Someone who reads articles and has emotional bandwith.
You’re in a desert walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it’s crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can’t, not without your help. But you’re not helping. Why is that?
What’s a tortoise?
You ever seen a turtle?
Sure
But to address your point.
To treat fiction and reality as equally real. And treat our responses to either as having equal substance. Seems deranged to me.
A normal internet user
Was this posted by Ronald MacDonald from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia?
“Have you poured through the facts? Seen the figures? No? So let me get this straight, Mr. Reynolds… You get your information from a book, written by men you’ve never met, and you take their words as truth, based on a willingness to believe, a desire to accept, a leap of… humph dare I say it? Faith?”
I’m not familiar. But ya, same idea.
I’d attribute it to that willingness to believe, but I’d take it a step further. An eagerness to believe. An eagerness to enjoy the high of a good anger. Outweighing any loyalty to reality.
credulous
I’m assuming this is about Neil Gaiman. 9 women, the youngest being 18, have come forward and he made them sign NDA’s [Content Warning]. Even if it was consensual the stuff he’s admitted to doing is just awful. As a girl, I have every right to be angry that people like him view women as toys to use and abuse.
God damnit. I told someone recently “at least we’ll have Pratchett and Gaiman in the non-asshole writer zone”.
I’m rather hesitant to talk again…
Don’t take hearsay so seriously.
Don’t take the rabble’s judgment of great artists so seriously either
Nope. Purely in the abstract. It happens a lot on social media. The Gaiman thing is just one example.
My point still stands. If there’s evidence that someone has done terrible things, then most reasonable people aren’t going to stick up for that person. I’m not sure what relevance not knowing the people involved has. Normal people are angry at Neo Nazis even though they may not know one personally.
Hearsay constitutes weak evidence.
What’s the minimum you’d count as strong enough evidence to justify anger at the accused?
(Disregard that pm, wrong community)
The word of an authority that I respect would do it.
“an authority that you respect”? So truth doesnt matter, just the status of the person stating it? You should rethink your values
I said that the word of an authority that I respect would do it.
And by “do it” I meant (in reply to TootSweet@lemmy.world) that it would justify anger at the accused.
That’s pretty far from truth. It’s putting my trust in an authority.
I don’t know but whatever it makes me is less bad than whatever rejecting the claims of victims published through credible sources makes you 😜
Wow you must be really butthurt that your beloved celebrity turned out to be a different person than you imagined.
This is called cognitive dissonance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).
There are different ways the brain can cope with conflicting information. Looks like yours chose denial. It also chose to double down on the denial by constructing a reality in which multiple witnesses arent a credible source.
If you remember about this post in a few weeks, thats gonna be embarrassing^^
Also, to answer to your post directly: Are you the kind of person that doesnt believe the earth is round because you havent seen it for yourself? If not, ask yourself why this case is different.
It’s one example of a common disease. So I figured it bore discussion. Now put it back in your pants and zip up.
Mhm sure
One word I might use is “premature”. I definitely don’t know about other people, but rather than the anger implied in the question, if someone had a crime or misdeed attributed to them, if what happened mattered, my biggest inclination would be to try to fill in the gaps in my mind. Along the way, this of course potentially implies things like “why did they do it”, “how was it done”, and “did they really”. A lot of people, however, consider it conclusive based on what amounts to public perception, something I am no stranger to being on the receiving end of, and I don’t think I have to tell you how destructive that has turned out. It compels me to wonder how scary our state of existence is, especially when typically getting “to the bottom of something” is associated with neurodivergence.
Are we talking about anyone in particular here?
He’s referring to Neil Gaiman.
Yeah, that’s specifically who I suspected it might be about. Either him or P. Diddy. But the news of Neil Gaiman is more fresh right now.
Nope
frysuspicious.jpg
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
You mean like utterly totally zip? Surely not. Surely one is at least a little something. Like a fart in a wind, or a fart in a colander, or something farty like that.
Hahaha your question reminded me of a scene in a space balls where they parody Darth Vaders “No, I am your father” with the exchange:
"I am your father’s, brother’s, nephew’s, cousin’s, former roommate.
What does that make us?
Absolutely nothing!"
credulous
Curious to find the same information from another source to verify it is real.
angry
whoever wrote that article must be good at either citing or rage-baiting.
or both.
