While this video is focused around the topic of climate change, it contains some useful tips for talking directly to people about similar issues, and particularly focuses on how you might talk to people like your relatives.
One difference that stood out to me was the idea of "offering rewards" by pointing out the benefits of changing behavior to be more carbon neutral. There's not really a similar thing for chemtrails. Perhaps the chemtrail debunking focuses a little to much on the negative ("you are wrong") and needs to offer up a little in exchange.
That's somewhat related to "Providing an Alternative Explanation" from the Debunking Handbook.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Deb...Filling-gap-with-alternative-explanation.html
But it's even a little more than that, it's "providing something else to do with your time". Often the conspiracy theorist ends up with a significant chunk of their life consumed by their theory. If you take that away, then, well, that's a chunk of their life you are taking away. Is there something that could be given back to file the hole? Not simply an alternative explanation, because "they are just contrails" is simply vastly smaller than "there's a covert geoengineering/NWO/poisoning/mind control plot". It does not fill the hole.
I've noticed that some of the more active debunkers are those that formerly believed in bunk. They have redirected some of that energy they spent in spreading bunk to trying to clean up that same bunk. But that's something that happen after they stop believing, and it's not really a practical alternative you can put out there, as they don't really respect debunkers, and think you are lying to them, or stupid.
That suggests two possibilities. Firstly to try to gain respect before you convince them, and not after, and so the honest debunking route might seem more attractive. Secondly, and this I find interesting, you would try to show them some undeniably real issues that they can do something about, but that their focus on bunk is both not allowing them time, but is also delegitimizing them.
Think about the 9/11 truth activists. Some of them are very active in confronting hapless politicians about 9/11. It's a big waste of time. But what if they were to focus on the very real issues in American politics? The corrupt political process. The Washington lobby revolving-door system. The unconscionably huge prison population. Exploitation and trafficking of illegal immigrants. The too-big-to-jail financial system. The failed and damaging war on drugs. The influence of the military industrial complex on foreign policy. What if instead of researching and promoting bunk, they could research and promote awareness of these genuine issues? What if instead of haranguing David Keith and people at Weather Modification Inc, they could harangue the head of the Corrections Corporation of America, or harangue Sheldon Adelson about his Super-PACs. Instead of raising awareness about fake issues, raise awareness about real issues.
One difference that stood out to me was the idea of "offering rewards" by pointing out the benefits of changing behavior to be more carbon neutral. There's not really a similar thing for chemtrails. Perhaps the chemtrail debunking focuses a little to much on the negative ("you are wrong") and needs to offer up a little in exchange.
That's somewhat related to "Providing an Alternative Explanation" from the Debunking Handbook.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Deb...Filling-gap-with-alternative-explanation.html
But it's even a little more than that, it's "providing something else to do with your time". Often the conspiracy theorist ends up with a significant chunk of their life consumed by their theory. If you take that away, then, well, that's a chunk of their life you are taking away. Is there something that could be given back to file the hole? Not simply an alternative explanation, because "they are just contrails" is simply vastly smaller than "there's a covert geoengineering/NWO/poisoning/mind control plot". It does not fill the hole.
I've noticed that some of the more active debunkers are those that formerly believed in bunk. They have redirected some of that energy they spent in spreading bunk to trying to clean up that same bunk. But that's something that happen after they stop believing, and it's not really a practical alternative you can put out there, as they don't really respect debunkers, and think you are lying to them, or stupid.
That suggests two possibilities. Firstly to try to gain respect before you convince them, and not after, and so the honest debunking route might seem more attractive. Secondly, and this I find interesting, you would try to show them some undeniably real issues that they can do something about, but that their focus on bunk is both not allowing them time, but is also delegitimizing them.
Think about the 9/11 truth activists. Some of them are very active in confronting hapless politicians about 9/11. It's a big waste of time. But what if they were to focus on the very real issues in American politics? The corrupt political process. The Washington lobby revolving-door system. The unconscionably huge prison population. Exploitation and trafficking of illegal immigrants. The too-big-to-jail financial system. The failed and damaging war on drugs. The influence of the military industrial complex on foreign policy. What if instead of researching and promoting bunk, they could research and promote awareness of these genuine issues? What if instead of haranguing David Keith and people at Weather Modification Inc, they could harangue the head of the Corrections Corporation of America, or harangue Sheldon Adelson about his Super-PACs. Instead of raising awareness about fake issues, raise awareness about real issues.