4 ms·
If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it migh
by chlodwig 5y ago
If someone chooses to intentionally reduce a conversation to an "effective/ineffective" dichotomy to deliberately mislead or obscure conversations, then it might be disinformation. Disinformation can consist entirely of factual statements.
Actually, a good case for banning ALL discussion of mask effectiveness on Twitter as being disinformation, since the character limit basically forces turning discussion into simplified dichotomy.
- kube-system 5y ago"deliberately" is the key word. Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago>Brevity for the sake of expeditiousness or practicality is different than brevity for the sake of deception or ulterior motive. How are you supposed to tell which is which without reading minds? This simply moves the argument from "accurate vs concise" to "concise for good reasons vs concise for bad reasons"
- hobs 5y agoWell we could start by seeing if they have a history of being "concise for bad reasons" instead of endlessly re-legislating the point every time it comes up.
- kube-system 5y agoBecause in the same way we can rely on health sciences to explain how masks work, we can rely on political science to tell us how senate elections work. :) You certainly don’t win senate elections by telling your constituents that they’re wrong. You start with the preconceived views of your constituents and work your way backwards to an argument.