Letting them dig further helps to show how valid or invalid what they say might be
The problem with this approach is that it requires critical thinking.
If they “see it on the internet on Jimbo’s blog” they believe that is equally believable to “its posted on nasa.gov”. I attribute some of this to technology getting really good at some things that it makes those that don’t know how technology works that other unbelievable things are also real.
A more modern part of it is that if you Google the phrases they use, you get more of the same. And the YouTube/Twitter algorithms will show you similar content to what you’ve already been shown. Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.
I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”
This isn’t an issue that the President should be spending her time on. This isn’t an issue the viewers should be spending their time on. She’ll follow the law, and that’s all that needs to be said on that subject. Unless you want to talk about why it keeps coming up, to be divisive and hateful.
Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.
This is where critical thinking comes in. As in “I’m seeing this same language multiple places. Who are these sources saying it? Do I trust them? Do they post other things that are also all copies of one another? With who they are do they have a motivation to distort the truth or outright lie?”
I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”
This would have been amazing, but I don’t know if would resonated the way it should with the intended audience. We know this is the same crowd that largely believes even one abortion by one person is too many.
The problem with this approach is that it requires critical thinking.
If they “see it on the internet on Jimbo’s blog” they believe that is equally believable to “its posted on nasa.gov”. I attribute some of this to technology getting really good at some things that it makes those that don’t know how technology works that other unbelievable things are also real.
A more modern part of it is that if you Google the phrases they use, you get more of the same. And the YouTube/Twitter algorithms will show you similar content to what you’ve already been shown. Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.
I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”
This isn’t an issue that the President should be spending her time on. This isn’t an issue the viewers should be spending their time on. She’ll follow the law, and that’s all that needs to be said on that subject. Unless you want to talk about why it keeps coming up, to be divisive and hateful.
This is where critical thinking comes in. As in “I’m seeing this same language multiple places. Who are these sources saying it? Do I trust them? Do they post other things that are also all copies of one another? With who they are do they have a motivation to distort the truth or outright lie?”
This would have been amazing, but I don’t know if would resonated the way it should with the intended audience. We know this is the same crowd that largely believes even one abortion by one person is too many.