U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday called China a "ticking time bomb" because of its economic challenges and said the country was in trouble because of weak growth.
Is creating echo chambers really desirable in our current political climate? Democracy is built on a foundation of free and open discourse, not in censoring opinions that we don’t agree with. All that does is polarize and radicalize people even more.
We know where you get your opinions because they are the opinions being repeated to us the same as you. When your distended belly shoots propaganda past your lips when you speak, there’s no real use in claiming that you didn’t guzzle it beforehand. The only difference is that we recognize it for what it is because unlike you we’ve bothered to look at sources outside of the western consent manufacturing bubble.
When liberals disagree with leftists, they start acting exactly like the reactionaries they pretend they’re not aligned with. “Anyone who disagrees with them MUST be a racist” says the conservative after being called on racism.
There’s also them assuming that anyone disagreeing with them must be a pro-murica propaganda-guzzling librul
Says the liberal after being called on being a western chauvinist.
It’s not about an echo chamber. There are some instances that say the same few things without being reasonable. They’re just political slogans and myths with little bearing on reality. If they were reasonable, sure. It’d be fine. They will take things out of context and when you provide context that goes against it they find something else to attack and act like it never happened. It’s not useful and just makes it harder to see other things.
I’ve seen people from lemmygrad and hexbear provide sources, even western ones, over and over and be completely ignored by the person they’re talking to, often with a thought terminating cliche. You got this backwards.
There are users from all instances that do that. The fact some do it is not evidence of anything, one way or the other. However, I was arguing with someone from one of the two about Xi Jinping being from the political class, not the working class, and their “evidence” otherwise was that he lived in a cave when he was a child. They ignored the fact the reason he lived in a cave was because his father was a politician who lost political favor, and it wasn’t some random cave, it was a building constructed of a cave.
It’s all willful ignorance of fact if you can’t find fault with any government. If you support anything, you should be looking for how to criticize it, not how to tell other people that there aren’t issues. How else would you improve it. I don’t trust anyone who won’t admit any fault in the thing they’re defending, and especially anyone who chooses to tie their identity to that thing.
Just calling out the thought terminating cliche is, ironically, a thought terminating cliche as well. I didn’t only include that in my comment, you just (expectedly) ignored the rest. The fact you had nothing meaningful to say is enough. My comment was much more then pointing out your point of origin (as in instance). Your comment was nothing.
Ah so like with every other logical fallacy it’s impossible for liberals to be guilty of the fallacy fallacy but all of us tankies are always guilty of every fallacy at once (yes even the ones that contradict one another)
You are rubber and we are glue, for everything we say bounces off you and rebounds back to us
The entire principle of reasonability lies on accepting that other interpretations of facts exist. Removing those who question the prevailing interpretation is harmful for democracy, harmful for journalism, and harmful for freedom of speech.
Sure, there are other interpretations. There’s also ignoring facts as they stand. That’s as harmful as anything else.
Sometimes it’s not useful to hear certain opinions. I don’t care about the opinion that thinks the covid vaccine makes you magnetic, which they subsequently can’t verify. It’s not useful and most likely harmful. It makes my experience worse while providing nothing. If I can choose to not have that opinion heard, I will. It is not helping me get a better understanding of the world and is only making my experience worse.
deleted by creator
Is creating echo chambers really desirable in our current political climate? Democracy is built on a foundation of free and open discourse, not in censoring opinions that we don’t agree with. All that does is polarize and radicalize people even more.
deleted by creator
So… It’s Lemmy’s problem for not exposing control over emoji size? Sounds like a feature that should be pretty easy to add.
deleted by creator
Bro you are way past historically uneducated. Hexbear been with us for a few hundred years.
We know where you get your opinions because they are the opinions being repeated to us the same as you. When your distended belly shoots propaganda past your lips when you speak, there’s no real use in claiming that you didn’t guzzle it beforehand. The only difference is that we recognize it for what it is because unlike you we’ve bothered to look at sources outside of the western consent manufacturing bubble.
When liberals disagree with leftists, they start acting exactly like the reactionaries they pretend they’re not aligned with. “Anyone who disagrees with them MUST be a racist” says the conservative after being called on racism.
Says the liberal after being called on being a western chauvinist.
You have literally the exact opinions as every lib. We don’t care we have heard it before
How do you say this 7th grade government class nerd shit and not feel deep embarrassment
It’s not about an echo chamber. There are some instances that say the same few things without being reasonable. They’re just political slogans and myths with little bearing on reality. If they were reasonable, sure. It’d be fine. They will take things out of context and when you provide context that goes against it they find something else to attack and act like it never happened. It’s not useful and just makes it harder to see other things.
I’ve seen people from lemmygrad and hexbear provide sources, even western ones, over and over and be completely ignored by the person they’re talking to, often with a thought terminating cliche. You got this backwards.
And I’m sure you’re not biased at all…
There are users from all instances that do that. The fact some do it is not evidence of anything, one way or the other. However, I was arguing with someone from one of the two about Xi Jinping being from the political class, not the working class, and their “evidence” otherwise was that he lived in a cave when he was a child. They ignored the fact the reason he lived in a cave was because his father was a politician who lost political favor, and it wasn’t some random cave, it was a building constructed of a cave.
It’s all willful ignorance of fact if you can’t find fault with any government. If you support anything, you should be looking for how to criticize it, not how to tell other people that there aren’t issues. How else would you improve it. I don’t trust anyone who won’t admit any fault in the thing they’re defending, and especially anyone who chooses to tie their identity to that thing.
Leading off with a thought terminating cliche when confronted by your ideological cohorts’ dependence on thought terminating cliches is quite a flex
Just calling out the thought terminating cliche is, ironically, a thought terminating cliche as well. I didn’t only include that in my comment, you just (expectedly) ignored the rest. The fact you had nothing meaningful to say is enough. My comment was much more then pointing out your point of origin (as in instance). Your comment was nothing.
Ah so like with every other logical fallacy it’s impossible for liberals to be guilty of the fallacy fallacy but all of us tankies are always guilty of every fallacy at once (yes even the ones that contradict one another)
You are rubber and we are glue, for everything we say bounces off you and rebounds back to us
What flawless playground logic you employ
The entire principle of reasonability lies on accepting that other interpretations of facts exist. Removing those who question the prevailing interpretation is harmful for democracy, harmful for journalism, and harmful for freedom of speech.
Sure, there are other interpretations. There’s also ignoring facts as they stand. That’s as harmful as anything else.
Sometimes it’s not useful to hear certain opinions. I don’t care about the opinion that thinks the covid vaccine makes you magnetic, which they subsequently can’t verify. It’s not useful and most likely harmful. It makes my experience worse while providing nothing. If I can choose to not have that opinion heard, I will. It is not helping me get a better understanding of the world and is only making my experience worse.
How do you define the usefulness of opinions?