NSFW’d for language.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So if there’s certain material which, whenever a person encounters it, changes their mind, how do you account for that?

      Wouldn’t the simplest explanation for that be that this material contains compelling arguments people aren’t seeing outside that material?

      • Zoidsberg@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The History Channel makes compelling arguments for how extra-terrestrials built the pyramids. Compelling doesn’t always equal true.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In this case I’m using to to mean compelling to people with a brain, not just “history channel made a speculation so I’m sold”

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or, and I know this is really out there, but maybe, just maybe, facts don’t actually care about your feelings.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but you have no idea what claims are in these materials, because you think they’re too toxic to read.

          • forrgott@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Completely untrue. I’m not afraid of news outlets. I’m not afraid of what the “others” have to say

            Pretty sure you’re talking about yourself here, champ.