I get what God Dammit is trying to say, and am surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting-
HIS argument isn't explicitly about the flat earth, it's about how/why someone thinks they "know" something.
For example: there are a few cases out here of school systems writing in textbooks that in the 1500s, Africans initially came over to the United States as "migrant workers" to work on plantations, or that the indigenous people of North America voluntarily moved west to accommodate the pilgrim settlers. They are literally trying to rewrite history- right under our noses.
If that were allowed to continue, 100 years from now, someone on a forum like this claiming the African slave trade or the Trail of Tears actually existed would likely be as loudly shouted down as God Dammit is now, because everyone would just "know" those things hadn't happened. They would seem like such simple, obvious facts- just like the earth's shape is a simple obvious fact to us now- but isn't that just because that's what we've been taught?
(and actually, to his point- someone could ask me right now how I "know" that stuff actually happened- as I was't there when it did- but let's assume for argument's sake that Slavery and genocide actually occurred... here in 'Merica)
There is a difference between "knowing" something because you were told vs KNOWING something because you researched/experienced something on your own.
The rub is, in this day and age- can you even properly research something without relying on what someone else has written or studied or observed?
interesting point of view.
However, if the Earth really IS flat, that the "powers that be" will have gone through an AWFUL lot of trouble to keep the population hoodwinked into thinking otherwise- to the point of manipulating/ sabotaging other fields of study- at what benefit? maybe it's beyond my mental acuity, but I don't see the advantage in having the populace believe one way vs the other.