Gregory's Server@freemo @LouisIngenthron The difference is if it is established, ignoring it will not make it go away anymore. You need to take action or accept it then.
|
4 comments
@freemo @LouisIngenthron If what you say was true, there wouls still be a need to establish the counter narrative, thus a need to discuss it.  No all you need to do is the exact thing that got the lies established... you scream and yell and talk about the truth, and dont put any attention on the lies... Let the truth be as notable, if not more notable, than the lies... thats all. @freemo @LouisIngenthron If i was able to do that, it would not be a problem - what exactly do you propose to do to make the truth more notable? |
@admitsWrongIfProven
Of course it will still make it go away. I mean when the lies started before the first lie the truth was 100% of the narrative. Despite this the lie being told and amplied caused the truth to "go away" (dwindle to a small minority)... So if lies can replace truth that is well established through these mechanisms why then can not the reverse be true? That once the lies dominate truth, if properly amplified, can cause the lies to go away?
Most processes in life are symmetrical, one thing we particularly struggle to understand in psychological contexts but is equally true.
@LouisIngenthron
@admitsWrongIfProven
Of course it will still make it go away. I mean when the lies started before the first lie the truth was 100% of the narrative. Despite this the lie being told and amplied caused the truth to "go away" (dwindle to a small minority)... So if lies can replace truth that is well established through these mechanisms why then can not the reverse be true? That once the lies dominate truth, if properly amplified, can cause the lies to go away?