74

I noticed a similar tendancy in news media coverage of NZ politics over the last few elections. In the lead-up to our last general election in 2017, I constantly reminded people on the left to stop buying into the media framing of politics as a zero-sum game, played as a professional/ spectator sport, and rise above the scandal-mongering. To achieve democratic consensus and lasting change, we need to focus on #PolicyPolicyPolicy!

In their book #SpiralOfCynicism,Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella argue that #TacticalFraming has been overused in news media coverage of politics. They believe that this both reduces the public's ability to properly understand policy proposals, and makes people more likely to tow the party line on whether or not to support them:
https://www.vox.com/videos/2019/3/12/18261856/green-new-deal-tactical-framing-aoc

@switchingsocial Medical organisations who oppose vaccination include the International Medical Council on Vaccination (IMCV), the US National Vaccine Information Centre (NVIC), and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS).

> Forget the media, they are irrelevant.

Because of their reporting, you have been bombarded with pro-vaccine talking points from multiple sources, and never even heard of the dissenters with medical credentials. This is hardly "irrelevant".

@switchingsocial citations please?
"The following is a list of scientists and physicians (over 160) who acknowledge that vaccines can and do harm some children and/or have some concern about a vaccine, combinations of vaccines, the vaccine schedule, or an ingredient or ingredients in vaccines. These professionals are not anti-vaccine (though some of the medical doctors are) rather they recognize that vaccines, like all pharmaceutical products, carry risks."
http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/news-views/doctors-and-scientists-with-concerns-about-vaccines/

@jgmac1106 it's also important to remember that terms like "fake news" and "pseudoscience" are remarkable hard to clearly define, and that they are, at times, just euphemisms for what might more honestly be called secular #heresy.

@jgmac1106 to be fair, those 10 websites spread the most "fake news" because they are largest hosts of user-generated content. If all the users of those 10 websites moved to the #fediverse, then that would become the largest online source of "fake news". It's worth remembering that long before the web #BBS, #UseNet, and #IRC communities were sources of "fake news", and before the net, it came from tabloids, fringe magazines (like #Nexus), zines, samizdat pamphlets, and so on. It's not new.

Turns out indoor plants really do help purify the air, removing volatile organic compounds through their leaves, roots, and the microbiome living in the soil they grow in.
https://www.livescience.com/38445-indoor-plants-clean-air.html
#TheHippiesWereRight

@lwflouisa if someone did the same thing today, to protect their country against a US or European military force invading their country and murdering their people, they would be called a "terrorists". Interesting that the perceived legitimacy of an action changes so completely when it's targeted at the "right" enemy. I think that exposes some disturbing truths about mainstream ideas of "morality".

The #Earthwise radio program on #PlainsFM recently interviewed #BruceGagnon of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. They cover the history of attempts by peace activists to prevent the militarization of space, and the various treaties that have attempted to protect space as a global commons, governed by peacetime international law:
https://plainsfm.org.nz/Programmes/Programme-Details.aspx?PID=6e214063-b869-45ca-8f4f-650d42b71034

@eliotberriot I'm a big fan of shiptoasting ;P

New #Disintermedia blog post; 'Wikipedia Founder Larry Sanger on Decentralizing Social Media'
https://www.coactivate.org/projects/disintermedia/blog/2019/03/11/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-on-decentralizing-social-media/

@ohyran imagine if every literate person in the English-speaking world carefully read the abstracts of 2-3 journal papers about vaccination, and shared what they learned from that when the topic came up, instead of going straight into a pro vs. anti bun fight, and reaching for the guilt and shame sticks (on both sides). We would all know a lot more about what the *science* says, as opposed to what various authorities and media repeaters tell us about what it says. Same on any topic really.

@ohyran so far, it seems not. Curious that so many people consider themselves a) pro-science, b) educated about vaccination, and c) totally in favour of it. Yet when pressed, can't point to a single primary source on which they base their position . This suggests not a scientific approach, but believing authorities, without any independent thinking or investigation. The main crime of which those who are anti-vaccination are accused therefore, is not believing the correct authorities. #heresy

@ohyran very responsible of you. I'll try to untag you from now on.

@switchingsocial there are whole organizations of medical professionals who are critical of some or all vaccination. But you don't hear about them in the media, except in smear pieces with little or no actual discussion of their arguments or the evidence for and against. The rest of the talking points here are the same ones repeated ad nauseum in pro-vaccine PR campaigns, and regurgitated in media coverage. They prove nothing, except that you haven't done any critical examination of the topic.

@cstanhope I'd also be interested to know how much follow-up was done. A strengthening of a disproved belief is consistent with initial ego injury, and almost nobody admits to changing their minds in the same conversation where they received the new information that did it. But ask them a month later, a year later, and I suspect the numbers would change.

@cstanhope
> I've seen studies and research that seem to suggest even just showing people the evidence against their chosen stance is counterproductive

I heard about this, but I'm sceptical. I've seen plenty of examples of people being presented with contrary evidence and changing their minds. I suspect it has a lot to do with who is being studied, by who, and *how* the evidence is presented to them.