The problem with this thinking is that many of us are not extremists and genuinely want to know what the scientific truth is.
And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game.
And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough.
I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case.
But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.
> Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.
This same phenomenon happened just this last election. Only one candidate was allowed to be publicly supported. Publicly supporting the other carried the risk of being shamed, labeled (bigot, fascist, etc.), or even being fired from your job.
By all metrics Hillary was winning. But the silenced portion of the population didn't change their minds after being shouted down and shamed; they, as you said, "hid [their ideas] and acted silently"
And if someone prepares a text which is logically sound (but remains to be seen if scientifically sound) supported by references then it's completely a different game.
And when journalists and other people criticise that text with ad-hominems, jokes and invectives but ZERO arguments, that's no longer enough.
I'm afraid that the critics of this manifesto will have to put in the hard work and prove that it's wrong. The tactic of shouting the author down, as they do with typical trolls won't work in this case.
But the really bad news is that it never did work. Those people that were shouted down continued to hold the same ideas except they hid them and acted silently.