I have my own loony belief with little supporting evidence. My loony belief is that the overwhelming majority of "Flat Earthers" are joking, pulling your chain, and refuse to admit it because keeping a straight face is part of the joke for them.
Their motivations are varied. Some of them do it to make some sort of epistemological point, others do it because arguing for something that isn't true requires a form of creativity they find rewarding. Others do it because they like to get people riled up (it's amazing how easily some people can get riled up over other people being wrong about the shape of the earth, even when the reality that the flat earther isn't being sincere is staring them right in the face). Others still probably have other motivations. Probably only a very small portion of them actually believe what they say.
> the overwhelming majority of "Flat Earthers" are joking, pulling your chain, and refuse to admit it because keeping a straight face is part of the joke for them.
There is little double that some do, but I think you underestimate just how stupid people can be in general. E.g. just using the normal distribution for IQ (mean 100, stddev 15), 9% are below 80.
Now, to be clear: I just want to stretch your imagination. There are tons of people out there who just aren't that bright. Ok fine.
The problem is people who are a nasty combination of low IQ, ignorant, and militant.
Basically, you have people who could be cured of flat Eartherism by going out just one whole night and watching the stars rotate around the pole, just one trip to the ocean with binoculars to watch a ship disappear over the horizon, just one full day of measuring the shadows of the sun and doing trig, yet they refuse and instead sit inside and watch fucking dumbass YouTube videos made by other fucking dumbasses and then will literally get in your face and irate about something they clearly have zero actual direct knowledge of. It really makes you wonder wtf.
But then again, what are you gonna do? I tell them to predict eclipses, but so far no one has taken me up on it.
I feel the same way: "These people must be joking", but I worry that I'm falling into a Colbert Study [1] trap where my underlying assumption that the earth is a sphere lets me make the easier rationalization that "these people must be joking" than the much harder realization that some significant chunk of humanity has deeply held beliefs (and a system for establishing those beliefs) that is alien to my own.
Wrong. People thought trump and his supporters were being outlandish, can’t be serious etc. flat-weathers are very serious, very wrong and the thought process behind it is very dangerous.
> My loony belief is that the overwhelming majority of "Flat Earthers" are joking, pulling your chain, and refuse to admit it because keeping a straight face is part of the joke for them.
Maybe if you believe that any significant number of people truly think the earth is flat despite the photos, then you’re in the same fiction club. ;) I have to admit, the irony is funny.
The thing I find most infuriating speaking to anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is that no rational argument can win them round because their arguments are rarely rational or based on concrete evidence. Antivaccers are particularly difficult because they simply have no faith in science or doctors and believe that any evidence is fabricated.
Has anyone found effective methods to counter the above traits? While not engaging is usually the best option it is sad and concerning when it is a family member so I don’t feel like ignoring it is the best approach.
> "Has anyone found effective methods to counter the above traits?"
In the case of anti-vaxxers (most of whom are probably sincere,) when you become upset or even infuriated with them it cements their beliefs. They interpret your anger as evidence of their position being right. Therefore if you want to change their minds, the first thing you must master is your own emotions. Hiding your anger isn't enough, because people always leak information about their emotional state. You need to find a new frame of mind that allows you to have discussions with people who are wrong without becoming upset. I know this is difficult with antivaxxers since their beliefs put children in harms way, but it's necessary.
> The thing I find most infuriating speaking to anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is that no rational argument can win them round because their arguments are rarely rational or based on concrete evidence.
I've started asking for a commitment up front whenever a disagreement comes up. So for flat Earthers, before bringing up any other points or discussing anything, just ask what would convince them to revise their views.
I sometimes preface this with saying that I think it's important to be honest about how certain I am about some position, and to state upfront what would prove me wrong. So I would be convinced that the Earth was flat if I ran an experiment, like a high flying balloon, that then showed 0 curvature in the Earth at high altitude where we'd expect some curvature. Then ask them the same question.
Now you're both on the same page, and if you're committed to resolving this question, you have a way to move forward and see who's right and you can do each step together to ensure no tampering, etc. And as a bonus, they get to learn exactly how science is done.
I've heard that it can be effective not to challenge delusional beliefs at all, but just to ask questions, and not even questions that seem to punch holes in the delusional belief. Just cause the delusional mind to do the math and flesh out the understanding itself.
> The thing I find most infuriating speaking to anyone who believes in a conspiracy theory is that no rational argument can win them round because their arguments are rarely rational or based on concrete evidence.
Well, if you want to have a constructive dialog with them, getting angry isn't so great. In this sort of situation the content of the argument isn't what's at issue; far more important is the motivation for holding the position. The conversation should be directed towards contextualizing the position in the person's life. Your goal in the discussion shouldn't be to convince the other person, but to understand what they're thinking and why.
If you mistrust scientists, why the hell would you be convinced by scientific evidence? The productive discussion is to be had about the mistrust. You can't just ignore their mistrust and argue as if scientific evidence is admissible: that is assuming your position in order to justify your position. I'd also like to emphasize that unless you're the one doing the research, and even then, there is scarcely ever concrete evidence available. Especially for something like vaccines where the positive benefit is the absence of something negative, evidence is quite indirect. You and I trust science. I believe that trust is justified but it is something that needs justification.
An important thing about people is that they are more rational in the small, especially about concrete aspects of their day-to-day lives, than they are in the large, especially when it comes to lofty concepts and abstract models of the world that they don't have direct experience with. Conspiracy theories are dangerous because they allow the latter irrationality to negatively impact the former rationality. However, turning it around, reasoning from a person's concrete life and point of view towards understanding abstractions such as institutions of medicine, science, politics, etc. is a way to counter conspiracy theories.
So, tl;dr; it's not that rational arguments can't win such people over, it's that you have to start from a different viewpoint and you have to use a process that isn't quite listing evidence, weighing it, and deducing logical consequence. Rationality is much bigger than that sort of thing. If you apply rational methods empathetically, you will convince a lot more people. This is true in all spheres of life. Even at the lab bench.
> Antivaccers are particularly difficult because they simply have no faith in science or doctors and believe that any evidence is fabricated.
Do you think that is fabricating evidence is not possible? Is the possibility to fabricate evidence in favor of vaccines as outlandish as the claim of flat earthers?
I am also curios as to why when ever there is a discussion of flat earthers, there's is always someone who tries to throw anti-vaxxers or vaccine-skeptics into the same bunch.
The first thing to recognize is that no amount of evidence or logic swayed you to have faith in science, doctors, vaccines, etc. You, like all humans, made that decision emotionally and then chose some evidence/arguments in order to rationalize your emotional decision. Once you understand that it's always emotion, that may help guide you in how to "debate" such topics. The short answer, is that debating them in the traditional sense is a massive waste of your time.
If you truly want to understand, you need to be open to the possibility that they are right. Since you are not, I recommend not bringing it up.
Some of the people who believe these things are not stupid at all, and while it may seem smart to you to just accept what you hear from the professionals, it actually doesn't require any intelligence to follow what they say.
I've been working with professionals a lot, and I know they are just repeating what they are told. Every profession is like that. Experts even more so, since otherwise they lose credibility and are not experts anymore.
> But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises. This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk to Flat Earthers
That is certainly plausible, but there was almost no real evidence presented here. It seems like the author is jumping to conclusions. As far as we know, two of the three speakers covered in this story happened to mention the existence of non-specific personal issues in passing. How many people don’t have any personal issues?
It could be that some people do need help. And it could also be incredibly insulting and patronizing to just assume that people with beliefs different than ours are in need of mental help, as opposed to simply having strange beliefs. After all, religion still exists despite a lack of evidence. Treating religious people as stuck in a dark “rabbit hole” is at best ostracizing.
> Landucci points out that if we take the Spanish initials for the United Nations, ‘ONU’, and read it backwards, we get ‘Uno’ – which is Spanish for ‘One’. This, he explains, is proof that the UN is a tool of the One World Order.
For the entire article, I couldn’t stop thinking of the Illuminati Confirmed videos on YouTube.
It's fine and even fun to entertain a different counter idea, but that is not what these flat earthers and the like do. I know a man that subscribes to these kinds of ideas, although not flat eartherism, and it is definitely seems to stem from a need to find an alternative order to the world because the existing order and/or understanding provides little comfort, hope, and meaning, because they are driven by a need to be special and smarter . These ppl are often also frequently 'inventors' of 'free energy' motors, using mmethods they will say are 'obvious once you think about it but for some reason no one has'. In fact these ppl can be very clever and ingenuous, but have certain mental illnes (depression) and lack education, but perhaps the everyday flat earther prostlesthized on youtube are driven mostly by ignorance and poverty in a hard life needing something, anything, to not be as it seems.
This, for those like me who had not heard of it, is the idea that Finland does not exist, and there is a conspiracy to make the world think that it does.
When really, almost the opposite is true: not only does Finland exist, but it is the surviving part of the Roman Empire:
I’ve got a flat earth family member and I thought it would be easy to go out to the beach and get a photo of a ship appearing over the horizon to disprove them.
But it just won’t seem to work out. They seem to get smaller and smaller and too small to see if the botttom is disappearing first. I’m going to have to try it with a telescope. It’s kind making me question my own beliefs.
Also they made me watch some of those YouTube videos about the eclipse going in the wrong direction. I still haven’t been able to explain that. :-(
I guess my point is don’t expect an easy debate if you engage them. Some of this stuff just isn’t as easy as you’d expect.
> Also they made me watch some of those YouTube videos about the eclipse going in the wrong direction.
You mean a video that's flipped or running backwards? Why would you question your whole worldview before questioning the reliability of the alleged evidence?
Science is hard. I watched a few minutes of a Youtube video from a "professor" at a university that believes the earth is flat, and he "sounded" very scientific. But despite the fact that I know the earth is round, beyond the boat-over-the-horizon experiment I would have a hard time actually demonstrating this fact to someone.
On the other hand, I have quite a few disagreements with the established health industry. I cured a hole in my tooth in college in the late 90s on my own. I am still called a quack and a liar despite my wife knowing about this, and just this past year real scientific proof (and even medical products) coming out confirming it's true.
But in the mean time, until it's widely accepted, I will be called a liar and/or quack/delusional. And this is has nothing to do with trauma, but simply ignorance, and a lack of interest in testing. (conspiracy would say that dentists don't want people healing their own teeth)
I cured a hole in my tooth in college in the late 90s on my own. I am still called a quack and a liar despite my wife knowing about this, and just this past year real scientific proof (and even medical products) coming out confirming it's true.
My teeth have always been terrible, would you mind sharing a link or two to the research?
If you had the patience and the other person also had the patience, you could look at shadows (plural) all day and reasonnably conclude the earth must be spherical.
For what it's worth, the easiest way to demonstrate a round earth is to Skype/Facetime/$equivalent someone in a different timezone. The more dramatically different the better. Get them to let you see where the sun is in the sky. On a flat earth, it should be the same answer for them as for you.
A couple nights of stargazing (preferably spaced about 1 month apart throughout the year) with a starmap and it'll be pretty obvious the earth is round and going around the sun.
While I don't believe it, I'm glad that flat earth theory exists. It's a fantastic caricature of scientific theory that seems to exist simply to shine a light on the fact that any theory has a nonzero chance of being true, albeit in the most ridiculous of realities.
"Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia, from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism. But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit hole may only get deeper and darker."
This is one of the most humane, compassionate worldviews I've read in a while.
I really want to be more like Michael Marshall (the author), but I just don't know how.
Maybe I do, and just need to do it more. Last year I got involved with protecting wolves from one rogue rancher. During the public hearing, things got very heated. I found myself empathizing with the ranchers more than the enviros, two of whom acted very embarrassingly. One rancher (who was actually an ally of the enviros but still being attacked) had to leave the room, so I went out to check on him.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out how we're supposed to engage with people we strongly disagree with.
If you ever want to explain what its like to fix bugs in a new language, just point them to this article; you basically guess how things work until you are proven otherwise, no matter how incredible and without proof the explanation my be.
> Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many
> people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all
> manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia,
> from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism.
> But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into
> believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
>
> This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk
> to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as
> ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit
> hole may only get deeper and darker.
Trauma is real. Our society doesn't place enough emphasis in recognizing mental health issues other than depression. There are many other events that cause trauma and people deal with it in many different ways.
This is why you no matter the number of facts you present in online discussions will ever dissuade these individuals from their positions.
I have young kids and spend a lot of time in playgrounds. When I push the swing a flat earth believer approaches me to tell me about chemtrails , flat earth and how vaccines cause autism. He brought pamphlets about vaccines a few times. Always citing some Harvard Prof who supports his theories and refers me to YouTube. He has a little girl that he pushes on the swing and talks to everyone he can about vaccines. That's a really damaging. I just want to politely stop this conversation, though I enjoyed the flat earth stuff. His talking to new moms about vaccines is potentially damaging.
[+] [-] JackCh|7 years ago|reply
Their motivations are varied. Some of them do it to make some sort of epistemological point, others do it because arguing for something that isn't true requires a form of creativity they find rewarding. Others do it because they like to get people riled up (it's amazing how easily some people can get riled up over other people being wrong about the shape of the earth, even when the reality that the flat earther isn't being sincere is staring them right in the face). Others still probably have other motivations. Probably only a very small portion of them actually believe what they say.
[+] [-] titzer|7 years ago|reply
There is little double that some do, but I think you underestimate just how stupid people can be in general. E.g. just using the normal distribution for IQ (mean 100, stddev 15), 9% are below 80.
Now, to be clear: I just want to stretch your imagination. There are tons of people out there who just aren't that bright. Ok fine.
The problem is people who are a nasty combination of low IQ, ignorant, and militant.
Basically, you have people who could be cured of flat Eartherism by going out just one whole night and watching the stars rotate around the pole, just one trip to the ocean with binoculars to watch a ship disappear over the horizon, just one full day of measuring the shadows of the sun and doing trig, yet they refuse and instead sit inside and watch fucking dumbass YouTube videos made by other fucking dumbasses and then will literally get in your face and irate about something they clearly have zero actual direct knowledge of. It really makes you wonder wtf.
But then again, what are you gonna do? I tell them to predict eclipses, but so far no one has taken me up on it.
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|7 years ago|reply
1 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1940161208330904
[+] [-] erik_landerholm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naasking|7 years ago|reply
I'd almost lend some credence to that, if some of them weren't building their own rockets and launching themselves into the air to try to prove flat earth: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19587128/sel...
[+] [-] technofiend|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FRex|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dahart|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonbarker87|7 years ago|reply
Has anyone found effective methods to counter the above traits? While not engaging is usually the best option it is sad and concerning when it is a family member so I don’t feel like ignoring it is the best approach.
[+] [-] JackCh|7 years ago|reply
In the case of anti-vaxxers (most of whom are probably sincere,) when you become upset or even infuriated with them it cements their beliefs. They interpret your anger as evidence of their position being right. Therefore if you want to change their minds, the first thing you must master is your own emotions. Hiding your anger isn't enough, because people always leak information about their emotional state. You need to find a new frame of mind that allows you to have discussions with people who are wrong without becoming upset. I know this is difficult with antivaxxers since their beliefs put children in harms way, but it's necessary.
[+] [-] naasking|7 years ago|reply
I've started asking for a commitment up front whenever a disagreement comes up. So for flat Earthers, before bringing up any other points or discussing anything, just ask what would convince them to revise their views.
I sometimes preface this with saying that I think it's important to be honest about how certain I am about some position, and to state upfront what would prove me wrong. So I would be convinced that the Earth was flat if I ran an experiment, like a high flying balloon, that then showed 0 curvature in the Earth at high altitude where we'd expect some curvature. Then ask them the same question.
Now you're both on the same page, and if you're committed to resolving this question, you have a way to move forward and see who's right and you can do each step together to ensure no tampering, etc. And as a bonus, they get to learn exactly how science is done.
[+] [-] b6|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conistonwater|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nkrisc|7 years ago|reply
If the threat of diseases we've eliminated returning isn't enough, then perhaps only the diseases themselves will do it.
[+] [-] ihsw2|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danharaj|7 years ago|reply
Well, if you want to have a constructive dialog with them, getting angry isn't so great. In this sort of situation the content of the argument isn't what's at issue; far more important is the motivation for holding the position. The conversation should be directed towards contextualizing the position in the person's life. Your goal in the discussion shouldn't be to convince the other person, but to understand what they're thinking and why.
If you mistrust scientists, why the hell would you be convinced by scientific evidence? The productive discussion is to be had about the mistrust. You can't just ignore their mistrust and argue as if scientific evidence is admissible: that is assuming your position in order to justify your position. I'd also like to emphasize that unless you're the one doing the research, and even then, there is scarcely ever concrete evidence available. Especially for something like vaccines where the positive benefit is the absence of something negative, evidence is quite indirect. You and I trust science. I believe that trust is justified but it is something that needs justification.
An important thing about people is that they are more rational in the small, especially about concrete aspects of their day-to-day lives, than they are in the large, especially when it comes to lofty concepts and abstract models of the world that they don't have direct experience with. Conspiracy theories are dangerous because they allow the latter irrationality to negatively impact the former rationality. However, turning it around, reasoning from a person's concrete life and point of view towards understanding abstractions such as institutions of medicine, science, politics, etc. is a way to counter conspiracy theories.
So, tl;dr; it's not that rational arguments can't win such people over, it's that you have to start from a different viewpoint and you have to use a process that isn't quite listing evidence, weighing it, and deducing logical consequence. Rationality is much bigger than that sort of thing. If you apply rational methods empathetically, you will convince a lot more people. This is true in all spheres of life. Even at the lab bench.
[+] [-] buvanshak|7 years ago|reply
Do you think that is fabricating evidence is not possible? Is the possibility to fabricate evidence in favor of vaccines as outlandish as the claim of flat earthers?
I am also curios as to why when ever there is a discussion of flat earthers, there's is always someone who tries to throw anti-vaxxers or vaccine-skeptics into the same bunch.
[+] [-] Consultant32452|7 years ago|reply
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-n...
[+] [-] some_account|7 years ago|reply
Some of the people who believe these things are not stupid at all, and while it may seem smart to you to just accept what you hear from the professionals, it actually doesn't require any intelligence to follow what they say.
I've been working with professionals a lot, and I know they are just repeating what they are told. Every profession is like that. Experts even more so, since otherwise they lose credibility and are not experts anymore.
[+] [-] dahart|7 years ago|reply
That is certainly plausible, but there was almost no real evidence presented here. It seems like the author is jumping to conclusions. As far as we know, two of the three speakers covered in this story happened to mention the existence of non-specific personal issues in passing. How many people don’t have any personal issues?
It could be that some people do need help. And it could also be incredibly insulting and patronizing to just assume that people with beliefs different than ours are in need of mental help, as opposed to simply having strange beliefs. After all, religion still exists despite a lack of evidence. Treating religious people as stuck in a dark “rabbit hole” is at best ostracizing.
> Landucci points out that if we take the Spanish initials for the United Nations, ‘ONU’, and read it backwards, we get ‘Uno’ – which is Spanish for ‘One’. This, he explains, is proof that the UN is a tool of the One World Order.
For the entire article, I couldn’t stop thinking of the Illuminati Confirmed videos on YouTube.
[+] [-] everdev|7 years ago|reply
I agree with this in principle, but at what point do we have no other choice? Witches? Lizard people? Alien abductions?
[+] [-] marsrover|7 years ago|reply
You never really know, especially if you have never even look.
When the day comes that there isn't a person around that will challenge their thoughts with something they find crazy, it will be a dark day.
Edit: after reading the article I see that my comment is not related.
[+] [-] SubiculumCode|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FRex|7 years ago|reply
I have once entertained starting a conspiracy theory saying that unix shell pipes were originally created to allow piping fortune to cowsay.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy
[+] [-] twic|7 years ago|reply
This, for those like me who had not heard of it, is the idea that Finland does not exist, and there is a conspiracy to make the world think that it does.
When really, almost the opposite is true: not only does Finland exist, but it is the surviving part of the Roman Empire:
https://imgur.com/gallery/eNuUdTd
[+] [-] mrfusion|7 years ago|reply
But it just won’t seem to work out. They seem to get smaller and smaller and too small to see if the botttom is disappearing first. I’m going to have to try it with a telescope. It’s kind making me question my own beliefs.
Also they made me watch some of those YouTube videos about the eclipse going in the wrong direction. I still haven’t been able to explain that. :-(
I guess my point is don’t expect an easy debate if you engage them. Some of this stuff just isn’t as easy as you’d expect.
[+] [-] naasking|7 years ago|reply
You mean a video that's flipped or running backwards? Why would you question your whole worldview before questioning the reliability of the alleged evidence?
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ourmandave|7 years ago|reply
I worry about the guy who fired shots into a pizza restaurant with an AR-15 because he believed it was a front for a child sex ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Or when some random clown from Texas, who campaigned on disbanding the Dept of Energy, now runs it.
Now you have my attention.
[+] [-] RobertRoberts|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I have quite a few disagreements with the established health industry. I cured a hole in my tooth in college in the late 90s on my own. I am still called a quack and a liar despite my wife knowing about this, and just this past year real scientific proof (and even medical products) coming out confirming it's true.
But in the mean time, until it's widely accepted, I will be called a liar and/or quack/delusional. And this is has nothing to do with trauma, but simply ignorance, and a lack of interest in testing. (conspiracy would say that dentists don't want people healing their own teeth)
[+] [-] ryanwaggoner|7 years ago|reply
My teeth have always been terrible, would you mind sharing a link or two to the research?
[+] [-] sheepz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s3m4j|7 years ago|reply
That's how it was done millenias ago.
[+] [-] soneil|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] titzer|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bardworx|7 years ago|reply
Can you please elaborate on how you “cured” a hole in your tooth?
I’m genuinely curious if your wording is misleading on what transpired or I’m feeding a troll.
[+] [-] insickness|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ComodoHacker|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|7 years ago|reply
"Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia, from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism. But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit hole may only get deeper and darker."
This is one of the most humane, compassionate worldviews I've read in a while.
I really want to be more like Michael Marshall (the author), but I just don't know how.
Maybe I do, and just need to do it more. Last year I got involved with protecting wolves from one rogue rancher. During the public hearing, things got very heated. I found myself empathizing with the ranchers more than the enviros, two of whom acted very embarrassingly. One rancher (who was actually an ally of the enviros but still being attacked) had to leave the room, so I went out to check on him.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out how we're supposed to engage with people we strongly disagree with.
[+] [-] monktastic1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mping|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhapsodic|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flavmartins|7 years ago|reply
Trauma is real. Our society doesn't place enough emphasis in recognizing mental health issues other than depression. There are many other events that cause trauma and people deal with it in many different ways.
This is why you no matter the number of facts you present in online discussions will ever dissuade these individuals from their positions.
[+] [-] lighttower|7 years ago|reply