• 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 25th, 2023

help-circle

  • I think it has to do with complete distrust in western news and government (WNG). They can discount anything WNG says; especially when, it goes against their belief that the US is bad.

    I believe we live in the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever developed but the folks who are a part of it mostly don’t lie. They’ve got the same problem the tankies have but reversed. The folks who work in WNG believe the US is good. They naturally distrust and minimize any info that would conflict with their beliefs.

    There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance.

    The only way I can navigate my belief in the fundamental inaccuracy of information is acknowledging it and accepting I don’t have enough info to be certain a lot of the time.














  • pearable@lemmy.mltoAsklemmy@lemmy.mlIs "female" offensive?
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago
    Discussion of offensive racial language

    There’s a similar distinction with “black” in regards to race. Referring to someone as a black person or people as black folks is largely acceptable. Referring to someone as a “black” or people as “blacks” on the other hand sounds old fashioned at best and actively dehumanizing at worst.


  • This might be a regional thing. For reference I grew up in Oklahoma and “quite a bunch” seems natural and familiar. In British English quite has the opposite meaning so I could see why it wouldn’t make sense in that context. I wouldn’t be surprised if it didn’t sound right to other Americans due to regional linguistic differences.




  • I see what you mean. I’ll try to give an example.

    I tend to be skeptical of folks when I know they’re incentivized monetarily, emotionally, or socially to believe a certain thing but I do my best not to discount them out of hand. I think most people have a tendency to write folks off completely when it’s more useful to accept uncertainty. To know that a piece of information might be right even if it challenges my worldview. Unfortunately uncertainty is kinda hard work.

    For instance, the US has a lot of incentive to make alternative economic systems seem awful. Anytime a pro US media source like Radio Free Asia says something negative about China. I have to accept that:

    1. They’ve lied in the past
    2. They’re incentived to lie again
    3. It’s still possible they’re telling the truth

    I have to accept that balance.

    This works well for situations that don’t effect me personally. On the other hand, if there’s a person who has a predatory reputation in my friend group, I don’t have the luxury of giving them the benefit of the doubt. They are a present danger to myself and the people around me.