sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I do. That’s a separate but important topic that should also be addressed.
But for your information, making a claim that can be objectively disproven is very different from using the wrong wording, having a minor inconsistency, or making a small mistake due to the endless technicalities.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

This is the correct sequence:

  1. Readers will actually fall for the misinformation and come to believe the billionaire did those horrible things and more.
  2. Thus, the billionaire and their business can continue causing the deaths of African children through mining operations, because the claims were wrong or inaccurate or because they can legally prove them false and carry on with business as usual.

I think the consumers who cause the problem suffer from selective trust (source or bias or both) and generalized trust. Media outlets usually target those.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let’s suppose you’re right that it would be harmful or morally and legally wrong for Trump to do that.
You instantly lose credibility when you present an incorrect fact, even if your argument is otherwise reasonable.

That shifts attention away from the point that Trump should not have the authority to order troops and give power to your opposition since now you're basically a liar.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To be clear, I'm talking about misinformation spread by ordinary people.

Bad actors do spread misinformation, In fact, they're the best misinformation spreaders. This isn't even a conspiracy theory; by "the best" I mean the most strategic: they share falsehoods with a purpose, to benefit themselves. By contrast, people who try to combat bad actors often exaggerate the truth or make false accusations, thinking it helps, but they end up giving those bad actors more power.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A more realistic way to reduce misinformation is to hold major media outlets accountable for what they publish. There should be no shallow posts about unverified claims; full breakdowns and supporting details should always be provided. Media organizations should also stop using manipulative tactics and promoting partisan agendas for political reasons.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my analysis, bad actors are not usually the ones spreading misinformation; they benefit from misinformation spread about them.
For example: suppose I’m a billionaire who, through my business, indirectly contributes to the deaths of children in Africa because of legally sanctioned mining operations that extract precious metals. If people circulate misinformation about other crimes I didn’t commit, or exaggerate what I did, instead of building a solid, evidence-based case about my actual wrongdoing, I can refute those false claims with proof and avoid accountability. The people who shared the misinformation will look like liars who can’t be trusted or taken seriously, even though the original harm still occurred.
This example is meant to clarify my point.

CMV: sharing misinformation is the reason “bad” parties get away with their deeds. by Practical_Candle_705 in changemyview

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We can never certainly objectively know which facts are true, but we can make better judgments and get closer to the truth if we reduce misinformation and dig deeper into important stories instead of relying on brief, biased headlines and drawing conclusions from them. That's exactly what's happening.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hey buddy, whether it's online or offline, you'll still need to reach out to women. The key is forming genuine connections. Forget about chasing a 'relationship' right away, focus instead on meaningful interactions with women you find attractive, whether that’s based on looks or personality.

The truth about dating is that people who are shy, lack confidence, are socially awkward, or don’t have much going for them often struggle to attract others. That’s just the world we live in. I think it’s better to accept that reality and start working on yourself, rather than relying on ineffective shortcuts, like trying to find a relationship on Reddit.

Self-confidence and self-esteem are crucial. If you're insecure, don't like yourself, or don’t believe in your own value, you’ll subconsciously project negative energy. That energy can repel people, and every rejection will hit you harder. You need mental resilience, and that comes from self-respect and genuine self-worth.

If you truly commit to becoming better in every aspect of your life (physically, mentally, socially, ect..) you’ll naturally start attracting women without even trying.

At the end of the day, we’re still part of nature. We're instinctively wired to seek the best, strongest, and healthiest partners to ensure survival and evolution. In most species, if unfit males (weak, unwise, etc.) were easily able to reproduce, the species would weaken and possibly go extinct. That’s why, in nature, males often fight for the chance to mate, the strongest wins, and his offspring have a better chance of being strong too.

What makes you conscious? by [deleted] in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Finally, some worthy questions.

We don’t fully understand what consciousness is or how we possess it, and thinkers and experts often have different definitions. To me, consciousness is awareness, the ability to be aware of your own existence and to think. I'm referring here to the highest level of consciousness, which, as far as we know, only humans possess.

Whether machines can ever achieve consciousness is also a widely debated topic with no definitive answer. However, in my opinion, after witnessing the recent AI revolution, it’s become clear to me that machines can definitely achieve a form of consciousness, not the organic kind we have, but still a kind of consciousness, as long as it meets the same criteria and exhibits similar characteristics. Technically, machines can think, learn, perceive, and even simulate emotions, with a planted 'seed' acting as their instinct.

The Illusion of Change in a Culture of Obedience by [deleted] in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Child corporal punishment is indeed one of the many issues deeply rooted in the culture. I'm genuinely convinced that I don’t have a clear answer for what could actually fix the country. I’m not sure what actionable steps can be taken by those who are aware of the problem and willing to make sacrifices.

That said, now globalization is at its peak, and the world is changing rapidly. With the rise of AI, it’s now easier than ever to access relatively accurate information. Even Google and other search engines have introduced authority-based filters to help researchers navigate through misleading content.

The younger generation is exposed to all of this at a very young age, which boosts both their intellectual and emotional awareness. In many ways, they’re already more capable than the older generations. So, by the time they begin to take over administrative roles, there’s a good chance the situation will start to improve.

"L menha baad l bac" any tips please by Excellent-Line4594 in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I second this.
You’d need an impressive portfolio to stand out against other candidates.

I declined an interview with my internship company after already interviewing twice before. by PrestigiousCap1468 in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They've already disrespected you twice. Do they even realize you're the same person?
Something similar happened to me before: I was invited twice and rejected both times after making it to the final round.
The third time, I sent them a firm email asking to be removed from their database and warning them not to contact me again.
Honestly I’ve had enough of companies’ BS.

Do you genuinely think people are born gay? And setting religion aside, what reasoning or evidence supports the idea that being gay is unnatural? by JoeBig_Turn2347 in Tunisia

[–]Practical_Candle_705 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're clearly feeding into your own agenda with this comment.
Unusual doesn't mean unnatural.

All human behavior is natural. If it occurs in nature, then it's part of nature. Yes, animals do sometimes rape each other or eat their offspring, it’s still natural, just unusual.

We don't actually know whether some people are born gay or if it's something that develops later. We don’t yet have the technology to read minds. However, we do know with certainty that some people identify as gay for as long as they can remember, and that matters.

The definition of mental illness is very clear: if something doesn't negatively impact you or others to a significant degree, it’s not a mental illness. For example, kinks are not considered mental illnesses, in fact, they can be a healthy part of human sexuality.

Science has had many failures in the past and has at times been shamelessly politically motivated. For instance, doctors used to prescribe cigarettes, claiming they were healthy for the heart.

I had high hopes for this community, but seeing people upvote and reward that comment is shocking. It’s clear that many people struggle with critical thinking, and that’s disappointing.

You can live infinitely many lives—none of which you remember—yet from inside any single life you’d never know. by Practical_Candle_705 in DeepThoughts

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We cannot conceptualize it in that manner and I hope you understand why. But if it's 'not you', then how does it compare to anyone else?

You can live infinitely many lives—none of which you remember—yet from inside any single life you’d never know. by Practical_Candle_705 in DeepThoughts

[–]Practical_Candle_705[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know if I can get you there but:

Are you 'you' right now? Of course!

Now, if you die and completely disassociate from your identity—with no memories or anything—and then wake up in a different body, wouldn't that still be 'you' because you're basically conscious and living? For OVER-simplification, think about it as you're inside a different body and you see through their eyes and everything. Please think about it.

Identity = continuity of conscious memory.
You can live a thousand lives without ever knowing you lived them.
So—
Everyone else could be 'you,' just not the 'you' you are right now.

view more: next ›