They write propaganda, you spread awareness, I fact-check. Is it possible to rigorously define the difference between these, or do they mainly vary by connotation? If the latter, perhaps it’d be better to stick to labels like “true” and “false”.
There’s writing that makes a person felt informed after reading it by giving the person easy answers to complex questions and there’s writing that tries to communicate complex facts about reality. Both can be right or wrong.
The standard of “feeling informed” is bad for judging the quality of a political argument. Plenty people feel informed after watching Zeitgeist.
You can make people feel informed when you tell them it’s all due to the Jews, but that’s no justification for the political speech and the created feeling in no way justifies the political speech that’s used for persecution. And this political narrative in the OP is used presently in France for persecution of organisations like the Landmark forum.
It’s possible to fool people’s sense of “feeling informed”.
For instance, LSD seems to often induce a sense of insight and significance … including sometimes attributing cosmic meaning to the patterns perceived in the pebbles in a concrete wall.
Or, for that matter, as some of the psychological studies described in Cialdini’s Influence or Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow appear to have failed to replicate, what is there to say about the sense of feeling informed that accrued to many of us who took them to be insightful?
They write propaganda, you spread awareness, I fact-check. Is it possible to rigorously define the difference between these, or do they mainly vary by connotation? If the latter, perhaps it’d be better to stick to labels like “true” and “false”.
There’s writing that makes a person felt informed after reading it by giving the person easy answers to complex questions and there’s writing that tries to communicate complex facts about reality. Both can be right or wrong.
The standard of “feeling informed” is bad for judging the quality of a political argument. Plenty people feel informed after watching Zeitgeist.
You can make people feel informed when you tell them it’s all due to the Jews, but that’s no justification for the political speech and the created feeling in no way justifies the political speech that’s used for persecution. And this political narrative in the OP is used presently in France for persecution of organisations like the Landmark forum.
It’s possible to fool people’s sense of “feeling informed”.
For instance, LSD seems to often induce a sense of insight and significance … including sometimes attributing cosmic meaning to the patterns perceived in the pebbles in a concrete wall.
Or, for that matter, as some of the psychological studies described in Cialdini’s Influence or Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast and Slow appear to have failed to replicate, what is there to say about the sense of feeling informed that accrued to many of us who took them to be insightful?