My name is Eli Hainsworth, and about a week ago, I found myself doing something I never thought that I would do. I found myself defending 20% of Trump Supporters:
Most people wouldn't bother to read very far into the article, because they already have what they want. But as I read deeper, I noticed something:
The survey was designed to bring the person taking it to agree with the fact that a President overstepping his authority was wrong. This is a statement almost everyone would reasonably agree with. However, the survey points out that the Emancipation Proclamation was such a call. The survey was designed to measure how much people were willing to betray a claim they had just espoused, and Trump supporters actually proved that they stuck to their guns more than any other group.
But we got this:
Although usually this advent of a misbehaving headline hiding a completely different article is harmless, sometimes the misrepresentation of info can have disastrous results. We have a nation of people who read page one and then put the newspaper down forever:
The anti-vaccine movement is a good example:
Although there was only one, now-outdated study declaring the false link, articles with large and terrifying headlines such as "What's being injected into YOUR children?" keep the idea alive. Despite the hype, the evidence is scant.
Why won't such ideas die? Ideas can wither while young, but, like trees, the winds that may knock them down also build resistance. Ideas that are often challenged but stubbornly held onto create deep roots.
The solution to getting rid of bad information is giving it a short lifespan. Ghandi said "Truth alone will endure, the rest will be swept away by the tide of time.
Our job is to keep the river clean. The best way to do that is to simply stop talking about bad ideas and untruths. Without an audience, these ideas die.