The development of modern technologies allows information about a particular event to be brought to the attention of people in a matter of minutes. That's just the "color" of this information depends on its perception and the consequences thereof. The very concept of fact is often replaced by opinion, which makes information not an objective reality, but only a point of view.
For example, the fact “blogger has been detained” from thousands of sources can be obtained in different interpretations. From "the lawlessness of the authorities fighting the conscience of the nation" to "the threat to the integrity of the state and the unity of the people has finally been eliminated." And it is the supporters of the positioning of the fact that face each other, trying to prove their innocence, which leaves the fact itself forgotten, and the stuffed bumps that interfere with sound thinking in the future. I do not take into account fakes, ducks and stuffing, originally created for a violent reaction in society. And only for her.
Thus, it is on the source of the information received that a person's reaction to a fact depends. Where to get information to be on the right side? From the media that has a censorship regulator, whose task is to cover the facts as objectively as possible (ideally)? Or from open sources, where everyone has the opportunity to describe an event or fact (again, an opinion)? Or not trust anyone, except the closest circle - they certainly won't lie?
Some questions. The answers are also points of view. Vicious circle.
And, in fact, for anyone who is forced to draw information from sources, there is a direct relationship: the source of information forms an opinion, opinion forms a list of sources of information. It's the same with the environment.
So, maybe the answer is a thorough analysis of the information received?
You collect information from all sources - both from those that you like, and from those from which you turn back. Then you try to systematize and, relying on knowledge and personal experience, you find the truth. Then you broadcast it and defend it.
Unfortunately, this also does not always work.
During the analysis, it will be the personal experience that is formed ... by the world around, which is utterly subjective (depending on perception), will be superimposed.
So, maybe the answer is in a mathematical approach?
2 + 2 always equals 4, no matter how hard you argue. So just assert the facts: "the politician has been re-elected"! Point. Opinion doesn't matter.
But the existing reality will show that then the opinion will be attributed to you by all the others who are involved in the discussion. This or that depends on those with whom you communicate. And then there will already be a need to convince opponents that you had nothing for or against.
So it turns out that, asserting the facts, you still have to argue. But you were right, speaking only the facts, but you still had to express your opinion and prove something. Checked - that's exactly what happens.
Or maybe not express an opinion.
And wait until time itself will dot the "e"? And the phrase "I told you so!" will be the best proof that you are right. Then you will write to everyone in the comments, and you will negate those who were mistaken.
That's just the meaning of your opinion then?
Yes история itself shows how many times the plus was turned into a minus, black - into white and vice versa. And what kind of camp will you end up in - right or not? Unknown.
It turns out that there is no objective truth? Is there only a person's idea of the surrounding reality, created by this same reality?
So how, then, to prove your case to a clearly deluded opponent?
But this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.