Lord, give me patience.
If they claim to be Flat-Earthers, have a channel or a number of video titles with the words "Flat Earth" in them, and regular argue that the Earth is Flat, then what else should I take them to be?
You seem to have this problem rather regularly. Someone says something on the Internet, you like what's been said, so you present it as verified information. You do it in politics, and you do it in RE vs FE.
The fact that someone
claims to represent a certain group is hardly relevant if they actively and overtly try to undermine that group. You're not actually stupid, so you know this. You've seen it many times during political discussions - an obvious example would be "concerned Labour voters" who patiently explain why they're voting Tory on TV.
Dog-groomers? Telephone hygienists?
Both of these options are more sensible than your current approach. A low bar, for sure, but you are improving. Let's go with "telephone hygienists" whilst you work on more accurate descriptors.
They openly state what they want to be known as, and regularly argue as such, so why would I take them for anything else?
Well, there are only two possible reasons why you
would take them at face value:
- You might be stupid. But, again, we know you aren't.
- You might be intentionally deceptive.
So, by negation, we can see why you'd take them for something else: we know you're not stupid, so the only question is whether you choose to be deceptive. If you do, it's a double-edged sword. If you take every idiot on YouTube that said "erth flat" at some point and uphold them as "many Flat Earthers" or "most Flat Earthers" when describing general FE beliefs, then you need to be prepared for the argument to swing both ways. For example:
- Many Round Earthers believe that a constantly accelerating body will eventually exceed the speed of light. We know this isn't the case. The Earth is therefore not round.
- Many Round Earthers struggle to understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. How could we possibly take Round Earth seriously when many Round Earthers are quite so delusional?!
- Many Round Earthers do not understand the difference between arguments which are backed with evidence and arguments which make them feel good. We totally, definitely, should not trust Round Earthers.
This is why your post is the pile of trash I decried it as. You took someone's misunderstanding of FET, and, rather than help them correct it, you chose to double down by pointing out that some unverified idiots somewhere said stupid things. It doesn't help the discussion, and it sure as hell doesn't help your side of the discussion. As is usually the case with you: if you have nothing useful to say, you should seriously consider the possibility of just saying nothing.
I'm not asking you anything about them. I didn't ask you or anyone else anything about them above.
Yeah, yeah, you're pretending you don't know how to parse English.
"Oh noooooo I am Tumeni and what is an indefinite you? I am just soooooo lost." Get in the sea.
I'm already active over there. I don't need to be told whether or not I should, or want, to engage with them.
Congratulations. I'm sure you're doing as good a job at defending RET there as you are here.
the "run-of-the-mill flat-earthers" that inhabit YouTube and other places
You're doing it again. You're taking a handful of idiots you've found on the Internet and attempting to rebrand them as the default. I won't tolerate that - if you want to argue here, do so in good faith. If you can't bring yourself to that extremely basic baseline standard, take your hot takes to AR where they belong.
but you might just have to accept that in the eyes of the general populace, you're all one generic group ....
I don't have to accept that at all, for numerous reasons. Firstly, when you say "general populace", what you really mean is "people who reach similar conclusions to you". In neutral terms: people you find convenient to bring up right now. In less neutral terms: stupid and/or deceptive people. This is a problem you keep having - you gravitate towards arguments and people that make you warm and fuzzy inside, and you present them as if they were prominent or relevant.
Secondly, the idea that social groups have to "just accept" that people will unfairly compartmentalise people into boxes is moronic. I really shouldn't need to explain things this obvious. You're an adult, for Christ's sake.
Do Muslims have to accept that, in the eyes of the "general populace", they're all part of the same group, and therefore they
just have to accept that they'll be identified as terrorists? Do Catholics
just have to accept that they share a title with
many prominent paedophiles? Do Labour voters
just have to accept that
many Labour members are anti-Semites?
No, of fucking course we don't have to accept that, and you can shove this kind of sophomoric rhetoric up your arse. Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.