3 ms·
> My litmus test for whether to respond to a piece of media with healthy skepticism or outright rejection often comes down to a simple gut-check: “Is this comin
by yesco 3y ago
> My litmus test for whether to respond to a piece of media with healthy skepticism or outright rejection often comes down to a simple gut-check: “Is this coming - ultimately - from a place of hate?”. I’ve found that to be surprisingly effective.
How exactly are you confirming this "surprising effectiveness"? Going with what your gut thinks is literally the default for everyone, it's the opposite of critical thinking.
I think what you are saying ultimately reduces down to the question: 'Do you like this person?', which is a fine position to have, but don't lie to yourself that it's anything other than that.
- darkteflon 3y agoClaims made in circumstances where there’s evidence of hatred or malice - either as motive or intent - warrant scepticism and a higher burden of proof relative to other claims since, as we know from recent and not-so-recent history, the weaponisation of hate is both a very effective and frequently-deployed political strategy. That formulation okay with you? It’s just an heuristic. Apparently one that makes no sense to you. Have a great weekend.
- Jensson 3y agoThat heuristic causes you to miss all the self serving lies that are everywhere. It might make your social life flourish since you trust all of those lies and people like when you trust them, but it will make your head full of lies and falsehoods. For example, a fat person might say that being fat has nothing to do with how much they eat, I have heard that many times, that doesn't come from a place of hate but you shouldn't trust it anyway. It is however self serving, that is the main thing to look out for.