A post like this takes a considerable amount of courage to share on a site like this one, and predictably enough at least one of the usual suspects appears to have taken issue with this post.

During my time interacting on this site, on multiple occasions I've crossed paths with those who readily criticize sources that do not align with their own world views, even though said sources were rated high on accurate reporting from independent bias fact checkers. And of course with that sort of thing the personal insults and crude assumptions usually follow. You're right, often times people who act out like that are indeed emotionally-charged, and when emotions take over critical thinking goes out the window.

Again, true, but good luck trying to convince the individual who's hurling the insults around that they may be the ones who are experiencing the cognitive dissonance.

While some may finally find the motivation to look into matters deeper once presented with information from multiple sources, I think a majority of people would still remain comfortable in their own world views.

You said, "Insulting people who perpetuate erroneous information is not an effective way to change their minds. It only hardens their convictions." That is certainly true, and it's natural human instinct to resist those who get too confrontational in their commentary. A little diplomacy can go a long way, and won't mention any names here but that would apply to at least one of the individuals below who had commented on this post.

No shortage of name-calling on here, from both political sides, along with dehumanizing behaviors. Both political extremes support sources who purvey misleading or totally false information. These days, no shortage of those who desire to see the other side punished in some way for them promoting information that is perceived to have been false.

Ah yeah, can't keep track how many times I've been accused of trolling or being "creepy" for simply trying to contribute to either an existing conversation or trying to start a new convo thread. Reactionary indeed.

Whilst a good portion of my own views are at odds with the progressive worldview, by and large I do not think those who identify as progressive are terrible people, as most of them are just trying to think up ways to help improve living conditions in our society. Likewise, I'm also at odds with the socially conservative (aka, alt right) think tanks, but also believe they are mostly just average people who want to help improve living conditions too, it's just that they have different ideas and methods of approaching the situations is all. I'd like to believe that both extremes mean well, and I may very well be incorrect about that conclusion.

I've long maintained that progressive and liberal are two different things, with the former being more or less a set of political agendas and the latter being a way of life (and political a bit too) and that of which civilized society should strive to be like. When I observe the progressive types shouting down others whom they may disagree with and go through great lengths to try to cancel out dissenting voices, for the life of me I cannot figure out how that sort of approach is liberal (a good number of progressives also refer to themselves as liberal), and if anything that reminds me of how the far-right reactionary types treat others whom they disagree with. In the end, those who are open-minded will take into consideration the point you tried to make in this post, while those who are dead set in their ways will deflect to other talking points and ultimately resist your advice. A good and much needed post for on here.

For all I know, google maps is the most popular place for a person to get their world view. I am guessing people upgrading to operating systems that use Google maps it is quit a change over if they had been using older, antiquated systems.

I don't think you are on about cognitive dissonance at all. I think you are using this euphemism to camouflage your real well known hang up: that people who strongly reject religion in part because of the total lack of real evidence are somehow arrogant and can't see or admit the 'benefits' of religion, and worse, secretly think this religious stuff might be good, but can't admit it so they really suffer from a kind of cognitive dissonance. Seriously? This is your own projection, or, as the hippies might say, it's your trip man.

While you gestate on all this distraction, I spend my time worrying about the growth of religious fascism in the world, the increasing alliance between religious authoritarianism, anti- modernism, and oligarchic anti- democracy, and how this is the major struggle going on in the world today.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to sit around and think, ' oh gee, religion might really be good -- oh look, my brain is all discordant now.'

being convinced you are right can also be a result of being right.

I've come up against that many times as one will when being female in a male dominated job. I'd do my job and mostly keep my head down, one gets use to figuring ways around without actually having to have a discussion.
And then there's dealing with my twin . . . when someone has a busted bullshit meter it really is hard to have a discussion.

This is, in fact, why I do not join a lot of discussions here.

I was raised in the southern bible-belt, with all of its cultural racism and conservatism. In changing by world view during my 20s, I did not find it terrifying. Instead, I found it liberating.

I'm guilty as hell. I'll be the first one to tell people to go fuck themselves, so call me a cognitive dissonant if you like. I don't have time for polite discourse with bigots, ultra right wingnuts or religious fanatics. Especially random strangers on Twitter. People I know whom I otherwise like, I just don't engage with them at all in religion or politics. I stick to the weather or sports. Unless they're Cowboys fans in which case I tell them to go fuck themselves to their face.

if bad information is being spread. information which can hurt folks if they subscribe to it, why is an attack the source inappropriate? it may well be that the information is designed specifically to deceive and portray itself or some person etc. a false reality. i believe tempered civil reaction is not the only appropriate response to some stimuli. trying to talk a snake out of biting you, or voting for wagon wheel jawed polititans begs for the kind of response thier supporters understand.

A well written piece and you have said it better than my attempt below.

The problem with belief, any belief, is the believer may have invested years in seeking reinforcement of his or her belief and it has come to form a large part of his or her identity. Naturally, when a belief is perceived to be under attack the believer imagines/feels that he or she is being attacked, therefore, any rational discussion is rarely possible as emotions cloud reason.

Yes That is why I love Skado so much, to have an almost perfect example of all those things at first hand for study is almost too good to be true. I do hope this is not a farewell message, for I am a long way from being bored.

I try that but people perceive an insult where none was made. This happens in text conversations, where my statement remains on page and quite obviously holds no name calling, but I'm told that I did. Sometimes it's about some tone that can't actually come from me through text. Tone is something that can only be perceived by the listener. In text that tone is whatever the reader thinks it should be and confirms their hurt fee-fee's. That is bullshit which I have zero time for.