this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
-52 points (10.6% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4063 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Isn't letting the right own it leading people to the right?

Maybe. But you can't effectively counter the lies by presenting facts, because the facts aren't what they're after, and they have no imperative to seek them out for their own position.

How is a reasonable explanation from the left that doesn't exaggerate into conspiracy leading people to the right?

It doesn't. But notice that's not what I said. I said it's not worth engaging, because by engaging honestly, you are legitimizing the lies. You are implying that the interlocutor is making statements in good faith.

I think you can make commentary on the lies, but in this day, the liars are practiced at controlling the narrative. They want you to engage, knowing they can easily outdo your facts with the number of lies they can invent.

Do you think you have a choice over this being a major election issue exaggerated from the right?

No, and that's my point. You could demonstrate to the highest level of reason and logic how this issue is a nothingburger, and they would still run with it, "demonstrating" that it can "withstand" scrutiny. And now, since you engaged honestly, they have implicit credibility that it's not just able to withstand scrutiny, it's also able to withstand scrutiny from honest people.

[–] banneryear1868@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The opposite of engaging is disengaging and that gives full reign for the conspiracy to flourish. The issue isn't to convince it's to inoculate against the right's disinformation before the hyperexaggerations happen on a broader scale during the election campaign. The idea that this helps the right or is a bad thing is insanely disconnected from the actual issues that will determine the election, thus handing more ground to the GOP both in issues they can own and people who they can convince.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago

And I'm saying I don't think you can innoculate. Facts are expensive. Lies are cheap. Look at how successful the right wing grift mill is. The facts on various matters aren't hard to find, but it's so lucrative that people keep it growing in spite of reality and the facts. People don't want to leave, because reality isn't exciting; it has few binaries, whereas they have clear villains, a simplified(-ish) paradigm, and a promise of being special and "being in the know" about life's secrets.

And I know this is the case, because I am an ex-Christian. There is no shortage of people willing to justify their beliefs based on little to no objective evidence. The backfire effect is a real phenomenon, and people who aren't open to being wrong are the most likely to be affected by it.