I'm not sure I even understand the question. How does manipulation make you "right"? You might be perceived as being right but that obviously doesn't mean you ARE right.
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2024
-25 points (20.9% liked)
Ask Lemmy
34164 readers
1744 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I believe they meant “right wing”, not “right” as in “correct”
Goodness gracious, that seems plausible.
OP, if that's what you're saying, you need to rephrase everything.
No, I meant right as in correct.
Okay. Then I don't get it.
A lot of people are in here saying propaganda and manipulation are inherently bad. And while I agree that in the current media landscape it's used in an overwhelmingly negative way, it doesn't have to be.
Consider that everyone is a victim of propaganda. Literally. Everyone. You probably don't realize all of your own biases because that's how the system works.
Imagine you see two posters / articles / memes or whatever side by side about vaccines. One says "vaccines cause autism, protect your loved ones," and the other says, "get vaccinated, protect your loved ones." They're both propaganda. However, the latter is much more grounded in truth than the other.
If a doctor offers a child a lollipop if they're brave during their vaccination, that's manipulation. But it's still a good thing because the kid gets vaccinated.
Anyhow, manipulation and propaganda (particularly in the modern sense of the word) are typically used as the tools of bad people. And if people become very entrenched in their views, they no longer listen to reason. Sometimes propaganda and manipulation might be the only way to get someone to change their harmful views.
I'd obviously prefer to live in a world where people do the right thing because it's the right thing, and not because they've been tricked into it. But sadly that isn't the world we live in.
I do think there's nuance to be had. "Vaccines protect against disease," is a truthful statement and will stand up to scrutiny. "Vaccines add two inches to your dick," might be a more effective way to get people to try a vaccine. But when an antivaxxer tries it and discovers that their unit did not, in fact, double in length, then they'll turn back around to antivaxxing with a new fervour.
Anyway, I prefer that my biases are grounded in truth. Show me the data, teach me the science, reach out and help me. Unfortunately, for many people they prefer their biases to be grounded in social inclusion. Peer pressure is a hell of a drug.
Yes, the difference between "right according to firsthand observation and judgment" and "right according to the consensus and all its organs". They are worlds apart. That is the nub of my gist here.
No. The earth doesn't get flat no matter how much people you get to believe it. As for opinions, they're still just opinions. There's no right and wrong opinion.
If you describe an opinion as right or wrong, you are talking about the opinion's relation to reality. And opinions certainly do have such relation.
No, whether or not you like the colour blue does not matter to reality. Whether you consider it blue is, but that is not an opinion.
opinions aren't fact. They're just a subjective bit of meaning you've got in your head, and only in your head.
Nothing matters to reality. "Mattering" is a human judgement. "Fact" is also a human judgement. The things you have in your head that you call facts and opinions are both the same kind of thing. We consider the ones that model reality effectively to be facts. They are all opinions and discerning which we classify as facts is an ongoing process.
I did not say opinions are fact. And I am not saying that opinions change reality. But your assertions about what facts and opinions are is incorrect.
Ehen we're going into the more abstract discussion of facts and opinions, it might be better to define how you're using these terms rather than throw accusations.
Most people define fact as "a thing that is true". And opinion as "how one feels about something".
Personally I prefer to use fact as "a statement that can be checked". But in every day conversation like here, I don't. Because that would just confuse most people.
What are you using?
"Man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted them, he cannot free himself from them." -Albert Camus
I doubt that final clause. Sure you can free yourself of your truths. You only need to sacrifice a bit of face, ego and maybe certainty.
Yeah, tell that to the racists, fascists, and other forms of assholery in the world.
The world is not an action movie with clear divisions between good and bad. Keep that in mind.
Right as in - what? Believed? That's not quite the same as right (ethically or factually), is it?
No, but you propagate, like a virus.
A virus would. But a man should be certain that he's propagating truth, surely.
It's impossible to be certain though, you can only achieve degrees of certainty.
So you manipulate people so that they should believe you. And if it works, they think you are right. Now you ask if you are really right?
No, you are not. You are laughable.
Nah if you tricked people into getting vaccines you'd be right because getting vaccines is still the right choice.
To OP: how you convince people of a fact doesn't change that fact, you can manipulate people to believe a lie as much as a truth. The latter is what democrats need to do to win against Trump for instance, lie and cheat and disparage the opposition at every opportunity, call them all molestors, party of Epstein island etc etc and just fool people into believing the right thing just like trump, putin etc. fool people into believing the wrong thing.
If you have been manipulated into accepting a fact, surely that casts the fact into doubt.
That alone shouldn't cast the entire fact into doubt. Consider the situation you were responding to. Whether you believe in the efficacy of vaccines, does being manipulated into believing one way or the other change the actual efficacy? It doesn't. If you were manipulated into believing they work and got one, then only realize later you were manipulated, you might want to first scrutinize the actual method used to manipulate you. Did they bait you with emotional pleas (think of the children!)? Did they emasculate you? Did they compliment you?
Then understand why this tactics worked on you.
You can doubt it all you want it may still be true. You can manipulate a flat earther into believing the earth is round, he can doubt it, but it will still be round.