I hadn't heard that saying.

Many people seek being outraged. Many people seek to have awareness of truth. Many people seek getting help for problems. These are not mutually exclusive.

Just because someone fakes an incident of racism doesn't mean racism isn't still commonplace.

In various forms, with various levels of harm, and with various levels of evidence available.

(Example of low evidence: a paper trail isn't left when a black person doesn't get a job for "culture fit" gut feel reasons.)

Also, faked evidence can be done for a variety of reasons, including by someone who intends for the faking to be discovered, with the goal of discrediting the position that the fake initially seemed to support.

(Famous alleged example, in second paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy#... )

▲

self_awareness 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Did you just justify generating racist videos as a good thing?

▲

nkmnz 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Is a video documenting racist behavior a racist or an anti-racist video? Is faking a video documenting racist behavior (that never happened) a racist or an anti-racist video? Is the act of faking a video documenting racist behavior (that never happened) or anti-racist behavior?

	▲	garretraziel 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It doesn’t have to be either for it to be morally bad.

▲

mxkopy 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Think they did the exact opposite

> Also, faked evidence can be done for a variety of reasons, including by someone who intends for the faking to be discovered

▲

self_awareness 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Well yes, that's what he wrote, but that's like saying: stealing can be done for variety of reasons, including by someone who intends the theft to be discovered? Killing can be done for variety of reasons, including by someone who intends the killing to be discovered?

I read it as "producing racist videos can sometimes be used in good faith"?

▲

Nevermark an hour ago | parent | next [-]

There is significant differences between how the information world and the physical world operate.

Creating all kinds of meta-levels of falsity is a real thing, with multiple lines of objective (if nefarious) motivation, in the information arena.

But even physical crimes can have meta information purposes. Putin for instance is fond of instigating crimes in a way that his fingerprints will inevitably be found, because that is an effective form of intimidation and power projection.

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

mxkopy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they’re just saying we should interpret this video in a way that’s consistent with known historical facts. On one hand, it’s not depicting events that are strictly untrue, so we shouldn’t discredit it. On the other hand, since the video itself is literally fake, when we discredit it we shouldn’t accidentally also discredit the events it’s depicting.

	▲	self_awareness 30 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Are you saying that if there is 1 instance of a true event, then fake videos done in a similar way as this true event is rational and needed?

▲

thinkingemote an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How about this question: Can generating an anti-racist video be justified as a good thing?

I think many here would say "yes!" to this question, so can saying "no" be justified by an anti-racist?

Generally I prefer questions that do not lead to thoughts being terminated. Seek to keep a discussion not stop it.

On the subject of this thread, these questions are quite old and are related to propaganda: is it okay to use propaganda if we are the Good Guys, if, by doing so, it weakens our people to be more susceptible to propaganda from the Bad Guys. Every single one of our nations and governments think yes, it's good to use propaganda.

Because that's explicitly what happened during the rise of Nazi Germany; the USA had an official national programme of propaganda awareness and manipulation resistance which had to be shut down because the country needed to use propaganda on their own citizens and the enemy during WW2.

So back to the first question, its not the content (whether it's racist or not) it's the effect: would producing fake content reach a desired policy goal?

Philosophically it's truth vs lie, can we lie to do good? Theologically in the majority of religions, this has been answered: lying can never do good.