Difference between revisions of "Branch COVIDIANS"
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | <includeonly>{{ImgA|BranchCOVIDians.jpeg|link=Branch COVIDIANS}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Img|BranchCOVIDians.jpeg}}</noinclude>Branch COVIDians, are the enthusiastic Karen | + | <includeonly>{{ImgA|BranchCOVIDians.jpeg|link=Branch COVIDIANS}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{Img|BranchCOVIDians.jpeg}}</noinclude>Branch COVIDians, are the enthusiastic Karen Enforcers of policies that they've been told work by the DNC or their media, but demonstrate no actual domain knowledge of the problems or skepticism (critical thinking skills) to back it up. They are the [[Dunning-Kruger]]'s who believe the evidence against masks or shutdowns are conclusive: "the science is settled" when in reality, both are still hotly debated in scientific circles and there's as much evidence against both as effective as for. When cornered, instead of discussing the topic, they usually attack people, or post links to their favorite non-scientific source, or rarely, to a junk study that's easy to debunk. <br /><br />While I sometimes argue with these people, the point is not to change their mind (their views demonstrate that they're not open to the nuances of reality), it's to get them to show to others that their consensus demanding tantrums are not based on nuance or reality, but based on a desire to conform to what they've been told to think (usually by the far left). |
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 18:33, 22 August 2020
Branch COVIDians, are the enthusiastic Karen Enforcers of policies that they've been told work by the DNC or their media, but demonstrate no actual domain knowledge of the problems or skepticism (critical thinking skills) to back it up. They are the Dunning-Kruger's who believe the evidence against masks or shutdowns are conclusive: "the science is settled" when in reality, both are still hotly debated in scientific circles and there's as much evidence against both as effective as for. When cornered, instead of discussing the topic, they usually attack people, or post links to their favorite non-scientific source, or rarely, to a junk study that's easy to debunk.
While I sometimes argue with these people, the point is not to change their mind (their views demonstrate that they're not open to the nuances of reality), it's to get them to show to others that their consensus demanding tantrums are not based on nuance or reality, but based on a desire to conform to what they've been told to think (usually by the far left).
| ||||