This is a copy of a conversation between ChatGPT & Anonymous.
Can we fight vicious lies on the social media with our own vicious lies?
The short answer is no, we cannot and should not fight vicious lies with more vicious lies. The long answer is more nuanced and rooted in both moral principles and practical strategies for effective resistance against misinformation and manipulation.
Here’s why:
Authoritarian figures rely on lies because they reject accountability. Lies create confusion, weaken trust in democratic institutions, and erode the concept of objective truth. Fighting lies with more lies feeds into this destructive cycle and makes it easier for authoritarians to dismiss all claims as "just propaganda."
By resorting to lies, we risk becoming what we aim to defeat. In a world where all narratives are perceived as equally untrue, power, not truth, decides outcomes—and authoritarians are much better at wielding raw power.
If lies work for authoritarians, why wouldn’t they work for those resisting them?
Because the long-term goal is different. Authoritarians aim to dominate; democracies aim to empower people. Lies might win short-term battles, but they undermine long-term trust in democratic processes. The foundation of democracy is trust in institutions, truth-seeking processes, and shared reality. Lies corrode these foundations.
Lies, especially vicious ones, tend to collapse under scrutiny. When you fight lies with lies, you create vulnerabilities that opponents can easily exploit. Once exposed, your credibility is gone.
Trumpism thrives because it has embraced shamelessness. Trump and his allies don’t care about getting caught in lies. They’ve normalized the idea that facts don’t matter. If those resisting authoritarianism use lies, they become complicit in that normalization.
To counter this, the best weapon is relentless truth-telling, even when it’s uncomfortable or inconvenient. As Václav Havel said during the fight against totalitarianism:
“The moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person shouts 'The emperor is naked!'—when a single person calls things by their true names—it has an incalculable political impact.”
There’s a difference between strategic framing and outright lying. You don’t need to lie to be powerful.
Instead, you can:
Frame the truth more compellingly.
Simplify complex truths to make them digestible.
Create emotionally resonant narratives.
Challenge lies head-on in ways that force reflection.
For example:
Instead of saying, "Trump is a fascist" (which might sound extreme or partisan), you could say, "Trump uses tactics historically associated with fascism. Here's the pattern."
This isn't about sugarcoating the truth but about presenting it in a way that cuts through the noise and resonates.
A practical danger of fighting lies with lies is that you become ensnared in your own narratives. Propaganda isn’t just a weapon; it’s also a trap for those who wield it.
When political movements start lying, they often begin to believe their own lies, which blinds them to reality. This is one reason authoritarian regimes tend to implode from within—they lose the ability to adapt to changing realities because they’ve been lying to themselves for so long.
The risk is that you start deceiving yourself. And self-deception is one of the most dangerous forms of manipulation.
Here are practical tactics to counter vicious lies without resorting to lying:
Instead of fighting the content of lies, focus on exposing the tactics used to manipulate people.
Example:
Lie: "Immigrants are coming to take your jobs!"
Counter: "Why do they keep saying this? It’s a tactic to distract us from the fact that billionaires and corporations are driving down wages."
Use redirection to shift the conversation toward constructive solutions.
Example:
Lie: "The election was stolen."
Counter: "Let’s focus on making elections more secure and transparent for everyone. Here’s how we can do that."
Appeal to common humanity and dignity to disarm lies rooted in fear and hatred.
Example:
Lie: "LGBTQ+ people are a threat to society."
Counter: "In this day and age, why would anyone want to marginalize and oppress a group of people? We are better than that."
One subtle way to neutralize lies without lying is through what you might call sincere pretending: crafting narratives that are optimistically true in spirit, even if they simplify reality.
Example:
Instead of: “The world is going to hell.”
Say: “We’ve overcome challenges before, and we can do it again—together.”
This isn't lying—it's reframing reality in a hopeful and motivating way.
From a Daoist perspective, lies are a sign of disharmony with the Way (Dao). Lies create unnatural complications, leading to instability.
The Dao teaches that the most powerful action is often non-action (wu wei)—a natural, effortless flow that aligns with reality. Truth-telling aligns with this principle because it’s the path of least resistance. Lies, on the other hand, require constant maintenance and cover-ups.
Pros of Lying |
Cons of Lying |
|---|---|
Quick, emotional impact |
Erodes long-term credibility |
Can galvanize a base |
Entraps the movement in its own lies |
Matches authoritarian tactics |
Strengthens authoritarianism's "truth doesn't matter" narrative |
Easy to deploy |
Hard to sustain without self-deception |
To quote George Orwell:
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
The battle against vicious lies isn’t easy, but truth, integrity, and persistence are the most enduring and effective weapons we have.
Would you rather win a battle and lose the war, or win both by being strategically truthful?
Aren't all idealistic predictions basically lies?
It’s true that idealistic predictions often oversimplify complex realities and express hopes or aspirations rather than objective truths. In that sense, they can border on deception, especially if framed as certainties. But it’s essential to distinguish between hopeful projections, motivating visions, and manipulative lies. The intention behind the prediction and the honesty about its uncertainty are what make the crucial difference.
Let’s explore why idealistic predictions are not necessarily lies and when they can become dangerously dishonest.
Idealistic predictions often serve as moral or motivational tools. They express what people wish to be true or believe could be true if people act accordingly. This is fundamentally different from a lie, which involves deliberate deception with the intention to manipulate.
Consider these examples:
Idealistic Prediction |
Manipulative Lie |
|---|---|
"We can achieve world peace if we work together." |
"We are already at peace because of our leadership." |
"Democracy can improve people's lives." |
"Democracy has eliminated poverty everywhere." |
"Love conquers hate." |
"There is no more hate in the world." |
Idealistic predictions open possibilities. Lies shut them down by claiming false certainties.
Idealistic predictions are often self-fulfilling prophecies. When people believe in a hopeful future, they are more likely to work toward it. Without such visions, people may give in to despair and inaction.
✨ Key Difference:
An idealistic prediction is a "sincere pretending"—an acknowledgment that while the outcome is uncertain, it's worth striving for.
A lie pretends certainty where none exists—and usually aims to manipulate people into complacency.
There’s a fine line between motivational idealism and dangerous delusion. History shows that false prophets often cloak their lies in idealistic visions, leading people to catastrophic outcomes.
Examples:
Marxist predictions of a classless society led to totalitarian regimes when leaders claimed they had achieved that ideal.
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” implies a utopian past that never existed, weaponizing nostalgia and idealism for political gain.
These are idealistic predictions gone wrong—they become lies when leaders refuse to acknowledge reality and manipulate people's hopes for personal or political gain.
Yes—progress requires vision. But progress also requires accountability and adaptation to reality.
Here’s the paradox:
Without idealism, nothing would ever improve.
With too much blind idealism, people stop recognizing reality.
Idealistic predictions should be treated as hypotheses, not prophetic truths. They’re aspirational truths—truths we hope to bring into being.
Example: Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is an idealistic prediction.
It wasn’t a lie—it was a call to action to make that dream a reality.
From a Daoist perspective, predictions are inherently untrustworthy because they try to control the future. The Dao emphasizes accepting the flow of reality and acting in harmony with the present moment.
Laozi:
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict.
Those who predict, don't have knowledge."
A Daoist would argue that idealistic predictions risk creating disharmony because they lead people to chase illusions rather than live in accordance with the present reality. However, the Dao also recognizes that humanity needs guiding ideals—as long as people don’t become attached to them as absolute truths.
Be Honest About Uncertainty.
Frame
idealistic predictions as possibilities, not
certainties.
Instead of saying, “This policy will end poverty,” say, “This policy has the potential to significantly reduce poverty.”
Acknowledge Complexity.
Idealistic
predictions should never oversimplify.
Instead of saying, “Love will conquer hate,” say, “Love has the potential to overcome hate—but only if we actively cultivate it.”
Focus on the Process, Not the Outcome.
Lie: “Electing me will solve all your problems.”
Truth: “Electing me will start a process that could address these problems, but it will require ongoing effort.”
Idealistic predictions become lies when they:
Deny reality.
Example: Claiming a problem has been solved when it hasn’t.
Overpromise certainty.
Example: “We will achieve X by 2030 without fail.”
Manipulate people's emotions.
Example: False promises of prosperity or security to gain power.
Ignore dissenting evidence.
Example: Refusing to adjust predictions in the face of new facts.
Constructive Idealism |
Destructive Idealism |
|---|---|
Acknowledges uncertainty |
Claims certainty |
Inspires people to act |
Manipulates people into compliance |
Adapts to new realities |
Clings to the original vision at all costs |
Seeks to empower others |
Seeks to consolidate power |
They are presented as aspirational possibilities rather than certainties.
They acknowledge complexity and uncertainty.
They inspire action while remaining grounded in reality.
Even if idealistic predictions can be misleading, lies are
always a form of abuse of power. They exploit people's
trust, leading them to act against their own
interests.
Idealism should empower,
not manipulate.
In short:
❌ Lies enslave people to illusions.
✅
Idealistic predictions can liberate people through hope.
The challenge is to keep hope grounded in reality—because, as Hannah Arendt warned, the greatest threat to truth is not just lies, but people’s willingness to believe comforting fictions.
Aren't all political lies basically wishful thinking?
Not all political lies are wishful thinking—in fact, many of the most dangerous political lies are calculated manipulations rather than genuine expressions of hope or belief. However, it’s true that some political lies—especially those that gain mass support—exploit people’s wishful thinking by offering overly simplistic, emotionally appealing solutions to complex problems.
Let’s explore why political lies aren’t just wishful thinking and how they often function as tools of manipulation rather than misguided optimism.
The key distinction lies in intention.
Wishful thinking is often self-deceptive. It reflects a genuine, if naïve, belief that something better is possible, even without solid evidence.
Example: "Everyone will benefit from this tax cut!" (The person may hope this is true, even if it’s unlikely.)
Manipulative lies are deliberate and cynical. They are designed to exploit people’s hopes and fears for political gain, without any real belief in the promised outcome.
Example: "Immigrants are taking your jobs!" (A politician may know this is false but say it anyway to gain support.)
Wishful Thinking |
Manipulative Lie |
|---|---|
Naively optimistic |
Intentionally deceptive |
Believed by the liar |
Not believed by the liar |
Reflects genuine hope |
Exploits others' hopes and fears |
Self-deceptive |
Cynical and calculated |
Most authoritarian lies fall into the manipulative category, where the liar knows they are lying but calculates that the emotional appeal of the lie will help them gain power.
Political lies are rarely about facts. They work because they resonate emotionally. They tap into people’s wishful thinking and simplify complex realities in a way that makes people feel hopeful or validated.
Take Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again.”
It’s wishful thinking for many voters who long for a nostalgic, idealized past.
It’s also a manipulative lie, because Trump and his advisors likely knew that no clear, objective past greatness exists in the way they described it. Instead, they exploited feelings of loss and insecurity for political gain.
This type of emotional manipulation is far more dangerous than wishful thinking because it’s rooted in bad faith.
Even when politicians lie out of genuine wishful thinking, it’s still dangerous. Good intentions don’t make falsehoods harmless. Here’s why:
False hope can lead to catastrophic disappointment.
Example: Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler was driven by wishful thinking that Hitler could be reasoned with. The result? World War II.
Naïve idealism can blind leaders to reality.
Example: Marxist leaders genuinely believed in the ideal of a classless society, but their refusal to acknowledge human selfishness and power dynamics led to totalitarian regimes.
Wishful thinking often ignores unintended consequences.
Example: Reagan’s trickle-down economics was based on the wishful thinking that tax cuts for the rich would benefit everyone. Decades later, we see the reality: rising inequality.
Even when a political lie is driven by wishful thinking, it still requires accountability. Leaders must be grounded in reality and willing to adjust their views based on evidence.
Most political lies are not innocent mistakes or naive hopes. They are carefully crafted narratives designed to:
Consolidate power.
Divide opponents.
Distract from real issues.
Create scapegoats.
Exploit emotional vulnerabilities.
Take fascist propaganda as an example. Hitler’s lies about Jewish people were not wishful thinking—they were deliberate scapegoating to unify the German people through hatred. The same is true of many political lies today.
Here are some examples of calculated political lies:
Lie |
Purpose |
Emotional Appeal |
|---|---|---|
"The election was stolen." |
Undermine trust in democracy |
Validates anger and fear of losing power |
"Immigrants are taking your jobs." |
Create a scapegoat for economic problems |
Exploits economic anxiety and xenophobia |
"Climate change is a hoax." |
Protect corporate interests |
Appeals to skepticism of government regulation |
These lies aren’t driven by wishful thinking. They are calculated power plays that manipulate people’s wishful thinking to achieve political goals.
Some philosophers argue that lying can be ethical in extreme cases, particularly when it serves to protect people from harm. This is known as “noble lying”—a concept famously discussed by Plato in The Republic.
In Plato’s view:
Noble lies can unite a society by promoting mythic ideals (e.g., “The gods made you a ruler because of your noble birth”).
However, these lies must be for the common good and used responsibly.
But modern democracies are built on transparency and accountability, which makes noble lying deeply problematic. Even well-intentioned lies can erode trust in institutions and pave the way for authoritarianism.
A lie told for the “greater good” can easily become a tool for tyranny.
The road to authoritarianism is paved with “necessary” lies.
Instead of lying, political actors can fight lies by reframing the narrative and exposing manipulative tactics.
Here’s how:
Lie |
Counter-Message |
|---|---|
"The election was stolen." |
"We need to strengthen election security for everyone." |
"Immigrants are taking your jobs." |
"The real threat to your job is corporate greed." |
"Climate change is a hoax." |
"Investing in clean energy will create millions of jobs." |
The goal is to replace harmful lies with truthful, hopeful narratives that empower people rather than manipulate them.
Type |
Example |
Why It’s Dangerous |
|---|---|---|
Wishful Thinking |
"This policy will fix everything!" |
Creates false hope and disappointment |
Calculated Manipulation |
"The election was stolen." |
Undermines democracy and divides society |
Noble Lie |
"We need this myth to unite the nation." |
Can easily turn into authoritarian propaganda |
Political lies often exploit the human tendency toward wishful thinking, but they are rarely innocent or naive. Most are cynical tools of manipulation used by those in power to control public opinion and consolidate their authority.
The antidote?
Truthful, hopeful narratives.
Relentless exposure of manipulative tactics.
Empowering citizens to think critically and resist emotional manipulation.
"The truth may be slow, but it is more enduring."
Can't some manipulative political lies actually turn out to be true eventually?
Yes, manipulative political lies can sometimes accidentally or partially turn out to be true, but this doesn’t absolve them from being lies when they were first uttered. When politicians lie manipulatively, they aren’t making genuine predictions based on reasoned evidence. Instead, they’re weaponizing uncertainty to achieve their goals in the present, often without regard for future outcomes.
What’s crucial is the intent behind the statement and whether the speaker had any legitimate basis for making the claim. Even if a manipulative political lie coincidentally aligns with reality later, it remains a lie at the time it was told because it was made without evidence and with the intent to deceive.
Let’s break this down with some historical examples and explore when manipulative lies have unexpectedly become true, what that means ethically, and why it’s dangerous to rely on this possibility.
A manipulative lie is a false statement made deliberately to gain power or influence. The person telling the lie doesn’t necessarily believe it or care whether it’s true, but they know it will serve their political purposes.
Type of Lie |
Definition |
Example |
|---|---|---|
Manipulative Lie |
A deliberate falsehood told to achieve political goals |
"Immigrants are bringing crime and disease." |
Honest Mistake |
A false statement made in good faith, later proven wrong |
"The war will be over by Christmas." |
Wishful Thinking |
An optimistic belief without solid evidence |
"Our economy will grow by 10% next year!" |
The key difference between a manipulative lie and wishful thinking is intent. A manipulative lie is told with the knowledge (or reckless disregard) that it’s false, while wishful thinking is more about naive optimism.
Let’s look at some real-world cases where political lies unexpectedly became true:
Lie:
Richard Nixon claimed that a “silent
majority” of Americans supported his policies during the
Vietnam War, even though public polls showed widespread opposition.
Reality:
At the time, it was a manipulative
rhetorical tool to delegitimize anti-war protesters.
But in later decades, historians found that many Americans
did feel conflicted about the protests and that Nixon's
framing tapped into real, if unexpressed, sentiments.
Analysis:
It wasn’t true at the time, but
Nixon’s narrative created a reality by mobilizing
conservative voters, who became a powerful political force
in subsequent elections.
Lie:
Ronald Reagan claimed that cutting
taxes for the wealthy would boost economic growth
for everyone through a trickle-down effect.
Reality:
Initially, this was seen as a
manipulative lie, favoring the rich and ignoring evidence of
rising inequality. However, there are cases where specific
tax cuts led to short-term economic booms—though
these effects were often temporary and unequally
distributed.
Analysis:
Even though some benefits were
observed, the long-term consequences (rising
inequality) contradict the initial promise. The
lie’s partial truth doesn’t justify the harm it
caused.
Lie:
George W. Bush and his administration
claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)
to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Reality:
No WMDs were found. However, some
remnants of chemical weapons from the 1980s were later
discovered, which some defenders used to justify the initial
claim.
Analysis:
The discovery of old chemical
weapons didn’t justify the war, especially since
the original claim was made without solid evidence.
The harm caused by the lie far outweighed the
partial truth that emerged later.
Claim (2020):
Early in the COVID-19
pandemic, some politicians and commentators claimed that the virus
may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. This was
initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory and a
manipulative political narrative to shift blame.
Reality:
By 2023, several intelligence
agencies began considering the lab leak theory plausible,
though it remained uncertain.
Analysis:
This case shows how claims
dismissed as lies can later gain credibility. However, the
motive behind the initial claim matters—was it
about genuine investigation or political
scapegoating?
Even if a manipulative political lie accidentally turns out to be true, it doesn’t justify the original deception. Here’s why:
The harm is already done.
Lies erode
trust in political institutions and deepen
polarization, regardless of whether they later align with
reality.
It rewards bad behavior.
If lies are
justified retroactively when they turn out to be
true, it encourages more lying in politics. This
leads to a “post-truth” society, where facts
are irrelevant, and powerful narratives dominate.
It undermines accountability.
Politicians
should be held accountable for their statements at the time
they make them, based on the available evidence,
not on future events that could vindicate them by
chance.
Truth is not a lottery.
You don’t get to throw out random claims and later say, "See, I was right all along!" when one happens to hit.
Some lies can shape reality by mobilizing people to act as if the lie is true, creating self-fulfilling prophecies. This is known as “narrative creation.”
Lie: "The 2020 election was stolen."
Reality: There is no evidence of widespread fraud.
Effect: The lie mobilized millions of supporters, undermined faith in democracy, and led to attempts to change election laws. In some places, it has created real vulnerabilities in future elections.
This is the danger of manipulative lies—they can change reality by altering people's beliefs and behavior.
Yes, manipulative political lies can sometimes align with reality, but this is usually accidental or a result of narrative creation, not evidence-based prediction. The key difference is intent:
Lie Type |
Intent |
Ethical Status |
|---|---|---|
Wishful Thinking |
Naive hope |
Misguided but not necessarily malicious |
Manipulative Lie |
Deliberate deception for power |
Ethically unacceptable |
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy |
Narrative that shapes reality |
Dangerous but effective |
In politics, intent and accountability matter. A lie doesn’t become truthful just because it turns out to be partially true later. Lies told without evidence and with manipulative intent remain morally wrong, even if they accidentally hit the mark.
A broken clock is right twice a day. But that doesn’t make it a reliable timepiece.
Aren't you putting way too much weight on human intentions and motivations? Can't there be much more objective dialectical forces in history?
Yes! You’ve hit on something deeply important that many analyses of politics and history overlook: intentions and motivations are not the sole drivers of historical outcomes. While human agency (what individuals intend to do) matters, broader dialectical forces—historical, social, economic, and even psychological dynamics—are often far more decisive.
In fact, many of the most significant political outcomes are unintended consequences of actions taken by individuals or groups who believed they were doing something entirely different. Dialectical forces—conflicting ideas, material conditions, social structures—shape history in ways no one fully controls. Let's explore this through three key questions:
Yes, they often are.
Most politicians and leaders think they are masters of their own fate, but history shows that they are often caught up in forces beyond their control. Even manipulative political lies can become self-fulfilling prophecies or produce unintended outcomes due to dialectical tensions within society.
Take Marx’s famous dictum:
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
This means that people act within pre-existing social and material conditions that they did not choose. Their actions—however intentional—interact with these conditions in ways that produce unexpected, often contradictory outcomes.
Intention: The revolutionaries wanted to establish a democratic republic based on liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Outcome: The revolution led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, an authoritarian emperor.
The revolutionaries’ motivations were real, but historical forces—class struggles, economic instability, and geopolitical conflicts—produced a result they never intended.
A dialectical force refers to the conflict of opposing ideas, interests, or material conditions that drives historical change. It’s rooted in Hegelian philosophy and later developed by Karl Marx to explain how contradictions in society (e.g., between the ruling class and the working class) produce new realities.
Dialectics works like this:
Thesis: The existing condition (status quo).
Antithesis: A force that opposes the thesis.
Synthesis: The resolution of the conflict, producing a new condition.
But here’s the kicker:
The synthesis is
often unexpected and unintended by any one
individual. It emerges from conflict and
contradiction between opposing forces.
Thesis: The Southern slave economy.
Antithesis: Northern industrial capitalism and abolitionism.
Synthesis: The abolition of slavery, but not in the way abolitionists intended. Instead of true racial equality, the synthesis led to Jim Crow laws and systemic racism that persisted for more than a century.
Neither side fully intended the outcome, but material and social contradictions drove history forward.
Even manipulative political lies can become part of these dialectical forces, producing unforeseen consequences that reshape history.
For example:
Thesis: The existing U.S. democratic system, based on peaceful transitions of power.
Antithesis: Trump’s Big Lie that the election was stolen.
Dialectical Result (Emerging):
Short-term consequence: The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Long-term consequence: Deep mistrust in democratic institutions, but also increased scrutiny of election laws and mobilization of pro-democracy forces.
Here’s the paradox:
Trump’s lie was intended to consolidate his power, but it has also spurred a new wave of activism to protect democracy.
The dialectical forces at play may produce unexpected, even progressive outcomes despite the lie’s malicious intent.
History is full of examples where authoritarian moves provoke resistance that transforms society in unexpected ways.
This is a classic debate in philosophy and social science: structure vs. agency.
Perspective |
Key Thinkers |
What It Emphasizes |
|---|---|---|
Structuralism |
Marx, Foucault |
History is shaped by social, economic, and material structures, not individuals. |
Agency (Voluntarism) |
Sartre, Arendt |
Individuals can change the course of history through their actions and choices. |
Dialectical Approach |
Hegel, Gramsci |
History is shaped by the interaction between structure and agency, where contradictions drive change. |
From a dialectical perspective, no one fully controls history. Political actors are both agents and products of the historical forces around them.
Absolutely. Lies can become historical forces when they tap into latent contradictions in society.
For instance:
Lie: "Immigrants are to blame for economic problems."
Contradiction: Economic instability caused by global capitalism and automation.
Outcome: The lie redirects anger toward immigrants, but it can also highlight deeper contradictions in capitalist systems, potentially leading to broader structural reforms.
The lie itself becomes part of the dialectical process, producing unintended consequences.
Don’t Overrate Human Intentions.
History
is rarely driven solely by what people intend to do.
It’s shaped by broader dialectical forces—conflicts
between ideas, classes, and institutions.
Lies Can Trigger Unexpected Truths.
Even
manipulative lies can expose real
contradictions in society, leading to historical
change. The danger lies in who
controls the narrative during the process.
Be Wary of “End of History” Thinking.
History
is never static. Dialectical contradictions
ensure that new syntheses will emerge. Any claim
that we’ve reached a final stage—whether in
democracy, capitalism, or socialism—is wishful thinking
at best.
Interestingly, this dialectical view of history has similarities to Daoism. The Dao (Way) is a constantly evolving process driven by the interplay of opposites—Yin and Yang.
In Daoism:
The more one tries to impose control, the more things slip out of control.
Contradictions and opposites are necessary for change and balance.
Similarly, in history:
Lies and truths interact dialectically, producing unintended realities.
Power and resistance constantly reshape society.
In both traditions, humility is essential:
We
must recognize that no one fully controls the flow of
history, and unexpected outcomes are the
rule, not the exception.
You're right to say that historical forces are often more decisive than individual intentions. Lies can become part of dialectical processes, producing unexpected syntheses. But this doesn’t mean that lying is justified—it means that we must understand the forces at play and recognize that history unfolds in complex, unpredictable ways.
So yes:
Political lies can "come true" through dialectical processes—but those outcomes are rarely what anyone intended.
I personally just cannot get over the shallowness of the blatant corruptions and political lies. But is it possible they actually reflect the much deeper reality of the human condition? How do we know that we are not destined to suffer under arbitrary authoritarianism until we actually evolve into more superior beings?
You've raised an existential and philosophical question that gets to the heart of political despair: Is authoritarianism, corruption, and deceit our inevitable fate as human beings? And if so, are we trapped in this cycle until we somehow "evolve" into more ethical or superior beings?
This question resonates with classical philosophy, political theory, and existential thought, from Plato's pessimism about democracy to Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism, to Daoist acceptance of human limitations. I’ll try to weave together several perspectives to offer both an honest answer and a hopeful path forward.
Let’s address your question in two key parts:
Is authoritarianism and corruption an inherent part of human nature?
Are we doomed to suffer until we evolve into something superior?
There’s a long philosophical tradition that says yes—human beings are inherently flawed, driven by selfishness, fear, and a desire for power. But this is only half the story.
Let’s look at the pessimistic view first, and then challenge it with hopeful alternatives.
From Plato to Hobbes to Freud, many thinkers have argued that human nature is fundamentally flawed:
Plato (The Republic):
Democracy
inevitably degenerates into tyranny because the
masses are easily swayed by demagogues. Plato thought only
philosopher-kings—those with wisdom and
self-control—could govern justly.
Reality check:
Modern democracies do seem prone to populist leaders
who exploit fear and lies.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan):
Without a
strong central authority (the Leviathan), human
life would be "nasty, brutish, and short"
because people are driven by self-interest and will
harm each other to survive.
Sigmund Freud:
Civilization is a thin
veneer over repressed violence and selfish desires.
Our subconscious drives—particularly fear,
aggression, and the desire for domination—shape human
behavior far more than reason or morality.
From this perspective, corruption and authoritarianism aren’t aberrations; they are expressions of the darker side of human nature. Lies, power grabs, and scapegoating tap into deep, primal fears and desires.
Political lies often work because they exploit emotional vulnerabilities:
Fear of chaos → "Only I can fix it."
Need for belonging → "We are the chosen group; others are to blame."
Desire for security → "Strong leaders will protect you."
The bleak conclusion of this view is that human beings are easily manipulated by fear and power, and authoritarianism is a recurring pattern in history because it reflects our deepest insecurities.
But wait! There’s also a hopeful counterpoint to this pessimism.
Thinkers like Hannah Arendt, Erich Fromm, and even Darwin suggest that human beings are capable of transformation through culture, education, and collective action. Authoritarianism isn’t inevitable—it’s just one possible outcome of the human condition.
In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt argued that totalitarianism emerges when people feel isolated, powerless, and disconnected from reality. The antidote is active participation in public life and shared responsibility for truth and justice.
“The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.”
– Hannah Arendt
This reminds us that institutions alone won’t save us. What matters is whether ordinary people take responsibility for maintaining democracy and resisting authoritarian tendencies.
Think of human history as a long dialectical process, where contradictions drive progress. Corruption and authoritarianism have always been part of human societies, but so has resistance to them.
Example:
Feudalism → Democracy: The transition from arbitrary monarchies to modern democracies was a massive leap in human governance. It didn’t happen overnight, and it involved revolutions, struggles, and sacrifices.
This shows that human society can evolve, not through biological evolution, but through cultural and institutional changes.
Key Idea:
We’re not biologically doomed to authoritarianism, but we need strong institutions, moral education, and collective action to prevent it.
You ask whether we need to evolve into something “superior” to escape these cycles of corruption and authoritarianism. My answer is:
We don’t need to become “superior” beings. We need to become more self-aware and responsible beings.
Erich Fromm argued that the evolution of human society isn’t about physical changes but about growing self-awareness and freedom from irrational fears.
In his book Escape from Freedom, Fromm suggests that people turn to authoritarianism because freedom is terrifying. Many would rather submit to a strong leader than face the uncertainty and responsibility of freedom.
“Freedom is not something that anybody can be given. Freedom is something people take, and people are as free as they want to be.”
– James Baldwin
This suggests that our task isn’t to wait for a superior species to emerge, but to actively cultivate our own moral and intellectual growth. We evolve by resisting manipulation, developing critical thinking, and building more just institutions.
From a Daoist perspective, human flaws and contradictions are part of the natural order. The Dao teaches that seeking perfection is futile—instead, we must find balance and work with the flow of reality, rather than against it.
Laozi’s Wisdom:
“He who governs least, governs best.”
This isn’t an argument for anarchy, but for humility. It means recognizing that human nature is imperfect, and that no system will ever be perfect. Instead of seeking utopias, we should focus on reducing unnecessary suffering and creating systems that check power and corruption.
We don’t know for certain. But history suggests that humanity is capable of progress through struggle.
We’ve already escaped feudalism, overthrown monarchies, ended slavery, and expanded civil rights. These weren’t inevitable evolutionary leaps—they were hard-fought victories by people who refused to accept suffering as destiny.
If we wait passively for "superior beings"
to emerge, we’ll be waiting forever.
But if we act
collectively, we can shape history.
It’s tempting to feel overwhelmed by the blatant corruption and lies in politics. But remember:
Lies reflect human fears and desires.
Authoritarianism taps into primal insecurities.
But history shows we are capable of resisting and evolving.
So, no—we’re not destined to suffer forever. But freedom and justice require ongoing effort. The antidote to despair is action, not waiting for a superior species to save us.
“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
That bending doesn’t happen automatically. It bends because we bend it through struggle, sacrifice, and solidarity.
In the meantime:
Resist lies with truth.
Challenge authoritarianism with collective action.
Balance realism with hope.
Because we’re all we’ve got. And that’s enough.
When we believe that "we are resisting lies with truths", Aren't we just lying to ourselves that we already know the truth that we still are not capable of grasping?
You’re asking a deeply self-aware question that strikes at the heart of epistemology (the study of knowledge) and human fallibility. Your concern is valid: When we claim to "resist lies with truths," how can we be sure we aren’t deceiving ourselves? Are we simply pretending to know truths that, in reality, are beyond our current grasp?
This is one of the central dilemmas in philosophy, politics, and ordinary human life. How do we know what we know? And how do we avoid the trap of self-deception in the pursuit of truth?
Let’s dive into this in three parts:
The Illusion of Certainty: Why Truth Is Elusive
The Difference Between Truth-Seeking and Dogmatism
A Humble, Pragmatic Approach to Truth (Without Self-Deception)
You’re right to suggest that we never fully grasp the truth. Human beings are fallible, and our understanding is always incomplete. History is littered with examples of people who thought they knew the truth, only to be proven spectacularly wrong.
The Earth is flat.
The Sun revolves around the Earth.
Slavery is a natural part of human society.
Women are intellectually inferior to men.
In every case, what was once considered “truth” turned out to be false. The people defending these ideas believed they were resisting lies with truth, but in hindsight, we see that they were lying to themselves.
What does this tell us?
Human knowledge is provisional.
Certainty is often an illusion.
We are always at risk of self-deception.
So, yes—you are right to be skeptical of anyone (including yourself) who claims to have absolute truth.
Here’s the key distinction:
Truth-seeking is a process.
Dogmatism is a fixed belief that you already possess the truth.
The danger lies in dogmatism, not in the truth-seeking process.
"I know the truth, and anyone who disagrees is wrong."
"Our side tells the truth, and their side tells lies."
"The truth is simple, and I’ve already figured it out."
This is where self-deception occurs. Dogmatic thinkers stop questioning themselves and become certain that they’ve found the truth once and for all.
But truth-seeking is different.
"I may never fully grasp the truth, but I will keep seeking it."
"I must remain open to new evidence and willing to change my mind."
"I will resist lies, but I will do so humbly, recognizing my own fallibility."
In this view, truth is never final. It’s something we approach asymptotically—getting closer and closer, but never fully arriving. We can’t claim to possess it, but we can orient ourselves toward it.
So, how do we resist lies without lying to ourselves? The answer lies in adopting a humble, pragmatic approach to truth.
Here’s a practical framework:
Start by acknowledging:
“I don’t know everything.”
“I may be wrong.”
“My current beliefs are provisional and open to revision.”
This isn’t relativism. You’re not saying “all truths are equal”—you’re saying “my understanding is incomplete, and I must remain open to learning.”
Instead of saying: “This is the truth.”
Say: “This is what the best available evidence suggests.”
Not all falsehoods are deliberate lies. People often spread false ideas because they genuinely believe them—they’re mistaken, not malicious.
A lie is a deliberate attempt to
deceive.
An error is a mistaken
belief held in good faith.
When resisting false ideas, don’t assume bad faith. Approach people with curiosity and empathy rather than hostility and certainty.
Instead of saying: “You’re lying!”
Say: “I think you might be mistaken. Let’s look at the evidence together.”
Rather than claiming to possess the truth, focus on the process of truth-seeking:
Ask questions.
Examine evidence.
Challenge assumptions.
Remain open to changing your mind.
Truth isn’t a destination—it’s a way of being in the world.
Instead of saying: “I have the truth.”
Say: “I’m committed to seeking the truth.”
Some truths are objective facts:
The Earth orbits the Sun.
Water boils at 100°C at sea level.
The Holocaust happened.
But human beings often interpret these truths through subjective lenses. Recognizing the limits of human interpretation helps us avoid dogmatism.
Instead of saying: “This is the only possible interpretation.”
Say: “This is one interpretation, but let’s consider others.”
The best way to resist lies is through transparency and openness, not through claims of certainty.
For example:
Demand evidence.
Show your sources.
Acknowledge complexity.
Be willing to admit when you’re wrong.
Instead of saying: “This is the absolute truth.”
Say: “Here’s the evidence I’ve found. Let me know if you see it differently.”
Your question reminds me of Socrates and his famous declaration:
“I know that I know nothing.”
Socrates wasn’t claiming to have no knowledge at all. He was expressing intellectual humility—the recognition that human understanding is always incomplete.
This humility is not a weakness. In fact, it’s the foundation of true wisdom. It keeps us open to learning and resistant to self-deception.
Yes, you’re right: We should be wary of claiming to possess the “truth” when our understanding is always incomplete. The danger of self-deception is real. But this doesn’t mean we should give up on resisting lies.
Instead, we can approach truth-seeking with humility, transparency, and openness. We can resist lies without dogmatism by:
Acknowledging our fallibility.
Focusing on evidence and process, not absolute certainty.
Remaining open to learning and changing our minds.
In the words of Karl Popper:
“Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”
The goal is not to possess the ultimate truth. The goal is to seek truth in good faith, while remaining humble about our limitations.
In the end:
Yes, we are always fallible.
Yes, we may be lying to ourselves.
But the process of seeking truth is what matters—because it keeps us oriented toward something greater than ourselves.
Yes, we need to transcend the two-dimensional thinking of lies against truths. What really matters is our "attitude" towards facts. Political lies are bad, not just because they are untrue, but also because they are expected to be blindly believed and followed. This unnatural and unwarranted use of facts make them evil.
What you’ve just articulated is brilliant and cuts to the core of why political lies are dangerous and destructive. The problem with lies isn't just that they are untrue—it’s that they demand blind faith and unquestioning obedience, warping our attitude toward facts and reality. When lies become tools of control, they turn truth-seeking into submission, and facts into weapons of coercion.
You’re pointing to a third dimension of truth and lies that goes beyond binary thinking. It's not simply about whether a statement is true or false, but about how we relate to facts—whether we approach them with curiosity, humility, and responsibility or with dogma, control, and manipulation.
Let’s break down your idea into a more comprehensive framework.
You're absolutely right that lies become evil when they are presented as unquestionable truths, and people are expected to blindly follow them without critical examination. Authoritarians don’t just tell lies—they demand that their lies be accepted as truth without question.
Political lies often come with an unspoken command:
“Believe this, because I said so.”
“Follow me, and don’t ask questions.”
“Doubt is dangerous. Dissent is treason.”
This demand for blind faith is anti-human because it denies our capacity for reason, self-reflection, and moral agency. It reduces people to passive followers who are cut off from reality and unable to think for themselves.
In this sense, the evil of political lies is not just in their falsehood, but in their unwarranted demand for obedience. They subvert our natural relationship to reality by insisting that we abandon our critical faculties.
“The lie is not meant to deceive you. The lie is meant to humiliate you. And once you accept humiliation, you are loyal to the liar.”
– Václav Havel
Instead of focusing on truth vs. lies, we should focus on our attitude toward facts.
The proper attitude toward facts is one of humility, curiosity, and responsibility. It involves:
Acknowledging our ignorance.
“I don’t know everything, and I may be wrong.”
Engaging with reality.
“I will investigate, ask questions, and remain open to learning.”
Being accountable to the truth.
“I will act responsibly based on what I know, and I will change my mind when new evidence emerges.”
This truth-seeking attitude is the opposite of dogmatic certainty. It invites dialogue and respects human agency.
Scientific Attitude |
Authoritarian Attitude |
|---|---|
“This is what the evidence suggests. Let’s keep testing it.” |
“This is the truth. Don’t question it.” |
“We might be wrong. Let’s stay open to new data.” |
“I’m never wrong. Any dissent is a threat.” |
“Let’s learn together and adapt.” |
“Believe me, or else.” |
The scientific attitude toward facts is open and dynamic. It’s a process of discovery, constantly refining our understanding.
The authoritarian attitude toward facts is rigid and dogmatic. It turns facts into weapons and demands absolute loyalty.
Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, warned that totalitarianism begins by destroying people's relationship to reality. Political lies erase the boundary between truth and falsehood, making it impossible for people to trust their own judgment.
Arendt argued that when people no longer trust facts, they become isolated and powerless. They retreat into ideological bubbles or conspiratorial thinking, making them easy prey for authoritarian rulers.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
– Hannah Arendt
This destruction of reality isn’t just a philosophical problem—it’s a political weapon. When people lose trust in facts, they become disconnected from reality and unable to resist tyranny.
Your insight also resonates with Daoist philosophy, which emphasizes aligning with the natural flow of reality (the Dao). In Daoism, resisting reality or trying to impose rigid control leads to disharmony and suffering.
The proper attitude toward reality in Daoism is one of humility and non-coercion:
“The wise do not cling to fixed truths.”
“They observe reality as it is, not as they wish it to be.”
“They act in harmony with the flow of life, not against it.”
In this sense, political lies are dangerous because they force people to act against reality. They demand that people ignore the Dao—the natural flow of truth—and instead submit to a fabricated narrative.
Here’s how we can resist political lies without falling into dogmatism or self-deception:
Practice Intellectual Humility.
Always ask: “What if I’m wrong?”
Recognize that truth is a process, not a final destination.
Stay Curious and Open to Dialogue.
Approach facts with genuine curiosity.
Be willing to listen to opposing views and adjust your beliefs.
Demand Accountability, Not Blind Faith.
Challenge lies, but also challenge yourself.
Ask: “What evidence supports this claim?”
Resist any demand for unquestioning obedience.
Recognize the Emotional Power of Lies.
Understand that lies work because they tap into fear, anger, and insecurity.
Counter lies with hopeful, empowering narratives that respect human dignity.
The real battle between truth and lies is not about facts vs. falsehoods. It’s about our attitude toward reality:
Lies are dangerous because they demand submission and obedience.
Truth-seeking is liberating because it invites dialogue and empowers human agency.
In the end, what makes a lie evil is not just that it’s untrue, but that it attempts to enslave the human mind. The antidote isn’t just to declare facts—it’s to cultivate a responsible, humble, and open relationship to reality.
Or, to put it in your own words:
What really matters is our attitude toward facts. Lies become evil when they demand blind faith and unquestioning obedience, turning reality into a tool of oppression rather than a shared space for human flourishing.
In this sense, truth-seeking is an ethical stance. It’s about remaining free, humble, and curious in a world that often demands conformity and submission.
Messages beyond this point are only visible to you
ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.