This afternoon I found myself embroiled in a good old 1990s-style flame war on Twitter, in which Jason Kindrachuk and I contended with an anti-vaxxer. Its nostalgia value was limited, and I soon realized that the anti-vaxxer's intent was not to persuade us, or even discredit us, but to waste our time and the time of anyone else following the exchange.
So I pulled out and blocked the anti-vaxxer. Considering the length of time I've been blogging and tweeting about the politics of public health, it's remarkable how rarely I've run into this kind of nuisance. But as Jason observed, the public-health twittersphere is increasingly infested with annoying tweets. Dr. Peter Hotez has been a major target of the anti-vaxxers, but they're attacking plenty of other folks these days.
The attacks put us at an immediate disadvantage, because we were educated to provide evidence for our assertions and actions. But 75 years ago, Jean-Paul Sartre explained in his essay Anti-Semite and Jew that our adversaries are under no such constraint:
Never believe that anti‐Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti‐Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. It is not that they are afraid of being convinced. They fear only to appear ridiculous or to prejudice by their embarrassment their hope of winning over some third person to their side.
That third person is presumably someone as ignorant and bigoted as themselves, and as resentful of know-it-all experts. If we engage with the trolls and bots and anti-vaxxers in hopes of winning that third person over to our side, we're probably deceiving ourselves and wasting our time.
Better to reach those third persons on our own initiative, with good-news stories about the successes of public health: vaccination, sanitation, good nutrition. If we must deal with bad news (and we must), let it be accounts of murderous half-wits like the Mai-Mai and ADF—not the dime-a-dozen bots running on Russian algorithms.
If those trolls and bots show up in our timelines, follow the sage advice of my esteemed colleague Harry Turtledove and block them. Don't answer them—you might as well try to debate with a mosquito about whether malaria is a real disease.
But don't forget to take the initiative: get into the hashtags like #SamoaMeasles and #Measles with positive good-news tweets, not counter-attacks on the trolls. When your tweets attract mosquitos, block them and get more good news into the hashtags. Don't forget that a key goal of the trolls and bots is to make people uncertain of the truth, or even whether something like truth exists.
But don't answer the trolls directly. Just block them, block the clones that follow them, and use the time you save to do some good.
Recent Comments