I'm tired man, can the people who want to be raptured be raptured already
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
188 points (99.0% liked)
Science
5590 readers
70 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not how it works. Rapture is part of their death cult, where they have to scare all their members every few months or lose them.
"Do what I say or you're going to hell". It's abusive. Very abusive.
They can go to the afterlife anytime they want. The ones who actually believe that crap do kill themselves for that purpose. The ones still here are just cowards and liars.
I'd settle for more Heaven's Gate / Jonestown / Waco (this one a bit less, but the result was mostly the same)
Good ol Davey K.’s bbq bash
rapture already happened, those people just suck and got left behind
That’s giving too much credibility to their cult nonsense.
Really hope this starts to sink in with people more. We really gotta evolve past trying to appeal to everyone's reason and morality all the time.
The people trying to destroy public education dgaf if they look stupid or if you have a news article that proves they're a hypocrite
Do you have links to more effective strategies?
I've got anecdotes about deradicalizing people or I got links to videos about how the gotcha approach doesn't work. I'm a terminally online anarchist so unfortunately my knowledge stems from terminally online spaces.
Beyond that what we have to go by is studying high control groups in the past and trying to better educate ourselves on how they operate.
My favorite example are Jehovah's Witnesses. My favorite video about their inner workings has been removed but there's a lot of documentaries about people who have escaped. Instead This is a channel that highlights the psychological tactics used by high control groups to erode people's sense of reality and separate them from their families.
Innuendo Studios has a video about the grooming process into MAGA and a series on the mental gymnastics they're using to stay radicalized. It's important if you want to understand why the people in your life aren't responding to being talked to like adults.
This is an oversimplification by an "enlightened centrist" who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.
Philosophy Tube is another terminally online leftist but that video describes the fractured models of reality that life in America creates and why you can't just logic someone out of a worldview they didn't logic themselves into. This one however probably comes the closest to actual prescriptive advice on how to deradicalize people and it only works on individuals you are personally close to anyway.
Again, I'm just a terminally online agoraphobe who's only got personal stories about my loved one's descent into MAGA schizoid shit. But all of the videos I linked have actual sources you could track down for further reading. Let me know if you'd like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit.
got personal stories about my loved one's descent into MAGA
You and me both. It's a bit terrifying how much of this has momentum outside the US. The supporters of South Korean president that ordered military rule wearing MAGA hats, or how often the talking points pop up outside the US, especially during US election cycles, from the "free thinkers".
who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.
Thinking of my personal experience, I get that, especially on the mental health front. Thinking of societal / political implications though, doesn't that just give time to scatter information that's hard to dislodge? A lot of what I've heard is the importance of prebunking, like what's written in The Debunking Handbook (2020).
Let me know if you'd like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit
I'll save this post and get back to it. I also have a long boring flight coming up soon.
Ooh, thanks. I've given up on trying to debunk things to people who's reality has become highly subjective and vibes based. But I'm going to look at that book anyway. Inoculation is the tactic I've been using with my family to try and keep them out of pitfalls and I definitely swear by that
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
It's not just uncomfortable though, it's hugely time consuming. And like, I think we're getting to the point where more collective time has been spent explaining the world is not flat than the human hours it took to find out the world is round. If the person happens to be knowledgeable then they can kill a lot of time through out "what about X?" arguments (like missing links for evolution) and that requires someone with a lot of knowledge to slowly explain, so the approach also biases towards locking up the most knowledgeable people instead of them being more free to do other things (in the evolution example, maybe biology research).
I guess I'm not arguing against the empathy first communication, just lamenting how effective the flood the zone strategy is.
yeah, metaphorically punching them in the face.
people like this tend to only respond well visceral reality right in front of their faces. just think of how addicts have to 'bottom' before they seek recovery... it's basically the same issue. they have to visible see the horrible negative consequences of what they are doing to themselves. you can't 'win' these people over by appealing to them... shock therapy is really the only think.
and a lot of them will tell you how they were 'shocked' at some point into their lives out of their previous beliefs.
Can you you give an example?
Focus on material arguments, find common ground on the basis of class upon which to make such arguments. Only make them if needed. We don't need to have high degree of conformity and we're not gonna get it either way. And all of this should be anchored to a purpose for doing it. E.g. fighting the oligarchy, reaching better alignment within a family, etc. If there's no worthy purpose, we shouldn't expend social capital in convincing people.
Aligning on a purpose is important. I'd argue that being aware of how on board people are for that purpose is important too. I recently tried to say that the family chat should have less influencer posts since we don't all agree on the positions and it causes friction. Boy was that a shit show
covid misinformation really broke peoples brain everything else.
I live in Texas, and I'd regularly bounce between groups of people who were vocally pro-masking and vocally anti-masking. Trying to buck the trend was exhausting in either group. I'd immediately get cold-shoulders and glares if I was out of compliance. People would crack jokes at my expense or try to debate-bro me. Felt like I had a giant bullseye on my back.
Eventually, we just stopped hanging out with the no-maskers until the vaccine arrived. Then it felt less dire to be around old friends and family without fighting the social current.
Incidentally, I've had COVID twice since getting the jab, and both times came by way of my kid being in daycare. If you think adults play fast and loose, holy shit do daycare workers (and toddlers, kinda obviously) not give a shit. Nobody is even trying to keep kids from getting ill, unless you're sending them to some obscenely overpriced daycare.
Our interpretation is that people who responded positively to these statements would feel they “win” by endorsing misinformation—doing so can show “the enemy” that it will not gain any ground over people’s views.
The article glosses over the distinction between endorsing misinformation and believing misinformation. I think people often interpret poll questions as expressions of political affiliation, so for example a person who thinks that the covid lockdowns were a mistake might say that covid is caused by 5G because that's the answer that upsets or offends lockdown supporters, not because this person thinks it is the literal truth. In other words, what the authors are seeing is not necessarily sincere belief but rather a deliberate, politically motivated endorsement of statements known to be false.
Edit: a blog I like addressing a similar phenomenon:
You can see that after the Ferguson shooting, the average American became a little less likely to believe that blacks were treated equally in the criminal justice system. This makes sense, since the Ferguson shooting was a much-publicized example of the criminal justice system treating a black person unfairly.
But when you break the results down by race, a different picture emerges. White people were actually a little more likely to believe the justice system was fair after the shooting. Why? I mean, if there was no change, you could chalk it up to white people believing the police’s story that the officer involved felt threatened and made a split-second bad decision that had nothing to do with race. That could explain no change just fine. But being more convinced that justice is color-blind? What could explain that?
My guess – before Ferguson, at least a few people interpreted this as an honest question about race and justice. After Ferguson, everyone mutually agreed it was about politics.
that is conservatives, antivaxxers, flat earthers conspiracy theorist of debunked theories in a nutshell.
Those who think it's good to believe lies/misinformation/disinormation: Religious people. It's them. That's what they do. Make up bullshit, then believe in it when there's zero evidence of it at all.
They don't care about literal truth. They care about belonging to the group of liars that they fit into, because they're liars as well. They're lying to themselves every single day.
Religious people were the #1 cause of spread of COVID. They just had to have church services for a fictional god that's everywhere. Why? They dont' know, it doesn't make sense. They just did it because someone lied to them about some stupid religious crap.
There were plenty of non-religious people believing the lies, pretty much everyone on the right, and they're not all religious. It was an us vs. them take.
"Ugh, your health care advice is too trendy, so I'm not going to follow it because that would make me weak." /s I don't like following many trends, but this isn't the place to make that stand.
Reverse cargo cult.
Believing something wrong is never a win.
This paper makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations, which is factually incorrect, and thus it's engaging in the same type of misinformation reinforcement that it laments
Much of the misinformation is the lack of nuance, or willingness to engage with details...
The risks from the vaccine are lower than if you contracted covid by several orders of magnitude which makes it extremely hard to justify being afraid of the vaccine but not covid. So for ease of speech you can say there is no risk from the vaccine.
No risk from the vaccine is misinformation, the fact some of us feel justified employing misinformation because we feel we are comfortable for the risk calculus doesn't invalidate the actual documented risks of a vaccine. Hence the irony
And where does the paper say that? You claim it "makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations" but I didn't see any such assumption made.
Funny that when reading "covid-19 prevention" you forgot anti-maskers - which is actually a very visible "I win" statement - but instead went for not being vaccinated, which is not at all a visible thing hence nowhere as much a "I win" statement.
The article indicates multiple instances of what it considers to be misinformation, I illustrated one point that isn't absolute misinformation, which is ironic given what they are trying to say....
the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go. - ie "faith" in religion.
Ignorance.. it's an apt word here..