91–100 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's not what this is, really. It points out the greater danger of the propagation of those lies. It's entirely reasonable to assume others might similarly lie and this article demonstrates how such lies can propagate through the internet in certain cases.
Yes, but his point would be much stronger if it had not been based merely on assumptions. If this is such a problem, then be a journalist- find an example and discuss that .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone who communicates, lies. One who doesn't expect that, won't be able to make much sense of the world. It's not useful to draw bright lines around the category of "lies". It would be pretty awful to lie to your boyfriend about whether you had an STD, or to your kid about the existence of imaginary holiday characters. Making up shit about some forgotten TV show just ain't the same thing. The best trolling may no…
> It would be pretty awful to lie [...] to your kid about the existence of imaginary holiday characters True. But people do it, regularly and consistently, and in fact protect their children from finding out about said lies, with ever more complex mechanisms. But, strangely, most people who do this seem to think it's a good thing to lie like this. Not sure why, and I suspect it sets a bad example to children that adu…
It has long been my policy to tell my young nieces and nephews really obvious lies on a regular basis, just to let them practice their critical thinking. I love the looks of dawning realization and the swiftly following cries of "nuh-uh!" My oldest niece has heard enough of these that she just smirks when she hears another one.
Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are sort of an internal critique of Christianity. Sadly I think this critique goes over most people's heads, and their eventual disillusionment is more upsetting as a result. Still, parents have to try. To give away the game, I don't actually think there's anything wrong with this particular lie.
So, you lied, but it's someone else's fault? After all, what kind of person would intentionally sow lies about Street Sharks across the internet? Well, not a good one.
The real myth of the medieval flat earth begins first
in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and has
two principal sources. Probably the most influential
of these was the American author Washington Irving
who in his fictional biography of Columbus claimed
that Columbus had to fight against the Church’s
belief that the world was flat in order to get
permission and backing for his voyage, a complete
fabrication.
[1]https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/repeat-after-me-they...
[2]That Columbus proved it, that is, not that the world is round.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I understand. Isn't memory of experience different than our believing it ? Or is it something like there isn't "truth" in our memory ?
Excellent question, and the answer is that human memory is generally highly fallible, malleable, and unreliable. We all have the naive impression that memory is somehow like a video recording and we can just access it to find out what happened. Indeed, we all have some very vivid and probably quite accurate memories about some exceptional events, or can recall exactly what page and what part of the page we read some…
For example I, as well as many others on the Internet, remember the James Bond Semi-Villain Jaws's romantic interest as being a blond, pig tailed, bespectacled girl with a large smile and a mouth full of braces. We're sure she had braces, that was the whole joke! Turns out, no record of her having braces whatsoever.
Weird that a memory could permeate society like that.
edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/3vzk53/my_ma...
I looked at the descriptions for the three shows. Frankly, nothing seemed out-of-line because I didn't watch toy-oriented cartoons in the 90s and that subject matter falls into a genre I just don't care about. Truthfully, I suspect that those synopses pretty much describe all 90s cartoons.
For that matter, your entire article could be a social experiment, but the subject matter of Street Sharks is so far off the spectrum of things I care about that it's the first time I've ever even heard of them.
But, it does illustrate how easy it is to slip things in like that. Do it enough times with lots of small things and sooner or later, you have enough evidence for something larger and so on and so forth.
Still don't care about Street Sharks, though.
And please, for the love of , don't show this to Michael Bay.
In my opinion, this prank is very intricate and took a lot of effort while not actually proving the point that "history is meaningless on the internet" because the subject matter - the Street Sharks - are/were essentially forgotten by history itself. Sometimes things just naturally slide away and nobody cares. It's like, "What year did the black Power Ranger turn good?" or "What was the top selling Rock band in the y…
http://screencrush.com/street-sharks-hoax/
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11788884/street-sharks-hoax
http://www.avclub.com/article/read-utterly-fraudulent-altern...
http://gawker.com/everything-i-ever-thought-i-knew-about-str...
There was an article a couple days ago about why everyone believes Columbus proved the world was round[1], even though that isn't true[2]: The real myth of the medieval flat earth begins first in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and has two principal sources. Probably the most influential of these was the American author Washington Irving who in his fictional biography of Columbus claimed that Columbus had to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A little from column A and a little from column B. I have young kids and it's fascinating watching them talk about half-remembered stuff from the past. They'll start off not really remembering much and taking guesses. Then the other takes that guess as gospel and repeats it back. Now the first has more confident. Soon they are both fully convinced of a whole pile of fabrications. It made me realize how much of our me…
Not sure I understand. Isn't memory of experience different than our believing it ? Or is it something like there isn't "truth" in our memory ?
A completely made-up example: imagine that you saw a colored circle. Instead of storing a snapshot of what you saw, your brain really records two things - that you saw a "circle", and that it was of your "favourite color". Many years later, you recall that memory, and "see" a blue circle. But in reality, the circle was yellow - over those years, your favourite color has changed, and since the memory stores reference to it, your recollection also changed.