When your main point is about determining the validity of information - the specifics are relevant. Specific examples give some ground work to build up priors around accuracy beyond just themselves too.
This doesn't excuse CRT related nonsense which should be similarly thrown out, but it doesn't validate Trump support nonsense either. The specifics matter because otherwise it's just tribal politicking.
The examples you used are not subjective stances - it's possible to learn what the truth is if you're trying to understand it (and aren't just driven by motivated reasoning to defend your specific tribe).
>This doesn't excuse CRT related nonsense which should be similarly thrown out, but it doesn't validate Trump support nonsense either.
And again since you're still avoiding the main issue with defining what exactly "disinformation" is... who gets to decide this and what criteria makes it disinformation is?
A large portion of the population doesn't think CRT is disinformation at all so you don't get to just decide to throw it out. A lot of schools are treating it and aspects of transgenderism as fact. Thinking any of this 'digital literacy' will be based on proven facts is pure ignorance.
This doesn't excuse CRT related nonsense which should be similarly thrown out, but it doesn't validate Trump support nonsense either. The specifics matter because otherwise it's just tribal politicking.
The examples you used are not subjective stances - it's possible to learn what the truth is if you're trying to understand it (and aren't just driven by motivated reasoning to defend your specific tribe).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom...