Most people don't have stupid views.
Most people appear to have stupid views because they see one side; and not any other.
Most people see the politics they want to see.
Most people only see the other side when it's being used to make a point for their side, and they get angry.
You need to see how people think in its own context, and see it every day.
If you are right-wing, subscribe to far-left media.
If you are socialist, read a libertarian blog.
If you are a classical liberal, follow a critical theory subreddit.
If you are on the left, listen to a right nationalist podcast.
Add them all to your feeds, no matter where you come from, left, right, center, or your own little niche on a different political dimension entirely.
Incorporate them to what you watch, listen, read. Not just pundits, but discussions, articles, thought pieces, rantings, ravings, and opinionated postings.
At the end of the first day you will be pissed off.
At the end of the first week you will not get how anyone could think this way.
At the end of the first month you will be upset that such otherwise intelligent people could be so deluded.
At the end of the first year you will understand that some of what they say makes sense.
Your point of view will change; it will grow, without being distorted.
You will start to get angry at people who do not understand more than one point of view.
You will find subtlety in your ways of thinking.
You will find it even easier to make the same points you've always been making, only better.
You do not need to change your mind in order to change your perspective.
You can understand and still disagree.
But you will have learned something in the journey.

(There are exceptions to the above...some people are truly incapable of intelligent thought. But these are surprisingly few in number. Give people a chance).

Please stop these claims and counter claims of #massformationpsychosis. It's not healthy to consider others brainwashed. We're all wrong about a lot all the time. We should always engage others as good people worth reasoning with & listening to. #MassFormation #LiberalValues #JRE

You really can't (should not?) take anyone seriously unless you've seen them in enough contexts for long enough that you trust their rationality.
It's all too easy to speak a single truth and then be trusted in all other things said -- which is a fool's approach.

It may be reasonable, or just polite, to assume sanity of others from the outset, but it is patently unreasonable to lend your trust to others from the outset.

I don't want to be this obnoxious person who is either extremely anti vax or pro vax. Everyone should choose for themselves and see if it's worth it but it looks like it's not that important to vaccinate the very young population. Even the more liberal media seems to agree on that.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/17/long-covid-in-children-and-adolescents-is-less-common-than-previously-feared?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/09/teenage-boys-risk-vaccines-covid/
https://twitter.com/heckyessica/status/1436102998778859524?s=09
You know what I really don’t want to see? Snarky tweets that ~own the libs~ from GOP leadership

What I’d like to see: inferno-like fury from GOP leaders backed by actual efforts to shut down this insane mandate

I’m tired of social media zingers with zero follow through

Not normally something I’d post. The Nazi claim is almost always deliberate hyperbole, but there’s no arguing the transitive property.

youtube.com/watch?v=qY1QNtnvUR there may be more of a story behind this, but an unfulfilled press conference is not a great look. As usual, the talking points precede the actual story, if there is one.

Part of our national (and international) news problem is that many (most?) people know that news isn't always trustworthy (even if we differ on how bad it is).

But when the reaction to this problem splinters into a hundred different niche viewpoints in the form of relatively subjective small-time news sources, each of which captures a specific segment of the political spectrum, it becomes a huge challenge to find a balance on the veracity of any given story.

The variety of available viewpoints is positive, no doubt, but it introduces a whole host of new headaches.

Face masks and CO2 (e..g noagendasocial.com/@BlkDudeNam), not a new debate, and the research going back years presents a spectrum of conclusions (c.f .web.archive.org/web/2019060808).

One key element, though, is that research in the past has rarely focused on long-term exposure to these conditions (with some exceptions, as with the Navy: nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#5).

It seems clear that there is some effect (even the most conservative findings indicate some minor negative outcomes, like anxiety and discomfort), but there's a lingering question of just how significant the impact when repeated on and off over a long period of time.

We can expect such research eventually, but probably not soon enough to tell us anything significant -- this is the typical process of medical research, which has difficultly with speed.

Mass spreader event = "gathering of people I don't like." This underhanded tactic continues to be used in all "sides" in politics, and it is truly underwhelming, and unworthy of the use of any but the worst of causes.

In most instances, all an argument proves is that two people are present.
Show older
Freespeech

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!