Sometimes the urge to correct disinformation is *so* strong.
But it's not always the right time, and people aren't always receptive.
(Sometimes they know they're bending the truth, but pursuing other ends when doing so.)
At those moments, one can "use the tools"...
But a humanist strategy is to learn to sit with and learn from the discomfort of not being able to fix every factually incorrect belief.
We're not always going to share the same convictions.
We *do* have to share the same world.
@MLClark I think sometimes we try to hard to be the "adult in the room". I realize the argument for "now isn't the time" is a respectful position to take, but then you have to ask; When is a good time? If misinformation or disinformation is rearing it's ugly head my opinion is that it is our responsibility, our duty to call it out. The key is on how you deliver it. If your combative then it will be combative. Maintaining reason and calm is best. It isn't easy, but it is necessary.
"When is a good time?"
When there's capacity to hear it. We often think of the internet as the most important battleground, but it's really not.
There's a lot of bluster online that stumps at meaningful discourse - but mostly, we're dealing with people working through trauma, or deflecting from discomfort.
"If you're combative then it will be combative."
Unfortunately, disinformation doesn't work like that; propagandists will leverage *any* engagement to more hostile ends.
Yes, I was also thinking, when the argument has a chance of producing some desired outcome.
This was my favourite lesson from New Atheism: we are far too enamoured by the idea that a "good argument" will bring us all to an amicably shared truth.
The lie of "rationalism" is that we're ever operating at a remove from biochemistry.
We carry into every debate not only core values shaped by experience, but also an understanding of how discourse can be leveraged for power.
Online, very few of us are playing for "truth" so much as "security in our initial POV".
@MLClark To be frank, I view New Atheism with the same disdain as I view fundamentalism. It's a different side of the same coin. The idea that you can eradicate religion is a dream. And telling people that they're deficient for believing in God is just as intolerant as an evangelist telling you you're going to hell because you don't believe. @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore
@LiberalLibrarian @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore
I don't think we disagree!
That's my point: New Atheism illustrated perfectly how much the affectation of "rationalism" is nonsense - but it was *so* beloved by its operators, on all sides of the debate circuits at that time.
Everyone was *so* convinced that eloquent argument would somehow bring the truth so perfectly to bear on the world that everyone would have no choice but to believe it.
Pure bullpucky, but a great education in flawed thinking!
@MLClark Precisely. Fundamentalism is inherently flawed, whether religious or secular. @ceorl @Tacitus_Kilgore