Common Ground

Again with the Covid thing. 

Let's assume that you need to go to the store, because food is a necessity; and you encounter a person not wearing a facemask who takes umbrage with the fact that you are wearing one. Or you own a store and you refuse service to a person that isn't wearing a mask. It doesn't matter which scenario we want to pick, create your own--but the point is that you are going to engage in a conversation with a person who doesn't want to wear one. 

The instinct in the conversation is to point out that there is a disease and that the mask helps to contain it. You may further want to point out that you're really not wearing the mask for you, but for everyone else. You will probably be tempted to point out that the reason that the numbers of infected have fallen is because of requirements like the mask. Let me be clear: this will not work. The person you are speaking with has already heard this and rejects it out of hand. Conspiracy theories, and this is a conspiracy theory, are not swayed by facts because they are emotional. Every medical professional, aside from the cranks (and not believing in Corona virus is a good indication that they are a crank), has agreed with the recommendations. This non-mask person isn't going to be swayed by evidence he's already rejected, if evidence worked on these people...they wouldn't be these people. 

The most important first step in this type of argument is to figure out what the other person is willing to agree to as a fact. This is going to sound insulting to the other person, but we have to be realistic about what we are dealing with. A good first question is, "do you not believe that viruses are things?" 

If they deny that there are viruses then there is nothing that can be done. It's a basic fact of nature that viruses are entities, if they are going to deny that, I suppose you could back up a bit further and ask "what causes the common cold?" but I warn you to brace yourself for impact, because if it is not a virus it could be literally anything from faries to EM fields. If the person denies the real world anything can be let in for their explanation. 

The important point is that if they admit that viruses are real, then they've got to explain away the issue by either claiming that the Covid disease isn't a virus, or that this virus is special in that it can't spread via the respiratory system. More than likely, you still won't "win" the argument, but you might have at least planted a seed of self-doubt into their conspiracy theory. 

Similarly with any conspiracy theory, it's not the facts that refute them, it's leading the believer into a contradiction or a position where they have to invent pieces of evidence themselves in order to justify their belief. They'll no doubt go down the second road (I've spent enough time talking with 9/11 truthers to know this) but the more and more they have to invent the more they begin to realize that they are bullshitting themselves. 

This method isn't going to work on the libertarian objection that the government has no right to legislate what I do with my body. That's a political stance that can admit all of the facts, but then make the point that it's up to them whether they get infected or not (which it completely isn't since the restriction is about spreading it to other people). This also ignores any kind of religious objection, while I'm not sympathetic to them at all, they are a completely different kind of argument and not a conspiracy theory.

Estabishing common ground is a good strategy because we have the factual world on our side and it is easy to spot where the diversion from that happens if there exists a mutually agreed upon foundation. If there can be no such agreement then we know that we are dealing with an omni-conspiracist that cannot be argued with. Not only does evidence not work with them, but it's unclear even what their evidence is. Flat Earth doesn't have evidence it has questions (which have all been answered) but no amount of argumentation is going to work on them.