• agamemnonymous
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    If they’re already going to believe the wrong things for the wrong reasons, why not present the right things for the wrong reasons? Those who need the right reasons to change their mind are beyond the scope of this approach.

    This is outreach to the gullible for harm reduction when they might otherwise filter themselves into a dangerous pipeline. This isn’t using debate skills to deceive, it’s using them to counter those who do use their debate skills to deceive. Even if the content may possibly be wrong, by presenting it in contrast to preceding content it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      it necessarily widens the debate-space from an unopposed confident statement to a dialogue that the onlooker can take into consideration while making their own decision.

      That part would be right if we weren’t talking about social media, which are designed to neuter this effect.

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        All the better to counter-act that neutralizing force at every potent opportunity.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          That would be try to attract people outside of social media, not try to divert them inside social media where you’ll waste energy