We do not live in a "post truth" world

[bcking 3,157]

On 12/31/2016 at 11:02 AM, Póg mo said:

Seriously though, reading and attempting to expand your knowledge of a topic is traditionally considered a good thing, otherwise when you post on forums or open your mouth in educated company, you run the risk of sounding like a fool.

 

It's not really a case of "running the risk", since it already happens on these forums all the time.

 

Interesting article, I agree it came off as very one sided but I agree in general that the whole idea of "truth" being malleable is not new and has been ongoing for a long time. Unfortunately for us to live in a global world we have to rely on other people telling us information. You'd like to think news is there to provide that information without bias, but that's hard to find. I think the BBC does a decent job usually, but even they have a slant sometimes. It is very difficult for a person who doesn't devote a significant amount of their life to know the "truth" about current events somewhere on the other side of the planet. We have to trust in someone else to inform us, and that is where it breaks down.

 

I liked the bit about Trump as Hitler vs. Mussolini. I agree he is a bit more of a Mussolini. Though we sometimes forget how much of a showman Hitler was as well. I don't think Trump is going to intentionally lead the world into World War 3 (and if he was truly like Hitler he would), I just worry he will accidentally do it since he has so little experience and knowledge on what he is taking over this month.

 

I also agree that claims like the Brexiter's one about moving the 350 million pounds/week sent to the EU into the NHS have become common these days. The public seem to have no problem with people making wild outlandish claims, them turning out to be false, and then we just all move on. I think that is not just a symptom of "lies", but it is a symptom of our media consumption in general. We are given so much coverage on so many topics it is easy to hear about one thing and then just move on and forget about it. The Wall will never actually be built, it was never going to be. It was impractically. But it was a good tag line, and so even though it was a total lie no one will ever think about it again or worry about it. We move on because we consume so much so quickly we can't keep track.

 

EDIT:

 

One of the more recent clips of Trump that I quite enjoyed was when even he forgot that he made an earlier claim about saving the Carrier jobs. When asked later he was like "Oh did I say that? Oh okay". Even something that he was successful (somewhat) with he couldn't even keep track what he said about it previously. The obamacare stuff goes from "Repeal immediately" to "Oh well I do like some of it so we'll see". The "Jail Hilary!" becomes "Oh well she's had enough". The more it happens, for me at least, the more I just sort of shrug at everything these people say. However it seems like enough people out there just lap it all up like a pigs at a trough and don't care that 90% of it isn't true or changes in the future.

Edited January 1, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

21 minutes ago, bcking said:

 

It's not really a case of "running the risk", since it already happens on these forums all the time.

 

Interesting article, I agree it came off as very one sided but I agree in general that the whole idea of "truth" being malleable is not new and has been ongoing for a long time. Unfortunately for us to live in a global world we have to rely on other people telling us information. You'd like to think news is there to provide that information without bias, but that's hard to find. I think the BBC does a decent job usually, but even they have a slant sometimes. It is very difficult for a person who doesn't devote a significant amount of their life to know the "truth" about current events somewhere on the other side of the planet. We have to trust in someone else to inform us, and that is where it breaks down.

 

I liked the bit about Trump as Hitler vs. Mussolini. I agree he is a bit more of a Mussolini. Though we sometimes forget how much of a showman Hitler was as well. I don't think Trump is going to intentionally lead the world into World War 3 (and if he was truly like Hitler he would), I just worry he will accidentally do it since he has so little experience and knowledge on what he is taking over this month.

 

I also agree that claims like the Brexiter's one about moving the 350 million pounds/week sent to the EU into the NHS have become common these days. The public seem to have no problem with people making wild outlandish claims, them turning out to be false, and then we just all move on. I think that is not just a symptom of "lies", but it is a symptom of our media consumption in general. We are given so much coverage on so many topics it is easy to hear about one thing and then just move on and forget about it. The Wall will never actually be built, it was never going to be. It was impractically. But it was a good tag line, and so even though it was a total lie no one will ever think about it again or worry about it. We move on because we consume so much so quickly we can't keep track.

 

EDIT:

 

One of the more recent clips of Trump that I quite enjoyed was when even he forgot that he made an earlier claim about saving the Carrier jobs. When asked later he was like "Oh did I say that? Oh okay". Even something that he was successful (somewhat) with he couldn't even keep track what he said about it previously. The obamacare stuff goes from "Repeal immediately" to "Oh well I do like some of it so we'll see". The "Jail Hilary!" becomes "Oh well she's had enough". The more it happens, for me at least, the more I just sort of shrug at everything these people say. However it seems like enough people out there just lap it all up like a pigs at a trough and don't care that 90% of it isn't true or changes in the future.

If you devote a whole lot of your time to seeking the truth.. It reminds me of a country song.

 

You been looking for love in all the wrong places

 

https://youtu.be/FAyDmJvjxbg

[bcking 3,157]

I agree Nature Dog. I think we have to accept that we can't know the truth about everything. Descartes said it well. I don't have any quotes but essentially we can never be truly certain until we know it for ourselves, and we really can never know most things for ourselves unless we spend our life on it.

 

That being said I do wish that I could have a resource that I could trust to give me "facts" (to the best that they are attainable) relating to current events. I think we as citizens of the world could do better in forcing those who hold power, or who hold power over news/media (both group of people)  to be more honest and not just try to push in a certain direction. This is a non-partisan issue to me. All Presidential candidates, candidates for any public office, pretty much all news media. They almost all have an agenda and NONE of their agendas are purely to serve the public and educate/inform us. 

[OriZ 3,157]

8 hours ago, bcking said:

 

It's not really a case of "running the risk", since it already happens on these forums all the time.

 

Interesting article, I agree it came off as very one sided but I agree in general that the whole idea of "truth" being malleable is not new and has been ongoing for a long time. Unfortunately for us to live in a global world we have to rely on other people telling us information. You'd like to think news is there to provide that information without bias, but that's hard to find. I think the BBC does a decent job usually, but even they have a slant sometimes. It is very difficult for a person who doesn't devote a significant amount of their life to know the "truth" about current events somewhere on the other side of the planet. We have to trust in someone else to inform us, and that is where it breaks down.

 

 

 

BBC, imo, is incredibly biased.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Add the Daily Fail to the list!!!

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

 

BBC, imo, is incredibly biased.

 

I wouldn't say incredibly. Biased sure. Incredibly biased would be like Breitbart or Huffington Post. Maybe some investigative reporting pieces, but the general news that BBC provides is usually focused on just factual information without superlatives or additional commentary. At least when I watch it in the UK with my wife.

[Póg mo 1,749]

On 1/1/2017 at 11:08 AM, bcking said:

 

It's not really a case of "running the risk", since it already happens on these forums all the time.

 

Interesting article, I agree it came off as very one sided but I agree in general that the whole idea of "truth" being malleable is not new and has been ongoing for a long time. Unfortunately for us to live in a global world we have to rely on other people telling us information. You'd like to think news is there to provide that information without bias, but that's hard to find. I think the BBC does a decent job usually, but even they have a slant sometimes. It is very difficult for a person who doesn't devote a significant amount of their life to know the "truth" about current events somewhere on the other side of the planet.

 

I think part of the problem is that we are not often presented with a lot of context, when reading about an event. This is why I love Robert Fisk so much. When he writes, he always tries to put what he is writing about in historical context. The BBC aren't intentionally biased, but everyone is to some extent is. The problem I have with the BBC is it has a perverse need to always allow equal time to people on opposite sides of an argument. This is most of the time, but when there are instances when that doesn't make since. For example, when the BBC runs stories about climate change, its reports grant equal time to climate change deniers, as if both sides have an equally valid argument to make. The same is true with reporting the Iraq invasion or conflicts in the middle East.  

On 1/1/2017 at 11:08 AM, bcking said:

 

We have to trust in someone else to inform us, and that is where it breaks down.

 

Yes, it's not easy, but nothing worth while, ever is. 

On 1/1/2017 at 11:08 AM, bcking said:

 

 

On 1/1/2017 at 11:08 AM, bcking said:

 

 

[OriZ 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

 

I think part of the problem is that we are not often presented with a lot of context, when reading about an event. This is why I love Robert Fisk so much. When he writes, he always tries to put what he is writing about in historical context. The BBC aren't intentionally biased, but everyone is to some extent is. The problem I have with the BBC is it has a perverse need to always allow equal time to people on opposite sides of an argument. This is most of the time, but when there are instances when that doesn't make since. For example, when the BBC runs stories about climate change, its reports grant equal time to climate change deniers, as if both sides have an equally valid argument to make. The same is true with reporting the Iraq invasion or conflicts in the middle East.  

 

Yes, it's not easy, but nothing worth while, ever is. 

 

 

 

And how, pray tell, do you determine one argument is more valid than the other, if you're not willing to give equal time to listen to both sides? 

[Póg mo 1,749]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

 

And how, pray tell, do you determine one argument is more valid than the other, if you're not willing to give equal time to listen to both sides? 

We consult a scientist, an actual bonified scientist, you know someone with real credentials? And stop listening to idiots who are paid to have an opinion. If you want quackery, then watch the likes of Fox news, or the Blaze. 

[OriZ 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

We consult a scientist, an actual bonified scientist, you know someone with real credentials? And stop listening to idiots who are paid to have an opinion. If you want quackery, then watch the likes of Fox news, or the Blaze. 

 

No, I'm not just talking about climate change. You mentioned Iraq and the Middle east and I'm sure there's others. So my question is more general; If you don't believe both sides deserve equal time to make their argument because one is less valid than the other, how do you actually know it is less valid if you're not willing to let both sides explain? BTW not all scientists are in agreement over climate change either.

Edited January 2, 2017 by OriZ

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 hours ago, Póg mo said:

We consult a scientist, an actual bonified scientist, you know someone with real credentials? And stop listening to idiots who are paid to have an opinion. If you want quackery, then watch the likes of Fox news, or the Blaze. 

Ahhh, another slippery slope.  Who has the bona fides?  Someone with whom we agree?  Someone with the most money to support their cause?  Someone who is a better talker/presenter?

 

Every story or situation has at least two sides, often more.  None are completely right.  None are completely wrong (speaking of such things as war, climate change, etc.  Let's not confuse the convo with murder or rape or other extreme stuff).  

 

Here on VJ, we see a lot of polarity.  And we also see NB, trying to keep the poles from flying off the pages.  But in that polarity, who is right?  Am I?  Are you?  Is Dakine?  I say... yes.  We are all right, for the what, where and how we are living.  And we are all a little bit wrong, at least for how others view things.   I don't expect a die-hard liberal or a die-hard conservative to view things the same way I do.  But somehow, we must coexist, and hopefully make our lives better.  Learn from each other.  Not dismiss the "other opinion" as invalid just because we don't necessarily agree with it.  It may not be right for me, but it may be right for Oriz.  All I have to do is accept him for who he is.  

 

Man, that got wacky quick.  As for news sites... can't think of any that are completely unbiased, as all are written by humans.  But what think ye all of www.aljazeera.com?  I know some people who think it is the least biased out there.

[OriZ 3,157]

12 minutes ago, IDGAF said:

 Learn from each other.  Not dismiss the "other opinion" as invalid just because we don't necessarily agree with it.  It may not be right for me, but it may be right for Oriz.  All I have to do is accept him for who he is.  

 

 

LOL. 

 

I'm not a fan of aljazeera personally.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

LOL. 

 

I'm not a fan of aljazeera personally.

Why knot?

[Póg mo 1,749]

25 minutes ago, IDGAF said:

Ahhh, another slippery slope.  Who has the bona fides?  Someone with whom we agree?  Someone with the most money to support their cause?  Someone who is a better talker/presenter?

 

Every story or situation has at least two sides, often more.  None are completely right.  None are completely wrong (speaking of such things as war, climate change, etc.  Let's not confuse the convo with murder or rape or other extreme stuff).  

 

Here on VJ, we see a lot of polarity.  And we also see NB, trying to keep the poles from flying off the pages.  But in that polarity, who is right?  Am I?  Are you?  Is Dakine?  I say... yes.  We are all right, for the what, where and how we are living.  And we are all a little bit wrong, at least for how others view things.   I don't expect a die-hard liberal or a die-hard conservative to view things the same way I do.  But somehow, we must coexist, and hopefully make our lives better.  Learn from each other.  Not dismiss the "other opinion" as invalid just because we don't necessarily agree with it.  It may not be right for me, but it may be right for Oriz.  All I have to do is accept him for who he is.  

 

Man, that got wacky quick.  As for news sites... can't think of any that are completely unbiased, as all are written by humans.  But what think ye all of www.aljazeera.com?  I know some people who think it is the least biased out there.

Well, look at it this way. The vast majority of the scientific community are in agreement regarding climate change, yet when you have arguments presented as if there is some doubt, is it surprising when people don't want to believe scientists? Add in funding specifically for the purpose of further muddying the waters, and suddenly climate change is a vast global conspiracy. 

Another example of attempting to find the middle ground, you end convincing millions of people that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are either just as qualified for the job of President. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Trouble is, "the vast majority of the scientific community" do not agree.  I have seen valid arguments that can sway one's belief either direction.  After having read and listened to many scientists on the topic, I feel that while man certainly has input in the cosmos, it is very minuscule and for such a short amount of time as to be inconsequential overall.  Guess we'll know for sure in 50,000 years, eh?