zlacker

I already stated my approach. Let speech be met by more speech in return. Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

>>baggy_+(OP)
> Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

I ain't doing all that work. I'm picking whatever I already believe in.

/s but only kind of. That's how most people think. They aren't enlightened like you.

>>baggy_+(OP)
But your approach results in someone who can't even conceive of the truth being identifiable. It doesn't seem like a great way to run a society.

>>baggy_+(OP)
> Consumers can assess the credibility of each.

Assuming intelligence is normally distributed, then what's the plan for the bottom 50% here?

>>jandre+s2
I am unable to connect your sentence to what I said.

>>acuozz+9l
As stated.

>>baggy_+hs
> I have no faith that there is some authoritative entity that could objectively determine what is a lie and what is the truth.

I read this as "it is impossible to determine truth". If there exists a well resourced entity who's entire purpose in life is to determine objective truth and they are unable to do so what chance do I have?

>>jandre+s2
Having the power to determine truth does not seem like a great way to run a society even if it gets you some easy wins on other fronts.

It might work at first and be effective for some time in the same way that a dictator can "get things done" but there is no free lunch.

Eventually you will get evil dictators, power hungry arbitrators of truth. It will bite you. It is only a question of when. It might be years or generations. The only winning move is not to play. Don't concentrate the power in the first place.

>>jandre+GD
You just have to use your best judgement like everybody else.

>>baggy_+os
Understood. It's an interesting long-term strategy to revive Feudalism.

>>acuozz+IW2
More a strategy to avoid totalitarianism.

>>baggy_+ke3
By leaving the bottom 50% to be propagandized by populists?

If we were still living in the time of thirteen channels and Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

>>acuozz+qD3
An elite thinking that they know the truth and should suppress falsehoods is much more dangerous, so yes.

>>baggy_+mI2
That's the problem though. Your judgement gets warped by the constant stream of lies. That's the fundamental concept behind propaganda. If you repeat a lie enough times it will be believed. Everybody thinks they're too smart to be taken in by propaganda, that's one of the reasons it works so well.

>>jandre+8k7
That's true, and it works both ways.