I’m new as in this is my first day using lemmy. I don’t know anything about lemmy etiquette and don’t want to do anything bad
thanks and have an amazing day! also plz be kind :D
I’m new as in this is my first day using lemmy. I don’t know anything about lemmy etiquette and don’t want to do anything bad
thanks and have an amazing day! also plz be kind :D
How is that last statement related to the topic?
Like, I’m not seeing connective tissue here.
You’re contending that sharing sources online won’t accomplish anything because people are resistant to changing their opinions. Yes, that’s currently true; and while I see a benefit in the current world to sharing sources, why not also imagine a world in which it actually does change opinions? There’s no physiological or psychological law that makes opinion change impossible. People can change because people do change, so why don’t we do what we can to make that more common?
But how does including sources make that world? How does it move from point A to point B?
You haven’t thought of that at all. You’re applying reasoning to positions you hold, not reasoning to reach positions.
I addressed that very objection at the beginning of the conversation.
That’s particularly hilarious since the comment I’m talking about was from fifteen hours ago.
I’ve been thinking about media literacy for decades at this point. I’m not naive enough to be certain that this is some foolproof magic bullet, but I think it’ll help, and it’s definitely not going to hurt public discourse.
No you didn’t.
Okay. Talk me through the mechanism. Start with why the problem exists. And do it fast after you read this; prove to both of us that you aren’t reasoning backwards from your conclusion.
I already talked you through it in the linked comment, and honestly if you don’t get it I don’t think I can make it any simpler.
In any case, I’m not taking homework from you. I know how I arrived at this conclusion, and you’re free to believe me or not. Have a good night.