261–270 of 437 posts
I find it interesting that many people, especially boomers, can go to the grocery store and recognize checkout tabloids as obvious hoaxes, yet they stumble into something much more ridiculous online and determine it to be true. They seem particularly susceptible to confirmation bias in propaganda memes and literal fake news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of us are proponents of a secular state clearly separated from religious practices, and social justice believers are religious [1] with the extra flair that they seek institutional power to enforce their beliefs in ways that violate this principle. Do you believe we should not have a secular state where people can inhabit all sorts of conflicting beliefs in the religious spehere, while resolving their grievances…
i will say that the mental gymnastics necessary to make "being nice" and "not being a shitty racist or misogynist" a "religion", so that you can say "i'm a proponent of a secular state" is just really impressive so congrats on that. really neat stuff.
Social justice is about action to force your version of morality or ethics on society, usually by whatever means necessary, or without concern about the collateral damage caused by such actions.
It usually manifests as complete hypocrisy. Let's stop hate by being hateful to people who disagree. Let's prevent exclusion of people by excluding those who disagree, etc. It's really just exchanging one form of tribalism for another, but the tribalist tendencies are still loud and clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's probably less likely for younger people because we grew up with this form of media.
I disagree. One just has to look at Reddit to see that the younger generation is as caught up in all this as any. I think some people are just wired to think that way and, as we get older, some people switch to thinking that way. As I get older, I get more concerned that whether or not I mentally decline in one way or the other is just random chance and genetics.
The study refutes that statement. I'm not saying we're invincible, I'm just saying we're less susceptible.
Anyways, afa mental decline with age goes, some of it is random, some of it is genetics, some of it is lifestyle that is 100% in your control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>long-form deep investigative journalism I like the distinction you put here, as I've found most "long form" journalism to be focused on superficial details and to try to emphasize innuendo and rumor into emotional plays rather than focusing on facts. As soon as I hit a physical description of one of the people involved that covers more than a sentence (when the article isn't covering a topic involving a physical des…
News == current happenings. It really never helps me with seeing the bigger picture. Unless I'm already aware of the big picture in which case News augments my understanding. Magazines == Get the big picture on a broad range of topics. Books == Get the full picture on specific topics. Looking at things this way I have come to realize that most news I used to read doesn't add any empirical value to me. Sure I can show…
No. You'll get a well informed point of view but it's still just a single persons point of view.
Like other commenters, this study jives with my experience with older relatives. I mean 'forwards from grandma' has been a thing forever, right? 'Bill Gates will give a nickel every time this is read' (remember email chains?), 'naked women get shared, but this heroic child won't get a single like', 'Like and Share if you stand with politician X', etc etc. Combine this with the targeted scamming of elderly from variou…
Agree with you completely. I'll also throw in to the mix - creating news 'back then' required someone to gather it, someone to write it up, a printing press or studio, distribution, whatever - people and effort and time and money. I don't think a lot of the older people I've spoken to realise quite how easy it is to put something on the Internet. Therefore anything that appears, and has the feel of something 'officia…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's both. There was spin, but there also weren't dedicated propaganda outlets (e.g., Fox News). You are right, though -- it took a lot of work to get content to a large audience. That reduced the number of malicious agents who could and the speed with which they could successfully gain broad influence.
>>There was spin, but there also weren't dedicated propaganda outlets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst While I agree that journalism is in crisis, this isn't the first time. While Hearst was famous for yellow journalism, his papers weren't the only ones, and often the emotional sensationalism was intended to support a particular candidate (or denounce their opponent).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does if you're also in exile from your birthplace due to it having become an authoritarian state.
Maybe some people just prefer the authoritarian model. It is not an objective truth that non-authoritarianism > authoritarianism. That's just, like, an opinion, man. Further: when has Russia not been an authoritarian state?
> It is not an objective truth that non-authoritarianism > authoritarianism. That's just, like, an opinion, man.
Shakespeare > Marlowe is just an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so relatable. Virtually all "news" is entertainment these days. And entertainment is, at its core, a matter of subjective preference.
Well, maybe in the US. Come to Germany and I'll show you the snorefest of the news media here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing I've noticed about the blogs I read is that they usually provide sources, while even reputable media outlets like the NYT or WSJ will often publish articles about the results of a new study without naming it or linking to it. Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news.
> Having a source or sources is a key differentiator between good news, news that misinterprets or exaggerates the data but is still loosely related to reality, and completely fake news... Depends on the quality of the sources. It's been my experience that, "evidence", and "sources" that blogs and mainstream media cite is oftentimes completely ridiculous. Mainstream media will cite a blog, or a blog will cite a youtu…
Having a source only makes a story about 1% more credible, but having a dubious/non existent/fake one is a good indication the story shouldn't be trusted.
Anecdotal evidence: I remember how my 65 years old dad changed from a large-minded, world-traveling retired professor to an avid consumer of fake news in the span of fewer than two years. Yes, it was a shock, but most of all I am mortified that this could happen to me as well when I get to his age.
My dad was similar, but he thought it was all a joke. He thought sites like rense and infowars were today's equivalent of the counterculture political satire from when he was young. He knew there were people on those sites who weren't in on the joke, and people with mental illness, but I think he thought it was maybe 5% or 10%, and it just added to the fun for him. He got reverse-pwned by Poe's Law. Yet still he foun…