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?
Because that’s not how people think. Not anyone.
You can study history, and if you do it right you’ll see how stupid and individually directed most things are. It’s all conspiracies, that’s how the world has worked for millennia
One realization doesn’t free your mind and make you a scholar… That’s just not how humans work
Wutno. Humans are not genetically doomed to being stupid. They can learn to think analytically, they can learn about known biases and how to mitigate them. They can learn historical materialism.
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