• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 days ago

    ok so. I like the concept, it’s a good way to move.

    HOWEVER there is one big problem. We can’t use this emotionally inflammatory rhetoric, because it’s what the right thrives on. You can quote me on this later, but i guarantee you if the right sees this they will call it “sexual eugenics” or something stupid.

    literally all you have to do to make this a fully marketable and unbeatable position is to treat it like econ 101. Social interaction is most often based on simple contractual obligations. Those in question here, have failed, and thus, it is no longer contractually valid.

    “the market for sex is simply untenable culturally, and in terms of healthcare, completely fucked. I no longer plan on having casual sex anytime soon” and suddenly it’s like 50x more reasonable and palatable than the previous statement.

    and before anybody tells me “oh well it’s good for attention and marketing” yeah, if you want to spread the entirely wrong message. just look at the bear vs man debacle that happened a while ago.

    although you have to be careful because the right will probably just tell you that this is the point, at least the religious part of it, in which case being inflammatory isn’t going to do shit anyway. Tough times we live in now, i guess.

    • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      We can’t use this emotionally inflammatory rhetoric, because it’s what the right thrives on.

      The right will make up its own inflammatory fantasies if there are none, just like it makes up stories about immigrants eating pets. It happens either way. Stop letting them control your strategies, it’s EXTREMELY UNWISE.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        yeah but the problem here is twofold, if we do it ourselves, they will accuse us of being what they say we are. If we do not, they will make up their own, and pretend like it’s happening.

        It’s the anti fascist problem. If you’re anti fascist, you’re just fascist against fascism. There is no way to combat fascism without more fascism.

        There isn’t a good solution here, unfortunately.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            you sort of inherently have to define yourself under fascism, in a system with fascists, otherwise you are under control of the fascists. Because they can do your game better than you can, because they started first. So you really don’t have many options other than holding either, the power, or the intellectual upperhand, which isn’t even a guarantee either. Since again, reality doesn’t matter to fascists.

            • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              When you let them define you, that is already control. This isn’t about “reality”, it’s about social control.

              If they tell you that “only bad people demand higher wages” and you accept their definition of bad people, we have a problem.

    • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      Americans value the speed and simplicity of a message over accuracy or nuance.

      Both parties used that to their advantage to post out of context clips, something that I would consider manipulative at best.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Americans value the speed and simplicity of a message over accuracy or nuance.

        idiots who do not prefer the accuracy of transmission* FTFY

        something that I would consider manipulative at best.

        i really wish more people would do literally anything to not get got by this low level bullshit lmao. It’s so silly that people care so much about problems, but so little about information sources, or accuracy, or even factual nature.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          People who are in an excited emotional state just aren’t going to do well thinking that stuff through.

          I’m not immune to it either, I just dont have tiktok or facebook at all to avoid it.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            People who are in an excited emotional state just aren’t going to do well thinking that stuff through.

            i suppose so, but it literally only takes one “is this actually true?” to check to see if it’s true. If people are as “skeptical” as they claim to be about mainstream media, i fail to see how they don’t understand that google exists and is useful in the 21st century. Though to be fair, it’s harder to use now.

            I’m definitely not immune to it either, but i operate on a strictly factual basis, so it’s really hard for me to get caught up in propaganda.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              Nobody operates on facts alone. Unless you were there when it happened, you have to trust a source to some degree.

              Quite a lot of people just say fuck it, if its all varying degrees of shit, I’m not going to listen to any of it.

              Thats how word of mouth type stuff ends up on fox news, because even they know a lot of right wing Americans wont trust professional news stories over their neighbors anecdotes.

              We might think we use better sources, and check into things more vigorously, but our conclusions still require faith as much as any republicans beliefs.

              We still haven’t even figured out how to refute religion conclusively, for example. Juries still out on whether religion is fantasy or actual reality, whether we think thats ridiculous or not.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Nobody operates on facts alone.

                this is true, and i appropriately hedge my positions based on this, you can’t make a perfectly accurate statement unless you have 100% of the relevant knowledge, and you won’t so you just don’t. It’s that simple.

                As for sources, it’s not hard to find reliable sources, you just need to be able to dig around a bit. Scientific research as much as republicans hate on it, still give me faith in humanity so.

                Quite a lot of people just say fuck it, if its all varying degrees of shit, I’m not going to listen to any of it.

                this is the problem, people either need to stop doing this, or they need to hedge no opinions at all, i have a couple posts about “people caring too much” and there are many useless arguments i’ve had over this kind of thing, if people would just, stop caring about most things, it would solve most of these problems, unfortunately people like caring about useless things.

                We still haven’t even figured out how to refute religion conclusively, for example. Juries still out on whether religion is fantasy or actual reality, whether we think thats ridiculous or not.

                yeah, and this is actually a really good argument for what we’re engaging in. It shows that we hedge properly, and that we will concede if we need to, given appropriate information. The problem is that nobody likes to talk like this, and nobody likes to listen to people talking like this.

                More people just need to start doing this, it’s that simple.

                • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Opinions can be worth a lot these days though, thats why people will offer them up to begin with. I agree it should be far more common to say, “I barely know anything about this, so I have no opinion”, but how do you incentivize that socially.

                  Noone becomes accepted/promoted/famous by admitting they dont know something, but you can do all of those things by putting out half-baked opinions.

                  I think I have a better example than religion. Famous actors. People often believe they are exactly the same on screen as in real life, despite them telling you they are actors. Its another thing as a society we have not decided on, but theres no reason to hedge your bet in this case I can think of.

                  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Opinions can be worth a lot these days though, thats why people will offer them up to begin with. I agree it should be far more common to say, “I barely know anything about this, so I have no opinion”, but how do you incentivize that socially.

                    this is a hard problem, but theres a lot of research on education and incentivization, the simple answer is to bully and belittle people who blatantly spew falsehoods and baseless opinions, and to prop up people who provide nuance and indepth conversation.

                    The alternative would be incentivizing this sort of stuff in the media, and the social landscape, which is more ambiguous, but possible. Shit like hasan on twitch would be a bad example of this, other creators like destiny who often garner a lot of criticism from his own viewer-base is a much better example of this. (granted destiny is a quite a bit edgier, but then again hasan spreads terrorist propaganda so eh)

                    of course it also needs to be socially acceptable for people to retract false statements, or inaccurate statements as well. This is less of a problem, but it also needs to be ok to be wrong, as long as you stop being wrong. That’s probably the biggest one, people need to learn how to get over hate boners. The left is REALLY bad at this, at least right now, i think. The right never even tries this to be fair, so they don’t get a grade at all lol.

                    Noone becomes accepted/promoted/famous by admitting they dont know something, but you can do all of those things by putting out half-baked opinions.

                    this is true, but you also don’t need to say that you know nothing, you just need to properly hedge things, and bring your knowledge and understanding, invite more knowledge and understanding, and promote discussion and conversation around these topics. I think it’s more important to talk about things, than it is to care about things, in that aspect.

                    People often believe they are exactly the same on screen as in real life, despite them telling you they are actors

                    i really hope they don’t because that’s pretty scary if they do. Imagine seeing a coworker, who you don’t hang out with, and then just thinking “they must only exist within this space of work” it’s the meme of “kids think teachers live at school”

                    i just don’t really see anybody watching deadpool, and thinking that the actor is unironically a murderer, though im sure that’s not what you mean, i guess i just don’t fully understand it lol.