• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    If A oversold their claim, B would have massively oversold theirs. And that was easy to prove and has been proven

    Right. But if A is supposed to be the trusted authority and B proves they aren’t trustworthy, you’re more likely to not believe criticisms of B because “the establishment” has already been proven untrustworthy. That’s how conspiracies gain traction, and any amount of hiding of information gives fuel to detractors.

    So people are going to ignore criticism of B because they’ll feel that B is the “underdog” being attacked by “the establishment.” That’s how these things work.

    There is no trick to this. Being factual and getting people to believe you is much harder than telling an easy but good-sounding lie and getting people to believ you.

    Sure, but trust is earned. You can’t lie 5% of the time and expect people to believe everything you say, if they find out about that 5%, the other 95% will be called into question. So you need to reserve the lies for when they really count.

    Lying will work in the short-term, but it has big consequences in the long-term, so if you’re a long-term entity (e.g. the CDC, FBI, etc), you need to be very careful about how people interpret your message.

    • rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      So how come people trust Donald Trump? How is it that he can get away with lying whenever he opens his mouth, how is it that people buy it when he pretends he’s the underdog and not part of the establishment? How is it his followers, who are so ready to believe that the government lies to them all the time, don’t call anything of what he says into question?

      If we go by what you say then we’re basically fucked. Government and authorities can never regain trust because thanks to people like Trump, thanks to parties like the Republicans, who have spent decades undermining that trust, thanks to the mass media who are highly complicit, we live in a post-truth world, and it’s enough that a government wasn’t 100% truthful that one time, we can never trust them again.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because they’re convinced he’s fighting against the establishment, so since he’s fighting against people they “know” to be liars, he must therefore be more trustworthy. Add to that the “star power” of being a “successful businessman” and people will think he’s fit for the job. That said, that’s a pretty small, but very vocal subset of his base. A much large subset of his base will vote Republican regardless of who the candidate is, so a candidate just needs a large enough, rebid fanbase to get the nomination and they’ll automatically get ~40% of the vote.

        The same exists on the other end of the spectrum (vote blue no matter who). You’ll have a very vocal subset for each popular candidate, and a large group who will vote for their party’s nominee regardless.

        Those aren’t the people you need to convince, you should be focusing on those in the middle. There are lots of cohorts, such as:

        • libertarians - anti-war, pro-civil liberties and pro-fiscal responsibility
        • greens - anti-war and wants fixes for climate change
        • single issue voters - abortion, health care, national debt, immigration, etc

        Those are the groups that care more about whether a candidate lies on issues they care about than party affiliation. So a candidate needs to be careful about what lies they tell.