this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
136 points (92.0% liked)
Asklemmy
44617 readers
1189 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you want people to care or do you want to lecture people who don't agree with you. People like to give lectures on politics, but no one listens to them. If you want people to care you have to care about them.
Idk I listen to politics lectures all the time, most of which I don't fully agree with, many I disagree with outright, listening to other takes, especially opposing ones helps me scrutinize my own reasoning and critically analyze what's what.
It's not really the lecturer's fault he was lecturing, if he was right and so he should be lecturing others on truth. Much like any subject really.
This idea that all opinions are equal are how we ended up in a post-truth world.
Thought-terminating clichΓ©s of "everyone likes different things" or "people believe different things" are not just signs of a lazy intellect, they are the harbingers of our doom.
You can have beliefs that aren't facts, in fact - you have to, but you can't just believe whatever, you need to be able to justify it, and to do that you need to understand logic, you need to understand evidence, you need to understand the scientific method and how to reason.
There a big difference in seeking something out and someone walking up to you and talking at you.
Yeah, but what do you do when a good chunk of the population doesn't go 'seeking something out', yet vote and influence the lives of those who do anyway?
Try making friends first, or at least understanding them. If you aren't willing or capable of doing that you are just going to make things worse.
Huh? Did you respond to the wrong user?I'm not OP, I don't go out talking at people at work.
All of my friends are already pretty much on the same page more or less, it'd be hard to be friends with someone who is against human rights or doesn't care about such things as I'm a minority.
The question i posed in my comment was about a societal scale: what do you do to reach a disengaged electorate or an electorate that has no desire to know the truth and is not actively seeking it out whatsoever, instead believing things that re completely transparently false.
Because as it stands, the current strategy of content online or in traditional media simply ends up preaching to the choir, the lectures containing truth end up reaching only those who seek them out and as such already have an allegiance to the truth and likely at least to some extent agree with them, or see them as epistemologically well justified beliefs imperically and/or logically.
I personally rather obviously can't make friends of like 50% of the population of a country for instance, so it's not really a workable solution lol and I don't think that's what you meant.
So how do you show those people who believe transparently false things because it suits them the truth and teach them to want to seek out truth and want to believe the truth and to spot falsehoods and not be swayed by rhem, when those people have absolutely no interest in such things?
And if you can't, what do you do then? Because these people will literally destroy a democratic society if given the chance.
Especially at work, where you can't leave and should probably be focusing on the work.
That's 100% true and a fault in OP's attempt, but the broader question remains, if some people don't seek it out, what do you do then?