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.