3 ms·

People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative presented to them on their favourite news network. the commitment to truth has been lost. Its all about

People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative presented to them on their favourite news network. the commitment to truth has been lost. Its all about framing now.

username90 5y ago
"How can not everyone know the obvious truth I just learned about 5 minutes ago reading an opinion piece!?"
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative In my experience, this is one of those tropes. Yes, people will harmonize on their explanations and positions on certain debates. That's human nature. Watch a family describe one of its members and you'll see the same phenomenon. If you go out and talk to voters about what matters to them, however, one tends to find a diversity of topics.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's hard to believe that the voters I talk to face-to-face are the same human being, the same society and community, posting online. We perhaps need to bring offline behavior norms into the online world.
Layke1123 5y ago
Lol, there never was a commitment to the truth on the right. Only what keeps us in power.
rhino369 5y ago
IMO, framing things as "truth" or "falsehood" is part of the problem. Each side dismisses the other side as just not knowing the right facts (or denying the facts), as if everyone would agree if they just knew the right facts. The media dug in on this very hard after the 2016 with the "fake news" and "fact-checking" crusades. Reality is a lot more complicated. Even if we agreed on the facts, we don't agree on conclusions based on those facts. Or even what the right result should be. For example, there is a big factual dispute over whether the border is having a "crisis." But the earnest dispute is really just whether the US should allow illegal immigrants to come here or not. I think the biggest problem is we avoid grappling with our fundamental disagreements and we don't honestly engage with what the other side is arguing. Both sides have basically labeled opinions they disagree with as, at best uniformed/ignorant, and at worst, evil (racist, communist, bigoted, depraved). Nobody is really trying to convince the other side. They are just trying to whip up a frenzy on their side and shame the other side into shutting up. I've voted for both parties in the past (W Bush & Obama), but I don't think I could have a real political discussion with someone I meet at party without being attacked personally and viciously. And I know I can't post political views on social media without some psychopath trying to get me fired. Everyone is addicted to anger.
- s5300 5y ago
  >Everyone is addicted to anger. Is exactly what a person addicted to anger would say. No, believe it or not, everybody is not addicted to anger - but those who are sure as hell like to perpetuate the idea of it and spread their toxicity
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative presented to them on their favourite news network. the commitment to truth has been lost. Its all about framing now.

username90 5y ago

"How can not everyone know the obvious truth I just learned about 5 minutes ago reading an opinion piece!?"

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> People just regurgitate their sides last night narrative In my experience, this is one of those tropes. Yes, people will harmonize on their explanations and positions on certain debates. That's human nature. Watch a family describe one of its members and you'll see the same phenomenon. If you go out and talk to voters about what matters to them, however, one tends to find a diversity of topics.

wolverine876 5y ago
It's hard to believe that the voters I talk to face-to-face are the same human being, the same society and community, posting online. We perhaps need to bring offline behavior norms into the online world.

Layke1123 5y ago

Lol, there never was a commitment to the truth on the right. Only what keeps us in power.

rhino369 5y ago

IMO, framing things as "truth" or "falsehood" is part of the problem. Each side dismisses the other side as just not knowing the right facts (or denying the facts), as if everyone would agree if they just knew the right facts. The media dug in on this very hard after the 2016 with the "fake news" and "fact-checking" crusades. Reality is a lot more complicated. Even if we agreed on the facts, we don't agree on conclusions based on those facts. Or even what the right result should be. For example, there is a big factual dispute over whether the border is having a "crisis." But the earnest dispute is really just whether the US should allow illegal immigrants to come here or not. I think the biggest problem is we avoid grappling with our fundamental disagreements and we don't honestly engage with what the other side is arguing. Both sides have basically labeled opinions they disagree with as, at best uniformed/ignorant, and at worst, evil (racist, communist, bigoted, depraved). Nobody is really trying to convince the other side. They are just trying to whip up a frenzy on their side and shame the other side into shutting up. I've voted for both parties in the past (W Bush & Obama), but I don't think I could have a real political discussion with someone I meet at party without being attacked personally and viciously. And I know I can't post political views on social media without some psychopath trying to get me fired. Everyone is addicted to anger.

s5300 5y ago
>Everyone is addicted to anger. Is exactly what a person addicted to anger would say. No, believe it or not, everybody is not addicted to anger - but those who are sure as hell like to perpetuate the idea of it and spread their toxicity

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]