> I guess it depends on your definition of "taught".
Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc).
> I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
> Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them.
1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior:
a) on a relative scale?
b) on an absolute scale?
2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".
Re 1 and 2, both sides do it, but I find the whole "false equivalence" and "which side is worse" discussion nauseating and refuse to compare the two on the same scale. I think it suffices to say that neither can be neglected in understanding the current situation.
Stereotypically, right-wing propaganda seems to manipulate through brute force, and left-wing propaganda through selective negligence of cognitive biases. But even this perception is influenced by who does the fact-checking and how.
I can certainly understand your frustration, and I share it...but if we are really serious about climate change and various other issues, shouldn't we not only be willing, but strongly desire to determine with certainty whether the methods we use to govern our behavior (which were designed in relatively archaic times) are adequate to face the challenges of the 21st century?
If this was any other kind of project, the quality of leaders and design of systems of leadership would absolutely be brought into question by most people - does it not seem more than a little weird that the political realm [1] is treated as if it is radioactive, beyond even simple discussion?
Does this seem rational?
[1] Well, ours that is - we seem to be more than happy to overthrow ones we do not like, and even consider it righteous.
Indeed - there are the labels we apply to things, and then there is what lies underneath. And then there is the question of whether we form a distinction between the two (or, the degree to which we [are able to] form a distinction, and whether this is a constant or varies under different conditions, and the degree to which and ways in which it varies, etc).
> I do think that some large percentage of the population, probably at least 30%, have received the hoax message repeatedly from popular conservative sources such as Fox News, Donald Trump's former Twitter account, and the TV show Tucker Carlson Tonight.
> Now, I tend to think that all these sources don't care in the slightest whether what they're saying is true, and would happily say (and even believe) the exact opposite seconds later if it suited them.
1. Do you believe that it is only conservative sources and conservative people who can be objectively observed engaging in this behavior:
a) on a relative scale?
b) on an absolute scale?
2. Same question, but replace "believe" with "think it is necessarily and comprehensively true (in a formal, Justified True Belief sense)".