This is the danger of celebrity endorsement. It will bring so much more attention to an unworthy ‘cause’, and so many fans will now absorb this information without critical thought. It is truly a situation where a well-intentioned person does not know enough to understand that this supposed expert is talking nonsense and the world at large slips that much further into disinformation.
Is it disinformation or merely misinformation here? The former seems to imply someone knowing what they are talking about but lying to the recipient, while the latter is someone clueless what even they themselves are saying.
Oh, but maybe you meant that falling for the misinformation opens people up to therefore be more receptive to actual disinformation.
Either way I thought I would share that I was being tripped up by that word, in case that feedback helps you to reach a wider audience without having to encounter such barriers.
I was torn between the use of misinformation and disinformation. And comments on Lemmy are often speaking into a void, so I honestly did not think it would matter. I appreciate the clarification and agree that misinformation is more appropriate. But agree that falling for misinformation leads to disinformation.
At this point I’m sure there’s been numerous people who have written in to correct him and advise him of the inaccuracies. I’m sure by now he’s had enough time to properly investigate the facts and why the modern consensus is the modern consensus, because of the available evidence.
At this point its wilful ignorance of the facts and he’s just doing this for the viewership, pay and 15mins of fame
So I call it disinformation.
Ooh good point.
Although still, if I see a 5-year-old toddler saying something b/c it garners them “attention” (either positive or negative), then I wouldn’t call what they are saying as “information”, of any kind, so much as mere “noise”. (scene below is from Babadook, a fantastic film btw)
It gets more difficult to describe when the situation escalates to that person being elected as the leader of the free fucking world (well… not as much that as Hillary Clinton was voted against - but still, someone had to go in, and it ended up being him, b/c of Electoral College hijinks etc.). Telling people to go out into the sun, in the dead of winter below freezing, after they are already sick, to soak up sunlight… is the height of irresponsibility, but he managed to top it further by telling people to brutally mutilate their bodies and die of diarrhea by taking Ivermectin (even people with MDs or PhDs did this!!!). So is Trump then the toddler in the above scenario, and thus excused by reason of mental… ah… “whatever”?
I would say “no” b/c the chief distinction is not age - either physical or mental - but rather the position of authority. A child throwing a hissy fit, even outright lying, is one thing, but e.g. a Supreme Court Chief Justice of the land doing the same thing? THAT is WRONG, and should be punished somehow (ignoring for the moment that it will not be:-().
Therefore it falls to: who is the one “responsible” for this TV show’s existence? If he made it, then arguably him yeah… but also someone paid for him to do it, so wouldn’t that make them more so, like even in a purely legal sense, plus possibly other senses too? If a postal worker carries a letter containing anthrax, we don’t blame them, so much as the person who sent the package - so shouldn’t we blame the originator of this show? Which ultimately may even fall onto the audience, for watching it, or the leaders of our nation to allow democracy to continue to be decided by people who refuse to read a book - e.g. like Starship Troopers, we could limit citizenship to those who either (a) engage in military service, or (b) have a degree, the latter of which must be one certified to have included at least the briefest, barest mention of the fact that there are 3 branches of government. Oh and… maybe the names of those 3 branches. Although as of now, there are so many Americans who don’t even seem to know the former, much less the latter.
Sorry for the long-winded way of saying: it is not this guy’s fault that he is contributing to the moral and possible literal physical decay of our entire nation, just by being a greedy fucker who ignores all “facts” and gives the people whatever “entertainment” that they we want. Or… then again… is it?
Anyway, I am less certain of anything here than when I started, but this is at least fun to think about!:-)
(Edit: and yeah, I think I’m switching sides now, you convinced me that either way, if he knew, then it would be closer to disinformation than mis-. Although even more pertinent, now I don’t think it’s either one really, so much as mere performance theater, so as to get paid. The distinction may fall down to: is the channel that he is put onto something that has an “expectation” of containing truthful, factual content? Sorry, I have no idea who this guy is really or what channel that show would be on, nor do I particularly care:-D. This is why I no longer watch TV really, except pure fantasy shows - I personally don’t like this blurring of the line between “reality(/-istic) TV” and pure fiction ones, I will take the likes of Breaking Bad over “Real” Housewives or whatever junk any day.)
But I mean nothing Graham Hancock says is that damaging. He suggests that there really was an ancient Atlantis type civilization, which has been suggested by thousands of people including Plato. No one who listens to him talk is actually gonna be swayed against their beliefs one way or the other
Plato did not suggest ancient Atlantis existed. He was very clear that he was illustrating a hypothetical “great society” to discuss his views on effective and beneficent government.
When he discussed it sinking it was a divine punishment from the gods of Olympus because they had strayed from a righteous path. All of it is meant to be a parable.
I mean that’s our interpretation of a translation of something said thousands of years ago. But if they want to they can choose to believe what they want. IMO an ancient island sinking due to gods is no different than saying “high tech civ nuked itself out of existense” but with less context. I’m not saying this really happened, but its not like its impossible, just extraordinarily unlikely to be true.
It’s damaging because it adds doubt to any kind of scientific consensus.
“They” don’t want you to know that vaccines are dangerous.
“They” are only pushing chemo for big pharma.
“They” don’t want to admit that this was where ancient civilizations had some global empire.
It’s the same kind of attitude of “fantastical claim you can believe if you just dismiss all the evidence that you don’t like”
And that is very damaging because it further erodes understanding of the scientific method.
The belief in the existence of a super-race (or whatever term Hancock uses) is dubious. While the idea on its own may seem harmless, it opens the door for racist idealogies. Everything has to be taken in context, and crackpot archeologists have been making this argument for ages in order to justify later arguments for eugenics.
I know it may appear that Hancock questioning the established historians and “big archeology” is above suspicion, but it is done in an unambiguously dishonest way. He refuses to acknowledge sound logical arguments put forth by multiple well-respected sources and hand waves things away as common sense. Essentially, he is frustrating because his arguments muddy the waters of logical discussions and introduce doubt in a community that certainly does not get paid enough for this shit.
