By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JustcallmeRiff on 30 January 2017
Edit Thread
FloatingWaffles said:
JustcallmeRiff said:

Shaming and ridicule is the only way to combat "alternative facts". When the president can deny photographic evidence of his inauguration and he can deny scientific evidence of global warming. This emboldens many people. You cannot regulate or moderate them, you must ridicule them, shame him back into the Shadows.

You want people to be shamed or ridiculed just because they choose to believe something else than you? 

In this case you're saying that you think what they believe isn't true, where as from their perspective what you're saying isn't true either, even if there is 'facts' that you're saying that prove your case, those people may not believe those facts or consider them to be wrong. It goes both ways. 

If what you're saying is that they shouldn't blindly believe what anyone says then sure, I can agree with that. Nobody should ever blindly agree with what someone says even if they look up to them or support them. 

But ridiculing and shaming isn't the way to go about opening someone up to discussing it or trying to have a reasonable discussion about the topic. What incentive would someone ever have for looking at your point of view on something when all you've done is attack them? That will only make someone double down on what they think because people are attacking them for it. It's attitudes like that which are why Trump won.

Yes, my tact is Harsh. But we need critical thinking which requires us to agree on an Arbiter of facts. Whether that be Dow Jones Industrial Average or photos of the mall during inaugurations. Neutrality is to blame for Trump's victory. When 99% of climatologist agree on a fact but 1% disagree our media treats that a 50/50. That is not science. I don't want to leave these decisions up to public opinion.