3 ms·

Maybe both your brother and father expect the influencers whom they trust to not break their trust. Which should be a decent expectation. Not everyone has the t

Maybe both your brother and father expect the influencers whom they trust to not break their trust. Which should be a decent expectation. Not everyone has the time and energy to dig after primary sources of truth, sometimes multiple sources of truth, read, comprehend and summarize what happened. They rather depend on someone to distill the whole thing for them.

yapyap 2y ago
This is in concept a great point and may actually be what’s happening but as you allude to with “should” in “Which should be a decent expectation.” sadly that isn’t the case anymore, when a good chunk of listened to influencers are more driven by the money and/or power (where basically money is just an abstracted form of power) conveying what really happened is less of a concern to them, at times they tend to not even look at primary sources either (depending on which influencers we’re talking about here).
- DeathArrow 2y ago
  Of course. But many people are wired to usually assume good intentions from other people.
smeej 2y ago
I think the trouble was that it didn't take any time to pull up the facts. A quick search for the text of the law before and after the change, for example, on the phone already in my hand, to show the difference, easily happens in real time during the conversation. That should be enough to make someone stop and think, shouldn't it? When you think something is true about the world and someone can show you it's false in real time? How do you not even stop and consider that information?
cogman10 2y ago
I think "trust" is the wrong word I see for how commentators are treated. It's more of a blind faith. I can think very specifically of an example where a political commentator, in private, said what they were publicly saying was crazy garbage. When I brought that up to my parents, it did not change their view of him. Effectively the response was "Well, all commentators lie" and they continued following him. At least in my case, I think this is mainly a religion thing. I grew up mormon and one quote that sticks in my mind is the following: > When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. I've seen this sort of mentality extend in non-religious contexts. Basically "Well, don't you think X would have already thought about Y? Why are you questioning?"

yapyap 2y ago

This is in concept a great point and may actually be what’s happening but as you allude to with “should” in “Which should be a decent expectation.” sadly that isn’t the case anymore, when a good chunk of listened to influencers are more driven by the money and/or power (where basically money is just an abstracted form of power) conveying what really happened is less of a concern to them, at times they tend to not even look at primary sources either (depending on which influencers we’re talking about here).

DeathArrow 2y ago
Of course. But many people are wired to usually assume good intentions from other people.

smeej 2y ago

I think the trouble was that it didn't take any time to pull up the facts. A quick search for the text of the law before and after the change, for example, on the phone already in my hand, to show the difference, easily happens in real time during the conversation. That should be enough to make someone stop and think, shouldn't it? When you think something is true about the world and someone can show you it's false in real time? How do you not even stop and consider that information?

cogman10 2y ago

I think "trust" is the wrong word I see for how commentators are treated. It's more of a blind faith. I can think very specifically of an example where a political commentator, in private, said what they were publicly saying was crazy garbage. When I brought that up to my parents, it did not change their view of him. Effectively the response was "Well, all commentators lie" and they continued following him. At least in my case, I think this is mainly a religion thing. I grew up mormon and one quote that sticks in my mind is the following: > When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God. I've seen this sort of mentality extend in non-religious contexts. Basically "Well, don't you think X would have already thought about Y? Why are you questioning?"