We tend to argue back against lies: it is absurd to think that Democrats cheated in Republican-run Arizona and Georgia. Arguing back on social media often just drives attention to an issue, making it clear what the sides are.
It's interesting to watch how stories transform over time.
Someone asked about debunking their Mom's belief in chemtrails. This blog explores talking with family who believe false ideas generated by communities that welcome them:
A Small Brazilian Town Is Beating Covid-19 Through a Unique Experiment describes the benefits of getting vaccinated early.
This is a great article to share in vaccine-hesitant social media circles. I'd recommend not blasting your opinion: make the goal that a few people read it, rather than telling people which team and which side the article supports before reading it.
The media has difficulties countering lies.
George Lakoff recommends countering lies with "Truth Sandwiches" —
I hear questions:
Should you respect Nazis? Should you punch a Nazi?
Questions like this get us in trouble. "Who cares? — wrong question" is my answer.
Progressives: In the New York Times report on Trump's taxes: what in it would disturb a possible Trump voter (not necessarily a core Trump voter) the most?
Is it helpful to call someone "complicit"?
Will aggressive statements backfire or help?
Activists argue about how hard-hitting to be: Is reform not enough? Will stronger statements backfire? Do weaker statements betray the cause? If this were a sign for a cause you had not been convinced about, would it reach you?