>>>This both-sides-ism is one of the things that got the US to this place, the idea in the media that we should treat all ideas equally and that if we have someone talk about, say, the benefits of vaccines, we must balance that by then giving air to a vaccine denialist.
>
>What's a vaccine denialist?
>

Another name is anti-vaxxer. There is a sizable movement in this country of people who believe that vaccines are bad, with a subset that believes they're a conspiracy of some sort. A large number of people believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism, thanks to the lies of Andrew Wakefield.

This isn't about just COVID, but much more. It was also simply an example of the kind of thing that happens, especially on TV here. Fortunately, with vaccines, it doesn't happen so much anymore, but it used to be not unusual for a TV station to run a story where they'd include a medical professional explaining why vaccines are important and an anti-vaxxer as balance.

>What you call both-sides-ism is sometimes also known as "science" which is driven by persistent skepticism. The idea of scientific consensus or that only one viewpoint is valid, has been anathema to science ever since everybody knew the world was flat. Such widely believed mistruths can only be overcome by contrarians. If the contrarians are fearful that they might be burned for heresy or subject to the online billy club in today's world, then you have a big problem.
>

Nope, not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about including a flat-earther in a geology seminar.

>Certainly contrarians are easy to dislike because their skepticism is annoying and distracting. But science has to make a special effort to engage because that's the best way to discover error and grow knowledge. There's a silver lining too: a hypothesis that keeps seeing off challengers becomes stronger and stronger and is useful. A hypothesis that does not survive challenge is not useful. A hypothesis that needs to be protected from challenge is a cult.
>
>If somebody says that too many citizens don't believe the truth- such as the value of a COVID vaccine- then I say that's on the complainant. You cannot change others, you can only change your interaction with them. Which clearly is a fail if they don't believe you, So people need to sort out their message and maybe ask why so many seem to prefer others' opinions. Or I suppose you can just demonize them and say it's all their fault, but that doesn't make people more likely to listen afaics. It may even be the reason why they won't.
>
>Just for completeness, Trump administration officials and most Republicans in Congress backed mandatory MMR vaccination and still do. Meanwhile in NZ, most MMR anti-vaxxers are far left (even by our standards!) so perhaps the hypothesis blaming conservative mindset would benefit from a dose of skepticism,? ;-)
>

Yes, anti-vaxxers come from both ends of the spectrum. But in my experience, that's much less true for the other widely-believed conspiracy theories.

>For the rest: I can see you believe these things deeply but you don't need to convince me and you don't need me playing contrarian. I would say though that HE'S GONE and your good guys control House, Senate and POTUS. The so-called Autocrats are deposed. So go out and do good things.

As I said in another message, while Dems control White House and Congress, the Congressional majorities are quite slim. I'm hopeful in some ways. Positions that were considered far left under Obama are now pretty mainstream in the party. Biden clear has advisers who are believers in modern monetary theory, so with luck, we won't get all caught up in worrying about the debt. Also, Biden and his team have clearly learned the lesson that the GOP will simply be intransigent and that, if they say they want to work with them, it's primarily a delaying tactic.

But much of the agenda will depend on whether Manchin and Sinema are willing to reform the (Jim Crow relic) filibuster.

Tamar