• AmarkuntheGatherer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    I actually don’t agree with this approach. I’m not in favour of calling people stupid for buying into propoganda, but is saying that they choose to buy it/take it at face value respecting their intelligence?

    Saying they could break out if they wanted to is, and this is just my opinion, not intending to be insulting, an idealist approach. It’s like saying fat people could lose weight if they just wanted to, or procrastinators could work if they simply cared to. I would go so far as to say that it’s similar (though obviously not equivalent) to saying neurodivergent people can act like “normal” people if they really tried.

    On the other hand I’m definitely not saying barraging people with analyses or factoids will bring them to our side. I take the scumbag centrist opinion here and say it’s both: For people unreceptive to our message, what we can hope is that a small part of what we said might stick, so that every time they’re faced with a contradiction inherent in capitalism, there’s a change that seed of an idea we planted might take root.

    • pigginz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      deleted by creator

      • AmarkuntheGatherer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cards on the table, I think chauvinism is stupid. I think someone in a position to recognise their chauvinism and renounce it, but refuse to, have to be stupid. I don’t believe that the average person is inherently stupid, nor that idealism is an approach more in-line with human nature than materialism.

        That’s all conjecture, admittedly, I’m basing this on the fact that huge swathes of a bunch of countries were taught and embraced materialism. This doesn’t make them correct in every issue or anything, but the comprehension that thing aren’t the way they are because they were meant to be, rather that they’re in a flux, a state of constant change, is the most crucial step in this. From this conjecture, which I can’t show to be true yet believe anyway, it follows that people of priviledge aren’t making a choice at all, they’re using the only tool they’ve got to come to a piss poor conclusion.

        I also believe that by computing a sufficient number of schrödinger’s equations constantly we could predict literally anything, but that might just mean my brain’s a bit mush.

    • ezmack@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I mean to be clear I didn’t post it as a full endorsement of the conclusions it just seemed like OP was tugging on the same thread mentally. If nothing else made me want to be more specific than ‘brainwashing’ and a little more skeptical when that word gets thrown around