M
understand so many times until that lie is believed, it is an old practice with which consciences have been manipulated throughout history. People lie systematically with the desire that the appropriate falsehood become reality.
It is easy to believe what those in the same environment believe. Whoever does it is accepted and from there is integrated, in a gregarious way, into a group with which the more identification there is, the greater the chances of appearing. Dissenting in a trusted group implies a series of social challenges, which, although in their exercise they can offer great satisfaction – among them dignity -, it implies entering into debate, defending with arguments and convincing not only the interlocutor, but also the witnesses of the dispute, all members of a social organization whose foundations are based on common beliefs, prejudices, tastes and values; Questioning the above can result in social suicide.
The confrontation, better yet, occurs against the group perceived as antagonistic and with the support of the related group in an argumentative battle characterized by insults, attacks and lies when the argument lacks support. To support a fallacy, conspiracy theories are interwoven that seek to be strengthened with elements that generate a perception of validity and credibility in public opinion, how?: if the issuer of the information is trustworthy, the lie is easier to sell as TRUE.
Giving a connotation of truth to a desire just because that is what it is, something that is desired, is as simple as believing a lie that is convenient to avoid recognizing a truth that is uncomfortable. For this reason the aunts and uncles chats
They are as ominous as they are absurd despite the fact that – in general – the atrocities they share do not necessarily bring, beyond their origin, bad intentions on the part of the uncles. They were mocked because their rejections are known by the inventor of the hoax who sends it, precisely, to an audience susceptible to believing that the Mayan Train is going to change the color of the sea, that private property will be abolished or that The dollar is going to go to 40 pesos. Guys take that lie as truth because it fuels irrational hatred. Frightened, they alert those they can while revalidating their repulsion.
Just like the chat aunts
two reporters fell into the swamp of deception, only they published it, not in the chat, but, last Sunday, in the prestigious American newspaper The New York Timeswithout this meaning that the newspaper has lent itself to publishing a hoax. Everything seems to indicate that the NYT trusted its reporters – as it stated yesterday in its pages – who, in turn, trusted a source that fooled them, the newspaper and thousands of readers through a report that tells how in Culiacán, Sinaloa , alleged members of an organized crime group they cook fentanyl.
The method that the report documents during the process of cook does not correspond to what the production of this drug requires, nor do the security measures that the cooks
applied to avoid poisoning when they actually produce fentanyl, something that, evidently, the reporters were almost as unaware of as the alleged cooks that they interviewed. They told them this is how it is done
they trusted their source. They teased them, they saw their tourist faces.
The assumptions cooks They covered their faces to avoid being identified, something they could have achieved in public opinion or even with authorities, but if they really they will cook fentanyl would have bosses, and even with their faces covered, their bosses would know who they are. If they agreed to participate in the report, and really worked for a criminal group, their bosses would have had to have authorized it. Would they have authorized it?
Not very credible since it would mean a risk for its operation, especially given the current situation in Sinaloa as part of the National Security Strategy which, in the last three months, has reported important arrests of generators of violence and historical seizures, among them the largest fentanyl ever recorded.
Two reporters trusted a source that – more than journalistic – was wishful thinking. He NYT He trusted his reporters and thousands of readers in the newspaper. The report has been questioned with arguments from specialists, there are scientific elements that deny it. Even so, and as has happened with several montages, a sector of the population believes in it, and will continue to do so not with critical judgment, but with fervent desire, because if it were true it would suit their interests, and it is easier for them to believe a lie. that benefits them from a truth that makes them uncomfortable.
