this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
1271 points (98.5% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

12875 readers
823 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article

--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sometimes people will make a broad statement then link a study that supports it and act like boom that makes it a fact. No it doesnt. A study supporting your statement helps support your argument but it doesnt make it a fact. The real world is extremely complex and there are so many factors that can make something true in one place,space or moment in time and worng in another.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

This is the same logic anti-vaxxers use.

Yes, sometimes a few studies or even one study is compelling enough to confidently make an assertion that requires evidence to the contrary.

[–] Agosagror@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Theres only one good way to change someones mind over something that they have become entrenched about - for example politics, but anything where the reaction is a no rather than a what.

And thats to listen to everything they say, and ask the right question at the right time, a gentle interjection, something that nudges them to question something themselves. At somepoint they might even ask you about you perspective, and you need to give the right kind of answer.

Its slow and painful, and for big things it takes years and years of work to get someone to change. But its the only way ive found to truly work.

[–] forrgott 6 points 22 hours ago

The way I heard this explained is you have to show compassion. And if they disagree on something important to you, that might be hard! But I think it's right on the money.

That said, I appreciate the way you break it down; especially that you point out the fact it can definitely be slow and painful.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

I don't post the links to change their mind, I post the links to show the rest of the world why they're wrong.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 22 hours ago

There is also a thing that people sometimes change their mind under the weight of evidence, but not immediately. It often requires you to think about it, collect your thoughts and all, and it takes some alone time

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 25 points 1 day ago (7 children)

I'm sure everyone here has seen people change their minds when confronted with information that runs counter to their narrative.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (13 children)

If it's one to one communication, it's probably not going to be productive, but worth a shot, just don't waste too much time.

In a public forum, it's more about giving the lurkers something to process, those that might not have gotten emotionally attached to one side or another, or just need to see there's a diversity of thought to avoid getting too sucked into one thing or another.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It can happen, but often you can predict when someone will be utterly unwilling to change their mind, despite mountains of evidence.

If it's something that someone doesn't really have a stake in, they're likely to follow the evidence.

But, it's different when something is a big part of someone's identity. Take an American gun nut: Someone who spends a lot of free time on gun-related forums. Someone who goes shooting sometimes with buddies. Someone who listens to podcasts about guns, and has a gun safe filled with favourites. That's the kind of person who is never going to be swayed by rational arguments about guns.

Too much of their self-identity and too many of their social connections are gun-related. Changing their mind wouldn't just mean adopting a new set of facts, it would mean potential conflicts with all their friends. It would mean leaving a social group where they spend a lot of their free time. They'd not only have to accept that they're wrong, but that all their friends are wrong too.

Of course, there are ways to change the minds of people who are in a situation like that. Unfortunately, it mostly happens due to tragedy. Like, a gun nut will change their mind, but only when a family member kills themselves with a gun, either on purpose or accidentally. That new, and incredibly personal data point is enough to compensate for all the social difficulties related to changing your mind.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

yeah well I still think it works

Edit: in seriousness, I agree with you. But I just can't help feeling that if somebody is able to change their mind with evidence then it's my duty to try.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] buttnugget@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago

I mean, they’re both right. Without seeing the studies, we can’t know exactly what was being investigated, but obviously people have the capacity to change their minds. It just depends on what timeframe, how much evidence, potential removal from propaganda system, etc.

[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 99 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One study I found is where they let people (their control group) check some data about effectiveness of a certain shampoo. They all found the correct answer. Then they let people do the exercise with the exact same data but said it was about gun control. Suddenly a part of the participants failed at basic math and had a lot of rationalizations.

Some folks will not just accept any fact or data that goes against a belief held by their peer group. Giving facts will even be seen as a personal attack.

[–] KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I think Veritasium did a video on that.

load more comments (3 replies)

Lol, I think I'm probably the one that will mess up the data because I'm a pro-gun leftist and they just assume that every democrat is anti-gun

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 22 hours ago

Theres a technique called deep canvassing where you don't question the second parties beliefs or tell them things but instead build empathy, make the conversation about them, ask them about themselves, and then tell them things they probably didn't know as a way to let them decide for themselves that they were wrong before.

If a person thinks a car is purple but it's actually beige an expert could ask about their car and their own car and how they have similar costs or routine maintenance to form a connection, then talk about the sources of pigments and introduce indexes or catalogues of colors, and the person would see on their own how purple relates to blue and red and how beige relates to yellow and come to the correct conclusion on their own.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 20 hours ago

Sad proof that refuting bullshit takes infinitely more energy that it took to spread. If you tell someone that they are under attack, that someone they already distrust is their enemy, it goes straight to the lizard brain.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

Yeah it matters a lot how the conversation is set up.

Is it "you and I versus the facts"?

Or "you vs me"?

Competent people can disagree and also identify where the facts are missing and the assumptions begin that lead to this. It doesn't have to be a fight if they look at the data as something to discover together.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

No one is going to listen to you if you act like a know-it all. It has nothing to do with whatever you're saying.

[–] loomy@lemy.lol 53 points 1 day ago (4 children)

it matters a lot how the information is presented

[–] neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 1 day ago (7 children)

That’s really it!

If it is a combative exchange neither side will concede.

It’s better to pretend to be ignorant or on their side and then ask questions that lead them to the truth you want them to see.

[–] Tahl_eN@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I actually react well to combative. Not right away, but it puts me into a "I'll show you" mood that drives me down a rabbit hole of research. If you're right, I come out the other side with the data and admit I was wrong. But I assume I'm not normal.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Changing someone's mind in a public debate isn't necessary to show everyone they're a fool. That's usually enough.

Whether they ever get sick of being a fool is entirely up to them. If they're wise & mature, they will & maybe even admit it. Some people never do & it's mostly their problem at that point. Humans gonna human.

[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Winning a public debate is much more about rhetorical skills than being right. You can be very knowledgeable in a topic of your research, still lose because you can't put it simple while your opponent has simple answers to complicated questions and a catch phrase and some slogans

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plyth@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bullshit without linking the studies.

It's also a muddy case whether the statements are about the existance of people or all people.

Some people run on facts, others on emotions. They have to be convinced differently.

[–] Eximius@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Somehow beautiful. Calling out bullshit, but also agreeing.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

well he was in a bit of a bind. If this had changed his mind, what would that say?

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I foresee two possibilities.

1: Coming face to face with their own mistake might put them into shock and they would simply pass out. 2: The realization could create a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the spacetime continuum and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worst-case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to merely our own galaxy.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›