4 ms·

> well informed That's a hell of a dangerous phrase. Usually, it means that the speaker is frustrated that the broader public is not curatedly informed in a wa

by RhysU 1y ago

> well informed That's a hell of a dangerous phrase. Usually, it means that the speaker is frustrated that the broader public is not curatedly informed in a way that makes them vote how the speaker wants them to vote. The great, and terrifying, thing about democracy is that everyone can be informed however they're informed and usually we don't literally burn everything all the way to the ground.

Swenrekcah 1y ago
You can relax, I specifically mentioned misinformation. That is what is dangerous. People can get their news from different outlets with different priorities and that is all well and good. What has happened at a large scale more recently is that bad actors actively feed people factually wrong stories and those are increasingly the only stories they get. There were always those who sought to do this but the vaccine was that they could never monopolise people’s attentions the way that has become possible lately. It is perfectly fine for people to have different opinions and vote differently, it is just very important that it is based on factual representation of the world.
- RhysU 1y ago
  > What has happened at a large scale more recently is that bad actors actively feed people factually wrong stories and those are increasingly the only stories they get. Powerful actors spreading incorrect information to serve their own ends is nothing new. Remember when the consensus was that the Earth was the center of the solar system? And when Galileo was prosecuted for spreading misinformation? That was about 400 years ago. "Misinformation" implies "It is inconvenient for someone to hold the perspective because it threatens my power". Otherwise, we just call such notions wrong, incorrect, lies, falsehoods, invalid, etc. "Misinformation" is just as dangerous as "well informed". What we now collectively know as a species was not infrequently once wrong according to some powerful historical consensus.
  - Swenrekcah 1y ago
    I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I said it is not new but the scale and pervasiveness and especially the personal targeting is new. And yes, that is what misinformation is, lies and falsehoods presented as news. Remember, honest reporting of events can emphasise different aspects. That is well and good. It’s the dishonesty and disregard for truth that makes misinformation. > "Misinformation" is just as dangerous as "well informed". Much of what we now collectively know as a species was once wrong according to some powerful historical consensus. This is just like saying that ignorance is just as good as education because sometimes theories are invalidated when better information comes along. So why bother at all then, kind of mindset.
    - RhysU 1y ago
      My point is that "well informed" and "misinformation" are dog whistles implying the speaker presumes they're superior, they know absolute truth, and clearly the unwashed masses are too stupid to understand their own best interests. They must be saved from themselves. Etc. "Informed" and "falsehoods" serve perfectly well. Inform people don't fight misinformation. Correct falsehoods don't well-inform the public.
      - Swenrekcah 1y ago
        I think you might be projecting here, this is at least not my meaning or interpretation of the world.
        RhysU 1y ago
        > True, but even “least bad” is not correct unless the public is well informed [as in not being fed misinformation]... You opened by saying that democracy is not ideal unless the populace's information diet is carefully controlled. By whom and in what way? Who gets to determine what is misinformation? What happens when they deem misinformation rampant or the public not well-informed? > I think you might be projecting... I am indeed projecting. I find those specific words only in use among unreasonably self-sure people who aren't terrified by the implications/risks of concentrating power to answer those consequent questions. > The difference in election outcomes around the 1930s, 1990s and 2020s can be mostly explained by these factors. But my projecting isn't unjustified. Quoted above, you also began by stating the 2020s electorate was duped with misinformation. Had they only known better, understood their own best interests as seen through the eyes of the self-assuredly enlightened, listened to the nascent Ministry of Truth, etc.

by RhysU 1y ago

Swenrekcah 1y ago

You can relax, I specifically mentioned misinformation. That is what is dangerous. People can get their news from different outlets with different priorities and that is all well and good. What has happened at a large scale more recently is that bad actors actively feed people factually wrong stories and those are increasingly the only stories they get. There were always those who sought to do this but the vaccine was that they could never monopolise people’s attentions the way that has become possible lately. It is perfectly fine for people to have different opinions and vote differently, it is just very important that it is based on factual representation of the world.

RhysU 1y ago
> What has happened at a large scale more recently is that bad actors actively feed people factually wrong stories and those are increasingly the only stories they get. Powerful actors spreading incorrect information to serve their own ends is nothing new. Remember when the consensus was that the Earth was the center of the solar system? And when Galileo was prosecuted for spreading misinformation? That was about 400 years ago. "Misinformation" implies "It is inconvenient for someone to hold the perspective because it threatens my power". Otherwise, we just call such notions wrong, incorrect, lies, falsehoods, invalid, etc. "Misinformation" is just as dangerous as "well informed". What we now collectively know as a species was not infrequently once wrong according to some powerful historical consensus.
- Swenrekcah 1y ago
  I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. I said it is not new but the scale and pervasiveness and especially the personal targeting is new. And yes, that is what misinformation is, lies and falsehoods presented as news. Remember, honest reporting of events can emphasise different aspects. That is well and good. It’s the dishonesty and disregard for truth that makes misinformation. > "Misinformation" is just as dangerous as "well informed". Much of what we now collectively know as a species was once wrong according to some powerful historical consensus. This is just like saying that ignorance is just as good as education because sometimes theories are invalidated when better information comes along. So why bother at all then, kind of mindset.
  - RhysU 1y ago
    My point is that "well informed" and "misinformation" are dog whistles implying the speaker presumes they're superior, they know absolute truth, and clearly the unwashed masses are too stupid to understand their own best interests. They must be saved from themselves. Etc. "Informed" and "falsehoods" serve perfectly well. Inform people don't fight misinformation. Correct falsehoods don't well-inform the public.
    - Swenrekcah 1y ago
      I think you might be projecting here, this is at least not my meaning or interpretation of the world.
      - RhysU 1y ago
        > True, but even “least bad” is not correct unless the public is well informed [as in not being fed misinformation]... You opened by saying that democracy is not ideal unless the populace's information diet is carefully controlled. By whom and in what way? Who gets to determine what is misinformation? What happens when they deem misinformation rampant or the public not well-informed? > I think you might be projecting... I am indeed projecting. I find those specific words only in use among unreasonably self-sure people who aren't terrified by the implications/risks of concentrating power to answer those consequent questions. > The difference in election outcomes around the 1930s, 1990s and 2020s can be mostly explained by these factors. But my projecting isn't unjustified. Quoted above, you also began by stating the 2020s electorate was duped with misinformation. Had they only known better, understood their own best interests as seen through the eyes of the self-assuredly enlightened, listened to the nascent Ministry of Truth, etc.