Asklemmy

51306 readers

443 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

Why aren't more people re-examining past conspiracies as trust in mainstream media declines over Gaza coverage? (reddthat.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

People are losing trust in mainstream media because of perceived biased coverage of the Gaza genocide. If that erosion of trust is real, why isn't it prompting wider public re-examination of historical cover-ups and contested narratives — Watergate, Iran–Contra, Iraq, even shifting beliefs about who “beat” the Nazis? If we don't question how past information was shaped, what’s the point of preserving evidence (e.g., Gaza genocide evidence recently removed from YouTube by Google)? Won’t this all be forgotten in a few years, the same way all those previous events are no longer discussed?

What’s stopping a sustained, constructive public inquiry into these parallels between past cover-ups and current information control? Where are good, constructive places to discuss these issues without falling into unproductive conspiracy spirals?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 0 points 9 hours ago

No, humans can't, scholars can. Most humans could learn historical materialism to the level they could pass a course on it, but the vast majority can't apply this type of analytical lens in practice.

It's a matter of disposition, the ability to look at a situation from multiple angles and question your beliefs about it isn't something that can be taught, only learned. You can walk someone through it step by step over and over, even train them to go through a process when prompted, but without a certain disposition they'll never actually use this ability without promoting