This is cool and interesting however I believe it's worth noting that the more pernicious issue is that the phrase "fake news" is used to discredit expert opinion that doesn't line up with one's preconceived notions. We replicate this by using the term at our own peril.
Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
31–40 of 216 posts
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#32People also used to do duels over insults and this was considered OK. We should bring that back. Get triggered demand a duel :) Enough PC
I find that the phrase "political correctness" can almost always be replaced with "treating people with respect."
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#33The term only became popular after Trump's win [1], not while it was happening, which is forever (I once read in a real paper newspaper about an amputee who had donkey's legs attached in place of his own). This suggests people don't like it because they went looking for something to blame for his winning. It's entirely a partisan political concern, not a fundamental one. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?d…
It became popular after he won because he started using the term incorrectly and labeling everything he disagrees with as fake news. People weren't looking for something to blame his winning on. That's a loaded statement. They were looking for reasons that he won. That's a reasonable thing to do. We've never had a President like him. Our polling methods in the 2016 election didn't predict him winning. Obviously peopl…
I'm not sure why either of these comments is being downvoted. They're both true at the same time, though I agree with you that the parent comment overstates what Trump actually did which was weaponize the critique into something to generally dismiss expert opinion.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#34"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…
It's not productive to tell those who disagree with you to grow up. There are serious consequences from having unlimited freedom of speech and you are not encouraging serious discussion about solutions to them by belittling people. I think it's also worth considering the effect that the internet has on the flow of information in society. Our current situation is not the same as it is when the first amendment was writ…
Since the first amendment we've had 200+ years of nearly untrammeled progress. Before that, we in Europe had absolute monarchy and the divine right of Kings.
Now sure, they might have been wrong, and they're weren't infallible, but if you're seeking to overturn that, you probably need something more compelling than 'the internet has increased the flow of information'. It was the increased flow of information with the printing press that brought about the Enlightenment in the first place.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#35This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
Fake news used to refer to “Hillary Clinton has a body double” or stuff you’d find in the Enquirer. And now the term has been hijacked to mean any new you disagree with.
The Enquirer is real (gossip/trash) news, at least at the level of carefully worded exaggerated rumor that some real person claimed to have observed.
Weekly World News is fictional satire about aliens.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#36This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
Its a concerted effort to discredit expert opinion which the shorter term goal of allowing people to equate their own laymen's understanding with that of someone versed in a subject.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#37This is cool and interesting however I believe it's worth noting that the more pernicious issue is that the phrase "fake news" is used to discredit expert opinion that doesn't line up with one's preconceived notions. We replicate this by using the term at our own peril.
That perils applies to every single synonym for "false", including "level", "slander", "lie", "troll", etc. You can't police the dictionary as strategy to stop falsehood and false claims about falsehood.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#38This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.
[flagged]
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not productive to tell those who disagree with you to grow up. There are serious consequences from having unlimited freedom of speech and you are not encouraging serious discussion about solutions to them by belittling people. I think it's also worth considering the effect that the internet has on the flow of information in society. Our current situation is not the same as it is when the first amendment was writ…
Since the first amendment we've had 200+ years of nearly untrammeled progress. Before that, we in Europe had absolute monarchy and the divine right of Kings. Now sure, they might have been wrong, and they're weren't infallible, but if you're seeking to overturn that, you probably need something more compelling than 'the internet has increased the flow of information'. It was the increased flow of information with the…
And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech.
Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it".
I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular.
Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts
#40People also used to do duels over insults and this was considered OK. We should bring that back. Get triggered demand a duel :) Enough PC
https://genius.com/Lin-manuel-miranda-ten-duel-commandments-...
[BURR]
Can we agree that duels are dumb and immature?
[HAMILTON]
Sure
But your man has to answer for his words, Burr
[BURR]
With his life? We both know that’s absurd, sir
[HAMILTON]
Hang on, how many men died because Lee was inexperienced and ruinous?
[BURR]
Okay, so we’re doin’ this