If you walk out consistently whenever he brings it up, eventually either he’ll quit bringing it up or you’ll quit seeing each other.
But you are purposely avoiding it and showing your disbelief. You may or may not be able to conceal how much it bothers you, but unless you’re willing to join him in his rants there is no way to conceal that you don’t believe them and want to avoid them.
You could try bursting out laughing whenever he starts; at least, if you think you can pull off making it sound like genuine laughter.
Of course, that may well piss him off.
You could try responding every time, in a monotone, in the exact same words, “This is all very boring bullshit and I’m not going to discuss it any more.” Just keep repeating that whenever he brings up the subject and for however long he stays on the subject. Absolutely flat voice.
That might piss him off also. I don’t know the person, it’s quite possible that anything you do about this (including, possibly, starting to jump up and down and yelling whatever the flat earth equivalent is of “Kill! Kill! Kill!” – see “Alice’s Restaurant” if you don’t get the reference) will piss him off.
Wasn’t meant as an argument, simply stating what I have experienced in gereral among people these days all around. not just on the net and text based communication platforms. I guess I’m just from a time when the more information provided, about any topic really, helped the audience form a more complete image of what’s involved considering a bigger picture in general for a more specific response instead of simply generalizing a response into a generic answer meant for a wider and less specific subject category. In other words we weren’t able to answer a specific question with much accuracy without knowing more than just the most basic elements. We required more information regarding some more specific aspects of the particular situation in order to form an answer that is more helpful based on more specific dynamics that apply to each individual question rather than just tossing all similar questions into a general pile for each to figure out, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of offering any information at all to any particular question in a general topic arena. After all, what;s the point of offering an opinion if it’s not going to have any more of an impact on the question than the question itself has in the first place?
I’m considering all of these great suggestions and may well be able to do something with this. I know these things because I use them in one way or another with the general public when they present proposterous things to me but I didn’t even think of it with him. Thanks for the reminder that there’s really only a couple of outcomes and that either of them will most likely lead to the same end so what’s there to lose by just acting silly or monotoning it under the rug! This gives me some hope at least…
These are three of our most recent discussions of Flat Earthers specifically. We’ve talked at length about them about 100 times over the years.
Our new friend @XSIV might find these informative if they’re interested in Flat Earthing specifically rather than just the irreparably damaged relationship between their half brother and reality. And therefore between said half brother and themselves.
From Dec 2022:
From Feb 2024:
From Nov 2024:
Welcome friend. Good luck with your various family and personal demons.
We’re a generally friendly bunch here but we do prefer to talk about one thing per thread. A personal introduction and a flat earth CT rant don’t really go together, even though each is certainly welcome separately.
I hope you’ll take some time to look around at test the waters here more thoroughly.
Maybe you could tell him, whether it is flat or round, things seem to work the same way according to the two viewpoints. So agree to disagree as to the shape and just get on living on it as it is.
Of course it will be frustrating to both of you. But enjoying the world as friends is fair price.
Conspiracy-theory people are generally anti-government propagandists, or those conditioned by anti-government propagandists, and some trolls. I suppose those conditioned by these propagandists are seeking some kind of answer to self-perceived failures or confirmation of their biases, which ultimately end up as blaming “the federal government…”. They then become the propagandists and the cycle perpetuates.
I can see that and I will admit that I have a tendancy to be a bit ahead of myself, hence my honestly and aptly labelled user name which was so graciously given to me by an ex girlfriend. And yes, part of why she is an ex is directly attributed to my personality which is certainly not everyone’s cup of tea and I’ve become used to that. Still, I’m among us and I certainly encounter many during the course of any given day who are definitely not my cup of tea, however I do not voice that to them unless they particularly get on my nerves by doing something like insulting me pesonally or questioning my integrity when they have not displayed any sort of integrity themselves. I simply go about my day and take it all in so long as no event gives me reason to offer my opinion or assistance and allow others to be who they are, say what they say, and do what they do. I’m only looking for some opinions on ways to get along with my brother because he’s generally a great guy but there’s just that one thing that I don’t know how to deal with in a way that will get us beyond it and on to something we can agree on rather than me throwing my hands in the air, muttering something mildly offensive and storming away until the next time, only to end up repeating the cycle each time we get together. Apologies for ading TMI. It’s a compulsion I suppose but it’s not meant to offend or otherwise be a negative element. I’ll work on it. That’s all I can offer…
I just figured that possibly if some of the more prominent ones were to witness it for themselves that it would have enough of an impact on the entire subject that it could be proven false once and for all and go away. However I didn’t realize that this is an issue that goes far beyond logical thinking and is indeed a product of delusional minds. I have a tendancy to ignore such things because I do use logic as a means of justifying most things and I don’t reallu understand how the delusional mind works… Nor do I really care to.
I suspect you are not going to be able to ‘wean him off’ this by gentle methods.
From what you say, he does not seem to be a person who takes hints well.
Probably the only way forward is the ‘agree to differ’ talk, with the perhaps likely outcome that the relationship will end. So be it, unless you are willing to endure endless bickering.
May be best in the long run for your own blood pressure and mental health.
I wish you well. There’s not really much more we can say…
I’m not a polling expert, but I wonder if there are ways to correct for people trolling pollsters.
Also, contrariwise, if a poll is conducted face-to-face with a pollster, a respondent might fervently believe something controversial (like a belief in a flat Earth), but respond differently to a pollster out of embarrassment or fear of being mocked.
I refer back to my earlier post pointing out that the evidence of the nature of the Earth and the solar system is all around us, and if your brother manages to deny or explain away all that evidence, there will be no way to convince him. Does he use a GPS? Satellite TV? Does he know there are astronauts right now in the ISS circling the Earth? Has he looked across a large body of water and seen the horizon? How does he think those things work? What was it that the lunar astronauts photographed in the famous “Earthrise” picture? Where does he think the sun goes at night?
As for how to deal with him, I’d suggest calmly and politely telling him that you don’t want to discuss this subject any more. There’s nothing else you can do. If he still persists, assume he’s deliberately trolling you and act accordingly.
I figured as much but I was just throwing it out there to an audience who may be able to offer something I wasn’t aware of. In any case I did get something out of this although not really directly associated with the original subject. Still any helpful input is welcomed and appreciated and although I won’t come out with the desired result, I’ll still come out with something and that’s all I could hope for regardless. Thanks all for the help. Good will to all.
Actually, I have seen a new Flearther argument that on the surface appears to be good but ultimately fails. I make an observation that would be true on the geometry of a round earth. My observation is characterized like this
If the Earth is round then the top of a mountain should be lit first during the sunrise.
I observe the top of a mountain being lit first during a sunrise.
Therefore the Earth is round.
The flearther now rightfully says, “That’s affirming the consequence fallacy. You didn’t prove the globe Earth.”
However, there are a few problems with that
Their extension that since I didn’t prove the globe Earth therefore flat Earth.
The syllogism is a strawman. I merely have said my observation is consistent with a globe Earth, not that it proves it because
I make an observation that disproves the flat Earth. The syllogism really is
If the Earth is flat, then X.
Not X
Therefore the Earth is not flat
So if I see a building in the distance missing its lower half, maybe I didn’t prove a globe Earth but I sure as hell disproved the flat Earth and it is consistent (and thus did not disprove) a globe Earth.
Just one more way flearthers fail in how science works.
I just want to chime in to say that whatever method(s) you decide to use it takes time to detach/change the flow of a relationship. Unless you decide to make an abrupt cut which is also fine.
Answers to your questions that flearthers give.
Done with towers.
Satellites don’t exist, again towers.
CGI. Filmed in a water tank at NASA
Water rises to the level of the eyes.
You can zoom in on hull-down ship with your Nikon 1000 and bring the boat back into frame
Photoshop
Perspective
Speaking as a professional market researcher: sort of.
Part of it is that an intelligent researcher builds a few questions into their “screener” – the pre-questionnaire, where you ask questions to see if a potential respondent qualifies – to screen out people who will answer “yes” to everything, or just give dumb answers. For example, you can give respondents a list of brands of car, and ask which ones they have heard of – and then put in one or two fictional car brands; if someone selects those, you screen them out, and don’t give them the main questionnaire.
The other technique is, frankly, sample size. Recognizing that a small percentage of respondents will be giving you garbage responses – either due to actively looking to troll the researcher, or just not really engaging and just clicking boxes – you survey enough people to make sure that that percentage remains low in your total sample. A more complete research report – rather than just a few numbers that get shown in a press release or news story – will show the margin of error in the survey; part of the margin of error is due to using a sample of a few hundred or few thousand to represent a population of millions, but part is to acknowledge that some people will not be responding to your survey “truthfully.”
It gets more complex with a topic like this, partially because the absolute percentage is pretty low (so, the margin of error is close to the percentage in the survey), and because it’s a controversial topic that attracts cranks and trolls.
I’m not an expert either, but I can well believe that the exact way the question is phrased can very strongly affect the results. And that’s before we even consider deliberate trolls.
But we’re well off topic here; probably a different discussion…