There was a thread about this not long ago.
A MAGat posted a meme of a riot and claimed it was in Portland.
People pointed out that the picture was actually a Right wing riot in a different place.
The MAGat responded that it didn’t matter, because it was a meme, not intended to be taken factually.
Yeah. This is something I keep realizing.
So many people simply seek to ‘support’ their tribe/idols. Scientific debate isn’t the point; loyalty and conformity is.
It’s a feature of a lot of religious culture. And, in an oddly similar way, influencer culture.
And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it unless there’s a really huge personal connection/issue.
It’s an important part of fascism. The idea of objective truth is devalued, so that truth comes from authority. It doesn’t matter what evidence exists, or if this week’s reality is consistent with last week or even itself. The point is to sell the narrative on an emotional level.
What I’m saying is that this isn’t some cultural phenomenon that just happened. It’s organised and intentional.
These are the people that seek things “to have their ears tickled” instead of ingesting the truth of the matter.
“Yes but it could be true! That’s the point!!”
This makes me so glad that Lemmy exists. Not only is it a great Reddit alternative, but there are infinitely more real and reasonable people here.
Nobody knows everything and we’ve all been exposed to propaganda at some point. It’s fantastic that there’s a place online where we can hold civil discussions and nicely fact check each other.
I’ve been fact checked a few times and it was great. On reddit it would have just been insults or propaganda from the other side. Let’s keep this going! ❤️
I’ve still had some people correct me in nasty ways, and even be incorrect in their call outs. Not quite as often as Reddit, but it’s certainly far from rare here.
Lemmy also has the only Fox News worth a damn
Lemmy is like Reddit pretty much. No idea where you see such a difference.
Luigi Mangione is a hero
Thats why debate culture doesn’t work. The truth is, the type on the right doesn’t even care if they’re wrong. You could give them a thousand things proving them wrong and they won’t even read them.
You could convince a friend maybe but this requires a huge amount of trust and good faith on both sides.
However, ridicule does work because no one wants to join society’s punching bag. An example of this would include foot binding in China where the upper classes sent their children off to foreign universities who mocked relentlessly for being from the foot binding country. I would recommend the book “the honor code: how moral revolutions happen” for more examples. It’s a fantastic, easily accessible and short modern philosophy book by who I consider to be the greatest living philosopher (Kwame Anthony Appiah).
probing them wrong
Always ask for consent first though.
I think in a debate what that works more than proving the other person wrong is that the spectators are able to identify who is in the right and who is full of shit, so in the end even if the moron debating doesn’t change his stance the people listening to it would atleast. The same applies for arguments we see in comments sections too I think or I am just putting more faith in us.
Yeah, and in some cases, it’s powerful to see people disagreeing at all. Like if an asshole says a bunch of stuff and no-one challenges it, then that can contribute to a spectator feeling like that the asshole must be right. Even if their initial gut impression is that the asshole is wrong, seeing opinions again and again can chip away at what we believe. Humans are deeply social creatures, so if someone believes that everyone else believes what the asshole is saying, that can cause there to be a powerful force for conforming to a particular view.
Humans are deeply silly creatures, but by understanding the ways that we tend to think like this, we can be smart about how we leverage our instincts to become collectively smart. Sometimes that means engaging in a seemingly futile argument with someone who isn’t arguing in good faith
Isn’t it bots and literal children 90% the time anyway?
I don’t get why people use the internet for fighting about stuff when you can just get updoots for nothing but being nice and showing your ass a little.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t normally say this but it seems warranted in a thread about “Factism”. Trump did not win over 50% of the popular vote. He won with 49.8% in 2024 and 46.1% in 2016.
Eristic, bad-faith debater. They only care about winning. They don’t care how. They aren’t there to change their minds. It’s not a discussion, it‘s a fight; and they‘ll sell their souls, their dignity, and reality, to win.
insert picture of someone playing chess with a pigeon here
We all lose when we play pigeon chess.
The real problem is that “actual scientific journal” 's quality control is shit too.
There are no actually real standards on how to write a paper, or which citation style to use. Sources aren’t hyperlinked, if the source isn’t machine readable or just a book, that’s just an “eh, oopsie, go read it then”. There are no automatic setups that check for AI use, corruption and “cooperation” between companies or other “public benefit organizations”, study conducting bodies and potentially favorable outcomes.
If you look at any research institute or university, they will brag front and center about who much tradition they have, but they’re real quiet about how many studies they’re publishing and how many of them get reproduced. And don’t get me started on the whole publishing industry that somehow everyone has to pay into for everything and the people and institutions that actually do the work don’t see a dollar of the profits that those companies rake in.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t relatively even worse sources. That is definitely the case. But it’s very much not a “just believe the scientists” either.
Way too serious rant for a comic over.
I mean, it’s a very large dependency on which journals, how well cited they are etc…
I mean yes there’s absolutely problems, but it doesn’t make much sense when we are comparing to basically completely unsourced arguements from complete and total laymen. That’s basically in the category of calling out Obama did some unethical things as president… in a discussion about trump. Yes 100% agreed with the premise, but also have to say they aren’t even in the same league.
Jokes on her now the oligarchs are consolidating all media and defunding real scientific studies
Love the detail with the coffee cup vs the beer 😂
I bet you feel pretty foolish now.
Yes, but not for the reasons you think.
(btw, this is the first time I’m seeing someone copying xkcd’s absence of style)
Me and my wife discussing chem-trails.
We are not supposed to be a two-party system, we will continue to have this tired good cop/bad cop routine for foreseeable future.
Nothing about it is constitutional. BoTh PaRtIes circumvent actual democracy and squash new political parties/causes by law, since they write the law.
Meanwhile, actual voters are now over 40% INDEPENDENT, and our “major parties” are down to 30% each.
The Constitution has been ignored for a long time. Trump is the inevitable result, and it’s going to get worse. He’s the dumb one.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
The dude is a dumbass and a dickhead. The girl is incredibly annoying and needs to get a life.EDIT: I was wrong for this one, I apologise.
Can you explain how you got to the girl is annoying
Just replying to apologise, you guys were right, I’m having a shit time right now and took it out on you. But that doesn’t excuse my behaviour.
Well lookie-here a meme/joke that’s not factually correct…
Whell achtually 🤓☝️let me put my life on hold, I must not rest until the world sees just how much of a great citizen I am.
Users here didn’t like that you told the truth.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure this is why the Bolsheviks just started using firing squads.
