This is so interesting to me. Facts are still important to those seeking truth. Sure, there are a lot of people seeking reassurance ahead of truth, but there are also simply a lot of people. Given that people now have more ability to make their opinions widely known, I suspect that truth and facts are just as relevant as ever, but that loud noises will be made by those who won't be doing anything relevant about it either way.
Our ability to judge the relative value of messages is proportional to our ability to reason about the sheer number of people with things to say. I think that wrapping one's mind around the enormity of 330 million people may be valuable towards honing in on not only what messages are important, but what movements simply aren't.
> Facts are still important to those seeking truth.
What about the people that don't want to seek truth?
> The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [1]
Again, lots of people produce lots of opinions. If I'm understanding you correctly, the meme that "the deplorables" all think alike (and are thus wrong) doesn't have much merit after more than a cursory glance.
While I agree in a sense, it doesn't seem useful that people keep pointing out how facts don't matter. Not only is it debatable whether they ever were relevant, but I've heard this sort of phrase used too often in a way that is dismissive. No one even replied that COVID isn't real, or whatever nonsense, but you're already arguing against some nameless side of the COVID debate.
The pandemic, like everything else, must have its costs weighed against benefits, even if it involves people dying; for that reason alone, whether or not people think the pandemic restrictions are justified, the debate should be ongoing. It should never be considered a settled issue because the facts often come out long after it has passed. I'd be concerned if everyone agreed on anything in unison.
Heh! Facts are always relevant when you are debating in good faith. People who find facts not supporting their beliefs argue dishonesty that doesn't mean facts are not relevant.
Facts aren't super relevant anymore.