[leeleelee]

People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths. For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.

That's just how some (probably a lot of) people are. When some people encounter something that challenges your pre-existing beliefs, it's easier to just ignore it and stay in your bubble of comfort.

And that mindset, IMO, is not an easy thing to fix.

[empath75]

I'm a liberal who voted for Hillary Clinton, despite basically loathing everything the Clintons stand for, and I read all the wikileaks emails.

That said, the torrent of pure bullshit based on those emails that was floating around on both sides was unbelievable. Either she was as pure as the driven snow or a she-demon, with nothing in between.

After a certain point, it wasn't even worth the effort to argue about it and I just started unfollowing half of my friends and family.

[mxfh]

The mail dump was basically a free for all corpus to plug any preconceived narrative up to hamfistedly made up conspiracy you could grep out of this.

The rest is more of the normal mode of operation of any human organization: "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Godfrey_Saxe

[blmlives]

>> People don't want to leave their bubbles, for the fear of uncovering uncomfortable truths

That may be the case. But in some cases, people dont want to leave their bubble because eating skittles in someone elses' bubble can mean "looking suspicious" and getting killed for it. That is why I only hang out with my own group and those who understand me, it is too risky out there. And Travon was not the only case, there are hundreds of cases like it which dont get publicized.

[makomk]

People don't even seem to care if their news turns out to be fake so long as it confirms their beliefs - the fact that it was believable means there must be some underlying truth to it in their eyes.

[serge2k]

> For example, I have friends who flat out refused to read any of the WikiLeaks e-mails that could potentially reveal something bad about Hillary, her campaign, the DNC, or any entity on the left.

That's because of things like the "spirit dinner" bullshit or an email chain discussing drug pricing being reduced to "HILLARY FOUGHT LOWER DRUG PRICES".

When every single email is apparently awful evil shit then it's hard to differentiate things that are actually bad.

Show me some emails that you actually believe should convince someone not to vote for Clinton. Especially over Trump. Keeping in mind that the screwing around in the Primary isn't enough, and that I'm willing to accept a candidate I don't particularly like all that much.