You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'd say the truth or facts, to the extent we can determine them, simply are. Facts or truth can be used ideologically, for example withholding one fact in favor of another to prove the validity of an ideology.

Vaccines are a great example. Quality of vaccines are supposed to be determined entirely from science, and therefore not ideology in the usual sense. But, is that what we see happening? I see pro-vaccine ideological groups who allows no criticism whatsoever no matter how factual; and I see anti-vaccination ideological groups who think vaccines are entirely ineffective or always the result of some kind of population control.

In between those extreme ideological groups are those who criticize vaccines where appropriate -- looking at the specific science and studies of each individual vaccine or combination. Which brings me right back to the original question.

If someone is against all vaccines and presents only unfavorable information, and includes in that information some details that are plainly false, and another person responds by pointing out where the first person's claims are false, we can safely say the first person is an ideologue, but we don't really know about the second person. The opposite scenario is also true -- where someone puts up only favorable vaccine information and includes some false information and the second person criticizes the claims.

Now, if both people are putting up false information, probably both are ideologues.

So, it's a tough question. We don't necessarily know. I'm not saying you are wrong at all. I am simply offering up perspective. The problem is in the ambiguity or perhaps the overly broad definition of the word.

BTW, welcome to Voat! :D

0
1

[–] Virtus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Does that mean being an ideologue is inherently false... or not based 100% on fact?

0
1

[–] flyawayhigh [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

To me, it just means that an ideologue as I see it is someone who only sees one side of an issue despite the existence of opposing information. While the definition appears more expansive, it would lump the people who look at the pieces more carefully in with those who always see only one side. In this sense, the word ideologue has no useful meaning. As a result of what you said, I think I'll just avoid the word from now on!

If you feel like it, here's the introductions verse. https://voat.co/v/introductions