Initiateofthevoid
joined 2 months ago
I don't interpet it differently.
I am telling you that as they realize things are currently bad, you can help them realize the ways in which things have always been bad. That the fact that current affairs are even possible suggests a progression of events leading up to this, rather than a sudden and reversible shift in political paradigms.
The whole point is that they don't know what you know. If you want them to know what you know, help them understand it.
If instead you want people to continue believing what they currently believe, than yes, cynicism and snark is the way to go. Thanks for the contribution.
"I was once willing to give my life for what I believed my country stood for" [emphasis mine]
Past tense. They did not say they will defend colonialism, racism, or genocide with their lives. They said they believed their country stood for different things, and now they know differently.
This isn't about respect or civility. It's about productivity and purpose. I'm not telling you to play nice. I'm asking you to try to help people understand your point of view when they're clearly in the process of changing their mind about how the world works. It's an opportunity to spread awareness and you're wasting it on snark and pointless cynicism.
“We were planning to now focus on new accessibility features on our open-source Thorium Reader, better access to annotations for blind users and an advanced reading mode for dyslexic people. Too bad; disturbances around LCP will force us to focus on a new round of security measures, ensuring the technology stays useful for ebook lending (stop reading after some time) and as a protection against oversharing.
This is a genuinely disgusting statement. "We were planning on helping the blind, but now we don't want to. Look what you made us do."
Why is lemmy filled with this?
What do you want from this interaction?
Do you want them to feel shame for not seeing the truth you've seen? What are you trying to accomplish?
Things are bad. Things are getting worse. People are learning this in real time, and the endless commentary of "it always has been" and "nothing's new" is not helpful or productive. It doesn't even make sense. People are coming around to your point of view - that things are bad. Maybe, as they learn why and how things are bad, they will learn about some of the things that have always been bad, but they won't learn it from a comment like this.
Things are bad. Things are getting worse. We don't need more cynicism and apathy. We need to help people understand that things are bad, and things are getting worse.
Not a good idea, if only because it further supports and legitimizes private security firms and embeds them deeper into government functions.
They seem to be genuinely trying to provide information about a tool that they find preferable to your solution. And you're not even the OP they were responding to. Nobody in this thread has called you or your solution lazy.
A bash snippet extension is "an extension [for a code editor] that provides a collection of snippets for bash scripting." It's a tool that is purpose-built to tell you bash commands on the fly, but smaller, more efficient, and easier to install than a local LLM.
The user you are replying to appears to prefer this because it will also tell you the same bash command every time you ask (non-deterministic outputs can be different for identical requests)
It's odd to me that anyone fantasizes about nature in general being peaceful. Especially when the plot of most nature documentaries can be summarized as "fall in love with this creature, then experience the stress of watching it struggle desperately to survive."
Sorry but the problem right now is much simpler. Gullibility doesn't require some logical premise. "It sounds right so it MUST be true" is where the thought process ends.
That covers some things, but the algorithm feeds people such nonsense at such a high rate that it’s hard to keep up with.
I think your idea is laudable. Normally I'm not one to dissuade someone from fighting a good fight in the age of disinformation, but I worry that you're coming at this problem from the wrong direction, and you alone will never be able to fight misinformation at its source.
Have you ever been able to change someone's mind on an insane belief, just because you knew exactly where it came from? Or because you were aware of the idea before they were?
We're talking about a hydra's infinite rectum here. No matter what you -ectomy, more stool samples are coming than you will ever be able to process and analyze.
More often than not, a person does not rationalize their way into believing misinformation. It is not a logical process of collecting and analyzing facts. It is an emotional process of consuming content that elicits a level of fear, pride, or hate.
They fear what they do not understand.
They are proud to be a part of a group that does "understand".
They hate feeling like they're being told what to do and what to think. They feel a vulnerability within themselves - a gap in their knowledge - and rather than address it as an internality, they externalize it. They don't understand because you don't want them to understand.
To their mind, the answer can't be complex. They have arrived at the belief that knowledgeable, professional, and underpaid experts are all wrong or outright greedy and dishonest, and that comprehending truth doesn't require significant education and research.
Really, they believe the answer should be simple. If it isn't, that must mean the "true" answer - the easily digestible TIL TLDR of the entire field of healthcare that they could actually understand without much effort - well, that answer must be hidden from them.
Note that this is not intended to describe a particular group or flavor of ideology or conspiracy, but rather the experience of believing in ideas that contradict observable reality, verifiable fact, and leigitimate sources of information.
You can't just come at them with logic, evidence, or rationality. These things are necessary but insufficient. You need to approach it with emotion and empathy. Bedside manner is crucial.
Don't waste your time trying to master the lies - spend time mastering the truth. Present your knowledge as clearly and simply as possible. Address your patients holistically. Use their language. Teach them without condescending to them. Don't try to tear apart individual pieces of information they regurgitate, but understand the underlying themes and emotions that you can actually help them with.
Lastly, please don't burn yourself out. It's brave to want to immerse yourself in the rabid chaos of digital misinformation for the sake of your patients, but it's a soul-crushing exercise that should be undertaken with extreme caution.
There are plenty of patients who really just need a good doctor more than anything else. And some of them will be more likely to believe in scientific truth when they already believe in the knowledge and good faith of a scientific expert.
Typing this out made me realize a distinction I failed to bring up. People do like to learn, but people HATE to UN-learn ideas. The person in your example wanted to learn something new, but did not want to unlearn the iphone walled garden.
This is an excellent point. You're right, we do agree, sorry my comment came off aggressive.
Answering a question with a question is pretty shitty.
They made a statement. You responded with leading questions that implied the statement is factually incorrect. The premise of your questions was also incorrect - the previous administration opposed the protests, but they did not send federal agents after protesters for arrests or deportations. Unlike the current administration.
Rather than answer (mis)leading questions, OP responded with questions to force you to explicitly answer whether their original statement is incorrect. Did Harris do this? Would Harris have done this? They're fair questions. But I guess only you get to ask questions around here.