How do you change people’s minds? You rarely persuade people in one column, or one statement or one media appearance. Usually you persuade people gradually.
You listen to their arguments, not just to shoot them down, but also to understand their thinking. You listen because you might learn something. Later you offer arguments that address their specific concerns.
You don’t persuade people by suppressing dissent.
You persuade people by going to their turf and engaging, as Sen. Rand Paul did in San Francisco in 2015 where he spoke against net neutrality.
In S.F., Rand Paul is not neutral on anything
May 11, 2015
In the belly of the beast at a South of Market incubator,
Paul chalked up public support for net neutrality to savvy marketing. “When you say something like 'neutrality,’ the name is wonderful: Net neutrality. Who can be against net neutrality? Who couldn’t be against The Man, who wouldn’t want to stop The Man from charging me too much? Who’s not against the phone company, the telephone company, the television company? We’re all against The Man at some level.”
You can’t persuade people by trying to drown out their voices. In fact, once you’ve done that, your credibility is shot as you have established that you are afraid of a fair argument.
That’s what YouTube did when the platform yanked a video of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky for the second time.
Paul is an eye surgeon and he wasn’t selling miracle cures or snake oil — but that didn’t matter to YouTube.
The first time YouTube muzzled Paul, it was because the “Libertarian-ish” Republican claimed that many masks don’t work. You Tube said that claim claim violated this policy:
Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects
Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19
For the record, I am fully vaccinated and I wear a mask where I am supposed to — on public transportation, for example. I also mask up when people with compromised immunity might congregate, such as pharmacies and grocery stores.
But don’t tell me there are no negative health effects. Not after I’ve felt my skin break out and glasses fog up when masked in sweltering summer heat. It doesn’t feel healthy.
YouTube didn’t censor politicians who aren’t physicians yet nonetheless ordered lawful residents off beaches despite scant evidence of outdoor risk. Seems rather selective, does it not?
There’s a pattern here. In April, YouTube censored a video in which Stanford Medical School professor Jay Bhattacharya, Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Scot Atlas of Stanford discussed the efficacy of mask mandates for children. Bhattacharya later wrote in the Wall Street Journal, he was baffled by the platform’s decision.
… the panelists are all experts, and all spoke against requiring children to wear masks. I can’t speak for my counterparts, but my reasoning was a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of masking children are small to none; the costs are much higher.
And:
YouTube’s action violates basic standards of scientific conduct. The company labeled our discussion on masking children as “misinformation” without providing any detail about its scientific reasoning. If YouTube wants to argue that we were wrong, it has an obligation to show its evidence.
How does “The Science” benefit from demanding conformity in the medical community and deleting rational discussions? That answer: It does not.
Here’s a censored Paul video which can be found on Rumble.
https://rumble.com/embed/viay2w/?pub=4
I don’t agree with everything he said — but I didn’t see him trying to shut down the voices of those who disagree with him.
Paul is right about the public health costs of widespread public school classroom closures. I recall when it was considered apostasy to question school closures — even when in reality the CDC had recommended them only for two to five days in areas of high COVID spread or on campuses which infected individuals had visited.
Too often, what Big Media calls backing “The Science” has nothing to do with science and everything to do with moral panic.
If health experts and administration officials really want to persuade skeptical Americans to get vaccinated and mask up, they need good will.
And they’ve done little to earn it.
Debra J. Saunders is a fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Chapman Center for Citizen Leadership. Contact her at dsaunders@discovery.org.
Please click the link above to subscribe for free.
Below are links to two articles on masks you may find interesting.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/mar/16/mask-skeptics-ask-questions-politifact-answers/
https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-of-the-evidence