I’m new as in this is my first day using lemmy. I don’t know anything about lemmy etiquette and don’t want to do anything bad
thanks and have an amazing day! also plz be kind :D
I’m new as in this is my first day using lemmy. I don’t know anything about lemmy etiquette and don’t want to do anything bad
thanks and have an amazing day! also plz be kind :D
Thwy have value operationally, not rhetorically. At least in theory.
Obviously I haven’t had a lot of luck deriving benefits from being right about things.
You’re talking about a current reality. I’m talking about normalizing a different future.
And you think this gets us that future how?
Why do people behave like this right now? Thats the first question and I don’t think you had even asked it.
People behave like this now for a lot of complicated reasons. For one, changing opinions hurts us (physiologically), so our brain tries to prevent it; that’s something that can be eased with exposure. Also, rich people and foreign interests have a vested interest in keeping people susceptible to misinformation, and greater media literacy is really the only tactic that can combat it.
But more importantly, the world we live in now isn’t the only world we ever have to live in. It’s going to change one way or another; why not take steps to make it change into something more like what we want to live in?
How is that last statement related to the topic?
Like, I’m not seeing connective tissue here.
You’re contending that sharing sources online won’t accomplish anything because people are resistant to changing their opinions. Yes, that’s currently true; and while I see a benefit in the current world to sharing sources, why not also imagine a world in which it actually does change opinions? There’s no physiological or psychological law that makes opinion change impossible. People can change because people do change, so why don’t we do what we can to make that more common?
But how does including sources make that world? How does it move from point A to point B?
You haven’t thought of that at all. You’re applying reasoning to positions you hold, not reasoning to reach positions.
I addressed that very objection at the beginning of the conversation.
That’s particularly hilarious since the comment I’m talking about was from fifteen hours ago.
I’ve been thinking about media literacy for decades at this point. I’m not naive enough to be certain that this is some foolproof magic bullet, but I think it’ll help, and it’s definitely not going to hurt public discourse.
No you didn’t.
Okay. Talk me through the mechanism. Start with why the problem exists. And do it fast after you read this; prove to both of us that you aren’t reasoning backwards from your conclusion.