Once it was easy to be obscure, but technology has ended that

Re:Once it was easy to be obscure, but technology has ended ... by amelius on Thursday April 18, 2019 @04:03AM (#19689503)

This is not a very convincing argument because the public will say that they will trust their own judgement and that they are simply not susceptible to lies by politicians especially if they don't match with what is said in mainstream media.

EDIT: Not saying the argument is incorrect, just that it will not convince the public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Once it was easy to be obscure, but technology has ended ... by maxheadroom on Thursday April 18, 2019 @04:42AM (#19689646)

>This is not a very convincing argument

I wasn't making an argument, I was redressing the logical fallacy of the parent comment.

>the public will say that they will trust their own judgement

The public trusted it's own judgement before, during, and after the civil rights movement and that didn't really work-out too well in the public's favour, did it?

>...and that they are simply not susceptible to lies by politicians...

(Since this is an American board.) Do they believe that they weren't susceptible to the lies about the Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, McCarthyism, surveillence by the government, MK Ultra, etc., either?

>...especially if they don't match with what is said in mainstream media.

See: the Leave Bus in the Brexit Referendum.

Clearly, billions of pounds are not going to the NHS, now, correct? Just because you see it and it's spread across social media, it doesn't mean it is implicitly true. All of your points were met for this example; yet, it was resultantly found to be a total fabrication. How would they account for that? Instead, will your argument now amended to be "some of it doesn't match it with social media"...?

[ Parent | on HN ]