Probably shouldn’t have mentioned my thoughts on that thread, I had hoped to provide some perspective on where I was coming from but probably just confused things for everyone. That’s my bad, back to the relevant point:
How do you think one should make that distinction?
We can push back against misinformation without accidentally bootlicking.
It depends entirely on how you define “accidentally bootlicking” because I think OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml has done an excellent job of calling out how you have been making that distinction.
Taking a step back and decontextualizing how do you think one should make that distinction?
The issue as you see it:
clings on to a pseudo-scientific economic ideology
The prescription you suggest:
pseudo-scientific economic ideology
When you recognize the amount of bullshit propoganda that is consumed daily and realize how false it all is it’s very easy to switch to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” mode.
Additionally it’s harder to break others (and oneself) out of the propoganda soup without an extremely sharp distinction between the lies being spoonfed and the material reality. The material reality often ends up getting distorted as a result and the cycle continues.
Yes, because you were perfectly happy/capable of giving one before:
Which while it’s good in theory it appears the phrase “accidentally bootlicking” allows for others, including a certain ‘argumentative gremlin’, to perceive that as meaning “so long as it doesn’t contradict my existing worldview”.
Having a stronger/more rigorous definition would help you with communicating your ideas, allow you to self-check for dissonances and help me understand if there’s anything of actual substance here.
So what’s your definition?