- cross-posted to:
- apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- apple_enthusiast@lemmy.world
“Apple CEO Tim Cook plans to donate $1 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration fund, reports Axios. The donation will be a personal donation directly from Cook rather than a donation from Apple”
I’ll defend Apple as being the least shitty of the big tech giants but I can’t defend this.
I got the joke right away, I don’t think there’s any problem with it.
The thing is, no matter how obvious a contradiction is, far-right folks won’t understand any of it, because they’re so dumb. You cannot give them even the most basic, easily digestible facts and explanations, because even that requires a brain, which they don’t have.
So I think, these kind of jokes are perfectly fine for our entertainment, and no amount of facts and information will ever convince the dumbest of the people.
Fair points:
I see you appreciate facts and information, the scientific process and the institutions that enable it. We have that in common. That’s why, ironically, I’ll start with anecdotal facts and then move on to more robust and generalizable findings. Do you know about my friend who went from defending “one dollar, one vote” (a couple of years ago) to explaining how the lack of third spaces is associated with inequality (a couple of weeks ago)? I don’t expect you to at all, so do you know Contrapoints’ impact on radicalized people who reach out to her (https://www.vice.com/en/article/contrapoints-interview-2019-natalie-wynn/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k)?
These may sound like cherry-picked examples, but there’s actually evidence of massive shifts in people’s political views: the World Value Survey. Do you know how world values have changed ever since the WVS started?(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIXdRVe92gg)
In the face of the WVS shifts, it may seem like value changes only occur when material conditions allow for it, but there’s evidence within the WVS literature that material conditions are not as important today (in particular, the variance that explains the change in values used to be mostly explained by material conditions, but now it is mostly explained by connectivity). However, we can also look at another set of scientific literature that shows that the way that things are presented can lead to changes in political attitudes. Do you know about the moral reframing literature? I’m sorry for the paywall https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337861541_Moral_reframing_A_technique_for_effective_and_persuasive_communication_across_political_divides
Thank you for showing me this valuable piece of information. No, I haven’t seen these before.
Until now, I’m 100% confident that it’s impossible to convince someone on the far-right of anything that’s against their views, because I’m from a country that is 15 years ahead of the US on this tragic path into the dark future far away from common sense, thus I have a somewhat clear prediction for the general mental state of the people in the coming decades, which likely cannot be reversed in a century.
Yet, I’m thinking quite often, what I could do as an individual to at least somewhat better the situation in this miserable world. And so far all my ideas are based on withdrawal of content (much like how you take drugs away from a junkie) instead of adding arguments, which is obviously hard to pull off on a large scale.
Not that I could do anything though. Today you need to be rich to achieve something.
Nonetheless, maybe this is the missing piece to the puzzle. I’m considering to pay those extra bucks for that publication, also Welzel’s book; they look promising. So thanks again for sharing.