America’s flat-Earth movement appears to be growing | Hacker News Reader

America’s flat-Earth movement appears to be growing

economist.com

34 pointsokket56 comments

Open articleView on HN

Elon Musk and The Flat Earth Society had this twitter exchange[1] a couple of days ago:

@elonmusk "Why is there no Flat Mars Society!?"

@FlatEarthOrg "Hi Elon, thanks for the question. Unlike the Earth, Mars has been observed to be round.

"We hope you have a fantastic day!"

[1] https://twitter.com/FlatEarthOrg/status/935644892721762305

this is some great microfiction

Reading the thread on that tweet, I have no idea if @FlatEarthOrg is really advocating for a flat earth, or just a parody account.

Indeed, like the whole "movement". Their site though, has news, a forum and Wiki: https://www.tfes.org

I suppose there's a spectrum of how firmly tongue is planted in cheek.

Maybe it started out as a parody when setup of websites and internet usage still had a difficulty barrier, and then after some time started to attract real loonies. Might indeed be fun when all you wanted was a parody and then random people come and start discussing seriously about flat earth.

Yeah, I always thought it's just a parody for fun, when people with straight face discuss some ridiculous things, like that German Bielefeld conspiracy.

Poe's Law in action I guess. Spread BS with enough confidence and people will believe it - look at how often The Onion and similar satirical news sites articles are shared by people who genuinely believe them.

I don't really think anyone believes it, I think there are only people who believes that someone believes it :)

Reminds me of the time that a Russian paper had quoted The Onion as if it was true, then later had to publish a retraction saying they got their information from "an American paper known to spread falsehoods".

I read a few of their tweets and replies yesterday. It certainly sounds like a parody account to me.

Let's hope the NYT and other mainstream media don't begin writing "profiles" of flat Earthers every week now...

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/lets-just-stop-writin...

Flatearthers probably wouldn't get fired from their jobs and have to move.

Unless of course there's an anti-flatearthers - antifla, if you will - who dress in all... blue (?) and strongly oppose the flatearthers.

> NASA chose not to weigh in. A spokeswoman told the Washington Post: “we don’t think there’s a debate to be had.”

That's actually really important. Trying to convince irrational people with rational arguments is kind of a moot endeavor anyway, but to an uninformed observer NASA debating those people may end up looking like whatever they're debating is apparently worth having a debate about.

Are these people really irrational, or are they just messing with everyone? I agree NASA shouldn't bother with them much, but more because there's no point in engaging with trolls than because they're irredeemably ignorant.

Troll or not, if you enter into a debate with someone you only serve to validate their opinion.

It's a joke, if you enter a debate with a joke you just continue a joke.

Or that could be a world conspiracy, you know, like the one where Santa and children of the world made adults believe Santa doesn't exist.

That's not true. You don't validate someone's opinion by honest debate with them.

My point is I don't think it's actually their opinion. You can't have honest debate with someone who's pulling your leg. It just makes you look like you can't take a joke.

I actually despise this argument, though, because it's increasingly used to prevent legitimate arguments from happening.

There is a growing likelihood for people in this country to feel that their ideas are so morally correct, that opposing viewpoints should be ignored or suppressed. Two very common arguments I hear that seek to accomplish this are that a debate should not be had because they don't want to create a "false equivalency" (the argument you're making here), or that they don't want to provide the other party with a "platform." There is no such thing as a false equivalency in debate. In reasoned discourse, foolish ideas should be exposed and dismantled.

The thing is, is it really reasoned discourse when you dismiss centuries of scientific evidence by pointing to a global evil conspiracy?

Yes. Pointing to a global evil conspiracy held up over centuries is a very weak argument, compared to what round-earthers could bring to the table. So, one would assume reasonable people would be convinced by the round-earthers.

The 20th century definition of the atom was dismissed dispite centuries of scientific evidence. Not a flatearther, just saying.

But there's no need for legitimate arguments when there's nobody at the receiving end. The flat eartheres should be forgotten and ridiculed and we shouldn't provide them attention they can than use to find another receiving poor soul.

I can make up any bullcrap and if any I mean any new source picks it up it's free advertising for me regardless how right they are.

Exactly - some arguments have already been had. This is one of them.

I agree that the whole "no platform" thing is a bad idea. You shouldn't alienate people; it doesn't get you anywhere and it's kind of mean.

It's not like I'm against debating things in public either, I just think it's important to know when to stop. For example, let's say NASA had added some easy/intuitive proof to their comment that people can do at home if they want to. That's cool, right? So now you get a irrational response back from the other side. Do you respond? I guess the question is how often can you respond before you end up doing more harm then good.

I always like the bridge example here: how would you react to someone trying to convince you that you should jump off a bridge? Reasoning with them implies that you accept that they might be right (it’s not a debate otherwise). The appropriate response would be laughing at them, or ignoring them, or something similar.

Laughing at them is better than ignore, this is what OP means I guess.

> In reasoned discourse, foolish ideas should be exposed and dismantled.

You might have a problem with ensuring the discourse is reasoned in the first place. For anything important enough, at least one side is likely to use every sleazy trick in the book, from logical fallacies to plain slander. What may have began as a search for truth (or facts) can quickly turn into a dirty rhetoric match. In such a situation, the outcome mostly depends on debating skills.

This movement appears to essentially be a phenomenon of the USA. What is it about American culture that leads to such thinking?

Are you not familiar with the post-Situationist movement?

The Brits just don't get our style of humor.

they have a similar attitude for many things: trump vs obama, religion vs science, apple vs microsoft, angular vs react, flat vs round, “me” vs the others, US vs Russia... i believe it is because competitiveness is a pillar in the american society. it is sometimes so important to lead to the absurd.

Where do they think things that fly over the horizon are going?

Planes, clouds, the moon, the sun, etc

I have this crazy theory (just for fun) that flat-earthers are people who want to be taken to space, as in they fake the disbelief in order to advance space exploration. If I bet you $1000 that the earth is flat you'd have an incentive to prove me wrong, the easiest way is to make going to space for me to observe the earth from a distance as cheap as possible. In this age of outrage it is easier to get people interested in a subject by spurring controversy than it is by igniting their curiosity.

If you're up for a chuckle, I highly recommend the Flat Earth Society FAQ page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

> The light of the sun is confined to a limited area and its light acts like a spotlight upon the earth.

They're skimping on a lot of detail here. And their animation shows the earth's illuminated area squishing like a bean bag.

Well, at east that page answered a question I had:

If these people believe the earth is flat, where is the center?

I find it interesting[0] because with this answer[1] they also provide the means to prove them wrong. If that map was remotely close to being accurate, then circumnavigating the globe following a southern latitude should take much, much longer than following a northern latitude. Or easier: Flying from Johannesburg to Antananarivo (2150km, 3.5 hours by direct flight) should be much, much longer than from London to Moscow (2500km, 3.75 hours).

And I think I know what a flatearther would say; "Conspiracy!!!"

--- [0] Maybe interesting is not the word... funny?

[1] https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_t...

This is just another stupidity fad. America's full of them: flat earth, anti vaccination, climate change deniers, etc. It's fashionable in certain circles to be an idiot.

http://prntscr.com/hh5fdt

Yes, I really don't think it's a serious account.

One way or another everyone is ignorant about something, the problem is when people start to feel comfortable in ignorance and they do not make the effort to open their minds to change.

I wonder if there is something systematic in the US of A's education system that allows this or if it's just arrogance on their ideas and "national" pride.

But with all this divide in that country I hope other governments and more important, people from other countries do not take them as a role model to follow. But that's just my 2 cents.

IIRC there was a study that said the most effective way to fight stupidity is by ridicule and not by actually educating or debating these folks.

I can't think of NO BETTER target to ridicule than the flatearthers.

Like I said below the man in the Whitehouse seems to brought out the racists and other stupid people out of the woodwork.

There were ALWAYS there BTW, they just seem more emboldened than before.

Isn't flat earth society itself a ridicule of stupidity?

We need to go deeper.

Ridiculing the Flat Earth Society ridiculing conspiracy theories?

We live in an absurd time. "Post-fact", "post-irony"?

Works by Adam Curtis come to mind.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis

I think 2014-2020 is gonna be a ripe field for books, documentaries and such. Such a diverse, disorienting, chaotic yet business as usual time.

Or 2014-2024 if Trump gets his second term.

> there was a study that said the most effective way to fight stupidity is by ridicule

Unless people are just trolling, in which case both trying to ridicule or educate them is not gonna work. Just ignore them. Don't feed the trolls.

Do you have a link to this study?

Intuitively to me, that seems like the opposite of what you should do. If you ridicule someone, they just go deeper into their crazy group, and are exposed to even less correct information. Additionally, people who are a little ridiculed get pushed toward those who are also ridiculed for crazier ideas, because they feel accepted there.

The researchers found that the rationality speech and the ridiculing speech — but not the empathetic speech — were effective in reducing belief in the conspiracy theory.

http://www.psypost.org/2016/12/study-rational-arguments-ridi...

---

I was wrong, BOTH rational and ridicule methods are effective. Ridicule is probably more amusing though. LOL.

Very interesting article, thanks!

It looks like this study was done by people who only just heard of the conspiracy (and so, if my anecdotal experience is anything to go by, they have less investment, especially because they haven't put any personal action into researching it).

I wonder if / how this would differ if you tried to reduce the belief of someone who was deep into pizzagate or something like that. Someone who has formed an identity around believing this kind of thing, someone who feels like they themselves "discovered" or pieced this stuff together etc.

I would think most people are conspiracy consumers rather than producers or dissiminators like Alex Jones.

There's also the genuine held belief aspect. I think some of the latest conspiracy theories are not born out of a genuine held belief, but are used just to troll or for political purposes (Obama is a Muslim). Also IIRC Pizzagate was born out of 4chan, it just escalated QUICKLY.

I am guessing trying to debate someone who is genuinely invested in a conspiracy (spent time and money) is harder than someone who listens to late night radio and watches Alex Jones.

Sorry to keep posting OT and about politics but do you know who would be a perfect candidate to study believes in conspiracy theories SO deeply held that they keep talking about them after they no longer matter? Rhetorical. It's Trump. He keeps talking about Obama's birth certificate, losing the popular vote to illegal voters and a new one, the Pussygrabbing tape is fake.

So everybody loves conspiracies, even presidents - a simple, black and white explanation for the increasingly complex, dangerous, chaotic time (e.g. DPRK).

Just indicates how many bored hipsters have enough free time to engage in post-ironic trolling

Modern boredom involves pressing buttons on a laptop. Pressing buttons on a TV remote is so 20th century.

I mean, 9/10 of the people associated with the movement (online) are trolling. Just like the original 'alt-right', mainly people making fun of extremists while pretending to represent them.

look how that ended though.

Snowball effect, with a hard core of trolls and Russian influencers.

Also discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15805754

next up: America's stork-delivered reproduction society

My ex will be in that one.

they are just pretending right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com