I generally used to believe in that precept, that you should approach every debate with an open mind, and engage with anyone willing to debate you. But as I've grown older, I've realized that, while nice in a vacuum, that code is naive. It presumes that the person across from you is engaging in good faith.

As we navigate this new phenomenon of social media, we as a society are beginning to grapple with a few problems:

It is easier to spread misinformation than it is to combat it.
The Rhetoric of 'reasonable' discussion can be easily co-opted by bad actors to spread misinformation.
When you engage with a bad actor, you amplify their voice.

So when you get people talking about vaccines not working, or black people being inherently more likely to commit crimes, or blah blah blah, engaging with that in good faith runs the risk of just amplifying that message. I'm not really sure what the answer to it is. Like, I don't think the Nazi's would have been stopped by more reasonable discussion, and we are at an inflection point in this country where we are having similar discussions over trans rights.

I don't think "always keep an open mind and engage in good faith" holds up when one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.

Lastly, I hit the downvote button on comments that contain misinformation, not as a bid to punish the commenter, but as a way to push falsehoods lower in the chain so good information can float to the top. If there is a discussion about trans rights and the top comment is "I'm just against kids getting life altering surgery", then that gets a downvote, because kids aren't allowed to get gender reassignment surgery, and the comment gives the false impression that they are, and that's what's being debated. It doesn't really matter if the person is engaging in good faith or not. Bad information is bad information, and it should be pushed to the bottom or removed before it spreads erroneously.

[–] Unhappily_Coerced@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I understand the repetitive reasoning behind your perspective. However, the problem lies in your understanding, or lack there of, of misinformation.

Who do you propose is the arbiter of what qualifies as fact or fiction? Because you make it sound like you are qualified to know everything about everything with your ability to downvote... Or, do you think which ever argument is the most convincing to you, that's who is obviously correct...? Or are you more simple than even that and think, "this information is on TV so it MUST be correct!"

When you have a thousand qualified professionals saying the same thing, yet another thousand qualified professionals saying the opposite, what then becomes misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation? Are you still wearing a cloth mask outdoors and getting your boosters?

I love how everybody throws around comparisons to fascism and Nazis these days. We could focus on the left or the right and easily create a list of all the things we've done that was similar to things Nazis did. It really isn't hard to do...

During World War II, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to the forced relocation and internment of around 120,000 Japanese Americans.

Under the Democratic administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) targeted various political groups, including civil rights activists, anti-war organizations, and socialist and communist groups.

The Democratic administration of President Woodrow Wilson used the Espionage Act of 1917 to suppress dissent during World War I. The act was employed to prosecute individuals who criticized the war effort, including socialists, pacifists, and anarchists.

Democrat Bill Clinton invoked executive privilege to withhold information in various investigations, including the Whitewater controversy and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Democratic President Barack Obama faced criticism for the use of drone strikes and the extensive use of executive orders.

The Democratic administration of President Barack Obama faced criticism for its continuation and expansion of surveillance programs, such as the National Security Agency's mass surveillance programs revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

We could talk about how Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, continued and expanded the "War on Drugs" policies. Which disproportionately affected minority communities and led to mass incarceration, raising concerns about civil liberties and racial inequality...

Good old "Drug War Joe".

one side consistently and systematically exploits weaknesses in that philosophy to spread misinformation and bigotry.

Or you know, we could accept the facts that both sides are similarly as evil as the other. Instead of just pointing fingers and creating more disinformation.

[–] zalack@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For anyone keeping score at home this is exactly the sort of thing I'm taking about. Like, this comment hits pretty much all of the general devices I outlined.

I'm honestly kind of thankful to you for providing such a clear and illustrative example. Gratz.

[–] Unhappily_Coerced@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago

Nobody is keeping score, buddy. This includes you, apparently. It's sad to see people who are so conceited. But hey, you lie to yourself as much as you need to, whatever it takes to keep you feeling content. Have a great day, friend.

load more comments (1 replies)