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
-22 points (25.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27224 readers
1456 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 [email protected] or [email protected].
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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected] or [email protected]
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.
"If you believe murder is wrong because society told you murder is wrong, is murder really wrong?"
Hitler got many people to believe that murder is right when it's done to specific people. Did that make it right? Of course not.
I think every nation offers that argument, not just Hitler.
Very true, we murder people all the time in the US when they do something horrific enough for us to dole out that punishment. Lots of everyday people are convinced it's okay to do so.
Exactly.
If you had evidence that you are a victim of manipulation, it shakes your certainty.
Shouldn't it?
But like
There are Truths, There are lies.
A truth is still the truth even if a majority believes in that.
A lie is still a lie even if a majority believes in that.
When you learn something, you independenly think about it using logics to ascertain its truthfulness.
Of course, humans can only experience reality subjectively, there's no guarantee you always find the truth.
Like the idea of "Killing people is bad"
Why?
Well I don't want that happening to me.
If I kill someone, someone else could see me doing that and their relatives could seek revenge.
If I get away with killing without consequences, then others will also think its okay, which would make it normal to kill people, which increase the likelihood me being the victim of a killing.
Therefore. Killing is bad.
Like that. You think using logic to decide for yourself if you should believe in something.
It should. Too often though the victims of manipulation are also manipulated into believing other people telling the truth are lying or people trying to help are actually the ones manipulating the victim. Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. It's like if someone believes the earth is flat because they were manipulated into believing that, along with being told the evil government is hiding the flat earth truth from them. Then, if the government offers irrefutable proof that the earth is round, the victim might categorically dismiss that proof as propaganda. This further drives them into this manipulation. And it can make it even harder to get through to them.
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.
"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.
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?
Bob makes a precise observation and thus concludes that the earth is round.
Rob is told that the earth is round, in school, and thus concludes that the earth is round.
Are they both right?
Jerry was home schooled by his uncle, and has been told the earth is flat, and concluded the earth is flat.
Jerry is wrong. When Jerry tells his friends the earth is flat, he is not lying. Just wrong. When Bob says the earth is flat, he is lying. Knowing full well it is round.
Jane was taught that the earth is stretched a little bit because of the centrifugal force of it's spinning.
Jane is also right.
Bob and Jane had a conversation about the shape, and experienced a thing called nuance. It's not perfectly round after all.
Ha! You believe in a spherical earth? What a fool! It's actually an oblate spheroid! Peasants.
Nah, it's a turtle, duh
Yes. If, back when people believed incorrectly the earth was flat, someone played a joke on Cob and told him the earth was really round and he believed it, he's correct too. Even though someone manipulated him into believing something they themselves didn't believe.
Your question makes no sense if you put yourself at the receiving end of the manipulation.
In other words:
The one who tells thing can be right (or wrong). The one who is told things does not have that question.
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.
Yes. Nonprofits advertise.
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.