We are (and possibly have been for some time - perhaps always have been) in an age where there is more disinformation than information.
True or false?
Arguable. You can objectively measure one but the other is tricky without the inevitable required historic HA HA to nail it.
Your opinion?
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 15, 2016, 02:20:11 AM
Arguable. You can objectively measure one but the other is tricky
Fair point. You can quantify information but accuracy can be a spectrum.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 15, 2016, 02:20:11 AM
Your opinion?
I think that disinformation is more present than information; however, that is a loose application of the word "disinformation". That is, to say, that reporting which is not opinion disguised as fact is hard to find. Sources of information are too often under the influence of the agendas of those who own them. Reliable sources of information are difficult to find. Applying tests of reliability are as challenging as determining what makes a test of reliability reliable.
On the one hand, I think that a prevalence of disinformation requires constant critical thought and should therefore encourage it. On the other, critical thinking among people seems to be at an all-time low while manipulation of information as a means to an end seems to be at an all-time high.
What's your criteria for reliability of a source?
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 15, 2016, 05:39:08 AM
What's your criteria for reliability of a source?
Critical thinking skills can be learned which, when honed, will set "alarm bells" off in a person's mind as they read through certain kinds of misinformation or poorly-crafted arguments.
I don't think I personally know of any good universal tests for reliability; rather the fewer "alarm bells" which are set off as I read something, the more
probably reliable I assume it might be.
Of course, by "reliable", I don't mean to
infer imply that the information is necessarily
accurate, just that it is not deliberately, willfully, or unwittingly distorted.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 15, 2016, 05:43:55 AM
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 15, 2016, 05:39:08 AM
What's your criteria for reliability of a source?
Critical thinking skills can be learned which, when honed, will set "alarm bells" off in a person's mind as they read through certain kinds of misinformation or poorly-crafted arguments.
I don't think I personally know of any good universal tests for reliability; rather the fewer "alarm bells" which are set off as I read something, the more probably reliable I assume it might be.
Of course, by "reliable", I don't mean to infer that the information is necessarily accurate, just that it is not deliberately, willfully, or unwittingly distorted.
One person's critical thinking is another's brainwashing. That "alarm bell" can be rigged in all kinds of ways, confirmation bias being the most common probably. How can you define these critical thinking skills you speak of and identify them in a source well enough to judge?
also...
QuoteOf course, by "reliable", I don't mean to infer that the information is necessarily accurate, just that it is not deliberately, willfully, or unwittingly distorted.
I'm not trying to be a mean ass, but you're not really making sense.
I'm not sure you meant "infer", but more importantly you just kinda debased the concept of reliability by talking talking about accuracy not being important as long as the info isn't "distorted" by intent or accident.
I think you're lost friend.
Relevant: http://archive.is/QLv7r
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 15, 2016, 07:18:34 AM
http://archive.is/QLv7r
:? Replies to honest query with link to smug article about how folks don't do their homework before sharing. So much for discourse.
Have fun with that. I think you're in for QUITE the experience here.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 15, 2016, 07:15:15 AM
One person's critical thinking is another's brainwashing.
Logic is not generally open to interpretation. Similarly, critical thinking is an academic subject and an intellectual discipline. Argumentative fallacies are plentiful and well-documented. It's not something that changes radically depending on your perspective; one either is or is not an effective critical thinker.
QuoteI'm not sure you meant "infer"
Sorry, I meant "imply". It's late and I've got a pounding headache. I appreciate the correction.
Quotebut more importantly you just kinda debased the concept of reliability by talking talking about accuracy not being important as long as the info isn't "distorted" by intent or accident.
This depends entirely on how you define "reliable". Can I rely on a news source to at least be doing their best job at reporting objective truth? If so, then I consider it a reliable source. Inaccuracies are bound to happen, but for me, a "reliable" source of information is one that actively attempts to minimize those inaccuracies.
The definition of reliability (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/reliability) isn't limited to accuracy; it can be applied also to
honesty.
QuoteI think you're lost friend.
And I think that's a snap judgment.
Quote from: The Wizard Joseph on November 15, 2016, 07:33:30 AM
:? Replies to honest query with link to smug article about how folks don't do their homework before sharing. So much for discourse.
Have fun with that. I think you're in for QUITE the experience here.
That wasn't a direct response to you, just something I felt was relevant to the thread as a whole. I apologize for the confusion; hopefully by now you've seen my actual reply to your post.
QuoteQuoteI think you're lost friend.
And I think that's a snap judgment.
:lulz: :cn:
Fair enough. Welcome to PD.
I don't think there's any more disinfo than info.
I think the ease in which to spread both has increased dramatically. From there, you just have to realize that sensationalist fake stuff that appeals to your current worldview is going to be a lot more popular than pedestrian true stuff that challenges it.
Case in point: Fake news that the Pope endorsed Trump was shared at least twice as much than the real news about his tax returns.
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 12:54:40 PM
I don't think there's any more disinfo than info.
I think the ease in which to spread both has increased dramatically. From there, you just have to realize that sensationalist fake stuff that appeals to your current worldview is going to be a lot more popular than pedestrian true stuff that challenges it.
Case in point: Fake news that the Pope endorsed Trump was shared at least twice as much than the real news about his tax returns.
If "true info" is more mediasexy than "disinfo" why do you still think that they are equally distributed. Isn't the inclination to consume treats rather than veggies?
You may need to rephrase that.
My post says that truth is less media sexy than disinfo.
Perhaps my first sentence could be amended to "I don't think there's any more disinfo than info than there was previously." I'm saying that in my opinion, there isn't an increase in disinfo, I'm saying it's much easier to Like/Share/Retweet things, and disinfo plays into that ease.
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 03:26:17 PM
You may need to rephrase that.
My post says that truth is less media sexy than disinfo.
Perhaps my first sentence could be amended to "I don't think there's any more disinfo than info than there was previously." I'm saying that in my opinion, there isn't an increase in disinfo, I'm saying it's much easier to Like/Share/Retweet things, and disinfo plays into that ease.
Oops, yeah :oops: sorry.
I still don't get why you are rejecting that disinfo may be more prevalent than it was. I guess I am asking what your opinion is based on. My perception, for what its worth, is that it is increasingly prevalent. The "niching" of news to feed particular audiences suggests to me that the appetite for partial and distorted news is a growth area. I'm a generation older than you and I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable about the quality [accuracy, impartiality, balance, just generally competent journalism] of even mainstream news outlets. When you add the "Breitbartization" of news and information, it just feels to me like disinfo is the info of the 21st C. and since you are obviously coming at this with a different perspective I was wondering why your take is different.
I may need to clarify more. My idea is that there are more instances of disinformation, but it's the same disinformation. For example, there's disinfo that says Clinton's emails show she actively prevented military assistance during the Benghazi attacks. You see that piece, you do some fact checking, you determine it's false.
But that one piece of disinfo is being written up by two or three dozen bogus fake news sites, and it's being shared on social media thousands of times. It's incredibly tedious, borderlining on impossible, to keep debunking the same story every time a new bogusnews.com site posts an article on it. In addition, because so many different sites are writing it up, it give the false impression that if this many news outlets are covering it, there must be some element of truth to it.
Ok, I think I've got you. So what you are suggesting is that the new media landscape is enabling the deep echo of a limited amount of misinfo [roughly equivalent to the available info] such that its ubiquity makes it feel more truthy? Did I get that right?
You got it.
The end result seems to be the same, but I was trying to clarify that the net balance of lies::truth was the same. It's the signal-boosting repetition that has thrown it out of wack.
Quote from: MMIX on November 15, 2016, 06:30:03 PM
Ok, I think I've got you. So what you are suggesting is that the new media landscape is enabling the deep echo of a limited amount of misinfo [roughly equivalent to the available info] such that its ubiquity makes it feel more truthy? Did I get that right?
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 06:42:20 PM
You got it.
The end result seems to be the same, but I was trying to clarify that the net balance of lies::truth was the same. It's the signal-boosting repetition that has thrown it out of wack.
This is an interesting take on the quantification/ratio problem: a small amount of disinformation being subject to higher amounts of replication.
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Sri Syadasti?
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Verily I went forth and I did google search diligently but of the truth I found me none. In the heart of a burning Bush in incandescent characters I saw the word WMD but it didn't seem to have enough vowels and was in a language beyond my understanding, and I heard the tolling of a great brass bell and heard me the word Truthiness. I went to the followers of the Nazarene and did ask of them, Where lieth this thing called Truth? And they did answer me saying At his trial, Jesus was famously asked, 'What is truth?' (John 18.38). The Bible answers this by saying that Jesus is the truth, and the 'word' of the Bible is true, insofar as it leads us to Jesus himself, the living Word of God. Read it yourself and find out. Truth isn't always black and white. Sometimes it is multi-coloured.
Dismayed that even the "I am way the truth and the life" people couldn't quite bring themselves to admit that the "Truth" might actually exist and not to be some spangly changeable thing that looks pretty but changes depending on how you look and is susceptible to change on a whim I gave up my biblical studies.
So I went to the Press, because that's a bunch of honest brokers, isn't it? To my great delight in todays BBC news I discovered a new truth
Oxford Dictionaries has declared "post-truth" as its 2016 international word of the year, reflecting what it called a "highly-charged" political 12 months.I
It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals.
Its selection follows June's Brexit vote and the US presidential election.
Oxford Dictionaries' Casper Grathwohl said post-truth could become "one of the defining words of our time".
Post-truth, which has become associated with the phrase "post-truth politics", was chosen ahead of other political terms, including "Brexiteer" and "alt-right".
But I could have saved myself the bother if I had remembered the words of the good book
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE TRANSGRESSICUTED.
ETA Yes, yes I answered a rhetorical question
Quote from: MMIX on November 16, 2016, 11:33:50 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Verily I went forth and I did google search diligently but of the truth I found me none. In the heart of a burning Bush in incandescent characters I saw the word WMD but it didn't seem to have enough vowels and was in a language beyond my understanding, and I heard the tolling of a great brass bell and heard me the word Truthiness. I went to the followers of the Nazarene and did ask of them, Where lieth this thing called Truth? And they did answer me saying At his trial, Jesus was famously asked, 'What is truth?' (John 18.38). The Bible answers this by saying that Jesus is the truth, and the 'word' of the Bible is true, insofar as it leads us to Jesus himself, the living Word of God. Read it yourself and find out. Truth isn't always black and white. Sometimes it is multi-coloured.
Dismayed that even the "I am way the truth and the life" people couldn't quite bring themselves to admit that the "Truth" might actually exist and not to be some spangly changeable thing that looks pretty but changes depending on how you look and is susceptible to change on a whim I gave up my biblical studies.
So I went to the Press, because that's a bunch of honest brokers, isn't it? To my great delight in todays BBC news I discovered a new truth
Oxford Dictionaries has declared "post-truth" as its 2016 international word of the year, reflecting what it called a "highly-charged" political 12 months.I
It is defined as an adjective relating to circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals.
Its selection follows June's Brexit vote and the US presidential election.
Oxford Dictionaries' Casper Grathwohl said post-truth could become "one of the defining words of our time".
Post-truth, which has become associated with the phrase "post-truth politics", was chosen ahead of other political terms, including "Brexiteer" and "alt-right".
But I could have saved myself the bother if I had remembered the words of the good book
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
IT IS SO WRITTEN! SO BE IT. HAIL DISCORDIA! PROSECUTORS WILL BE TRANSGRESSICUTED.
ETA Yes, yes I answered a rhetorical question
3 points to the holy seeker of truths.
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
This thread is definitely on the breaking wave of the mediasphere today. A quick input from The Daily Beast to illustrate the differential impact of info vs disinfo
Quote
By the time DonaldTrumpNews.co's headline "BREAKING: Since Donald Trump Won The Presidency Ford Shifts Truck Production From Mexico To Ohio" racked up 20,600 shares, there was a startling development in the real world.
Ford CEO Mark Fields announced his company was doing the opposite of the viral reports on Facebook. "Ford Motor Co. is moving ahead with plans to shift production of small cars to Mexico from Michigan," Reuters reporter Alexandria Sage wrote at 5 p.m. Tuesday.
That story—entirely true—had 233 shares on Reuters' Facebook page at press time.
The rest of the piece is well worth a look too.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
Obviously exact percentages are a virtual impossibility, especially when considering the subjective nature of certain kinds of truth. However, with enough time and effort, it should be possible to achieve some kind of approximation of the ratio of habitually disinformative websites and social media spheres to neutral and informative ones.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 16, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
Obviously exact percentages are a virtual impossibility, especially when considering the subjective nature of certain kinds of truth. However, with enough time and effort, it should be possible to achieve some kind of approximation of the ratio of habitually disinformative websites and social media spheres to neutral and informative ones.
It would be easy enough to collect a large enough sample size of scored content samples taken at random to reliably detect whether the curve meets normality.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 17, 2016, 06:19:08 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 16, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
Obviously exact percentages are a virtual impossibility, especially when considering the subjective nature of certain kinds of truth. However, with enough time and effort, it should be possible to achieve some kind of approximation of the ratio of habitually disinformative websites and social media spheres to neutral and informative ones.
It would be easy enough to collect a large enough sample size of scored content samples taken at random to reliably detect whether the curve meets normality.
I think I would only trust the results if they were repeatable. Multiple random samples would probably do it though.
Interesting stuff.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 07:55:00 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 17, 2016, 06:19:08 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 16, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
Obviously exact percentages are a virtual impossibility, especially when considering the subjective nature of certain kinds of truth. However, with enough time and effort, it should be possible to achieve some kind of approximation of the ratio of habitually disinformative websites and social media spheres to neutral and informative ones.
It would be easy enough to collect a large enough sample size of scored content samples taken at random to reliably detect whether the curve meets normality.
I think I would only trust the results if they were repeatable. Multiple random samples would probably do it though.
Interesting stuff.
Yes, it would be very easy to repeat for validation.
A new question:
Would effective neutralization of prolifically disinformative news sources help curb the kinds of misinformation commonly propagated and reinforced by common discourse? In other words, would it make people less ignorant - or more able to be dissuaded from ignorance - on social media and in public?
Or, in the absence of controlled disinformation, would people just saturate the world with bullshit by regularly generating their own?
Bad signal has always existed. I'd argue today there's less on a lot of subjects. Earth used to be flat, according to the official line. Giant bearded people threw lighting at you from a mountaintop in the clouds. Shit appears, to me at least, to have swung a lot more rational as time progresses. As a general trend, maybe punctuated by the adoption of dumb ideas here and there. Sacrificing virgins to the harvest lizard. Being a nazi. Wearing bell bottoms. Our species currently gets a lot more shit carried out a lot more effectively than it did when it was scrambling about in mud trying to invent fire.
There's bad signal and there's good signal. Even that shit seems, for the most part, to be entirely subjective with a side order of group consensus. I've been looking for absolute truth all my life and I still aint found anything convincing. Pick apart every statement looking for falsehoods. It's always there, a loophole, hidden in the qualifiers, backed up by the assumptions. Reality, any reality, is an opinion widely held. sure, in a metaphysical sense, there's something there (or there seems to be) and whatever the fuck it's all about, it receives our inputs and dishes out it's responses in an apparently consistent manner. We can describe this manner and it makes us all smug cos we got the answers but anything beyond that is arguable.
I like the memesphere as it is, tbh. Millions upon billions of opinions and theories and rational argument and appeals to logical fallacy and insane drivel, all flying around in the swarm of reality, looking for a host. Looking to reproduce. A Darwinesque selection process at work. They breed, they mutate, they form the broader perspective of reality, always shifting and swirling as competing stains collide. They compete in meatspace, using us a proxies. Sometimes bad ideas get killed by good ones and the individual or even the whole human race progresses a step. Other times a bad idea takes hold and shit gets fucked for a while. Maybe one day we'll have a winner. The reality tunnel to end all reality tunnels. Maybe not. Certainly some are more effective than others and I'd value the effectiveness of a meme over it's claims to truth any day of the week.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 06:51:24 PM
Bad signal has always existed. I'd argue today there's less on a lot of subjects. Earth used to be flat, according to the official line. Giant bearded people threw lighting at you from a mountaintop in the clouds. Shit appears, to me at least, to have swung a lot more rational as time progresses. As a general trend, maybe punctuated by the adoption of dumb ideas here and there. Sacrificing virgins to the harvest lizard. Being a nazi. Wearing bell bottoms. Our species currently gets a lot more shit carried out a lot more effectively than it did when it was scrambling about in mud trying to invent fire.
There's bad signal and there's good signal. Even that shit seems, for the most part, to be entirely subjective with a side order of group consensus. I've been looking for absolute truth all my life and I still aint found anything convincing. Pick apart every statement looking for falsehoods. It's always there, a loophole, hidden in the qualifiers, backed up by the assumptions. Reality, any reality, is an opinion widely held. sure, in a metaphysical sense, there's something there (or there seems to be) and whatever the fuck it's all about, it receives our inputs and dishes out it's responses in an apparently consistent manner. We can describe this manner and it makes us all smug cos we got the answers but anything beyond that is arguable.
I like the memesphere as it is, tbh. Millions upon billions of opinions and theories and rational argument and appeals to logical fallacy and insane drivel, all flying around in the swarm of reality, looking for a host. Looking to reproduce. A Darwinesque selection process at work. They breed, they mutate, they form the broader perspective of reality, always shifting and swirling as competing stains collide. They compete in meatspace, using us a proxies. Sometimes bad ideas get killed by good ones and the individual or even the whole human race progresses a step. Other times a bad idea takes hold and shit gets fucked for a while. Maybe one day we'll have a winner. The reality tunnel to end all reality tunnels. Maybe not. Certainly some are more effective than others and I'd value the effectiveness of a meme over it's claims to truth any day of the week.
Fascinating.
Have you, by any chance, read
The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:58:46 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:58:46 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
If you're interested in the idea of
signals or
messages as organic, fluid, or essentially "living" things which are subject to the forces of entropy, then cybernetics is an appropriate field of study to immerse one's self in. I was wondering if you'd already done so.
The book reads a bit like stereo instructions but taps into a few really key ideas about the way that information works.
I'm sure a lot of other books do to. Your point?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:51:29 PM
I'm sure a lot of other books do to. Your point?
I find the major themes of specific book (and the way in which they are conveyed within it) particularly relevant to your post. I wanted to know if you'd read it. If not, I'd recommend it. If so, I'd ask whether or not you agree that it is indeed relevant.
The only point I can make now is that you haven't actually answered my question.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 08:10:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:51:29 PM
I'm sure a lot of other books do to. Your point?
I find the major themes of specific book (and the way in which they are conveyed within it) particularly relevant to your post. I wanted to know if you'd read it. If not, I'd recommend it. If so, I'd ask whether or not you agree that it is indeed relevant.
The only point I can make now is that you haven't actually answered my question.
Yeah, I'm a bastard like that.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 08:10:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:51:29 PM
I'm sure a lot of other books do to. Your point?
I find the major themes of specific book (and the way in which they are conveyed within it) particularly relevant to your post. I wanted to know if you'd read it. If not, I'd recommend it. If so, I'd ask whether or not you agree that it is indeed relevant.
The only point I can make now is that you haven't actually answered my question.
Yeah, I'm a bastard like that.
He is, you know.
There's a related question to this that is bothering me. I'm heavily steeped in a tumblr social justice worldview, having read that dashboard far too many damn times over (is it a year now?) the past several months. My area is heavily rural and conservative. I live in a town burned to the ground by the Confederates, and many people in town love wearing their flag.
I spent a lot of time arguing with a man at work, who supported Trump before his candidacy, or well, trying to politely discuss it with him. I decided to avoid citing sources he didn't trust. He listed one website as his source for information, and sure as hell didn't trust Fox News. I just ended up deciding we must live in alternate universes.
....meandering meant to lead up to one question: how the FUCK can we discuss anything anymore, if we can't even figure out what the facts of reality are? The echo-chamber effect is causing our understanding of reality to bifurcate more and more. Whether or not it's true or false, we can't talk if we can't even share premises. We can't argue those premises without agreeing on more primal premises. The turtles down below are starting to crack under the pressure.
TL;DR: Misinfo/info aside, what facts can we, the people of the world, use as basis for discussion? Everything seems to depend on your party now!
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on November 18, 2016, 12:32:13 AM
how the FUCK can we discuss anything anymore, if we can't even figure out what the facts of reality are?
It's healthy to keep in mind that even news sources you trust are subject to inaccuracy. If two people in a debate can agree on this, then you at least have some common ground from which to build.
If an argument is dependent upon the information from a source of this kind, phrasing (in theory) can help. (It doesn't always help because a lot of people don't give a shit about your phrasing. These people are assholes.)
Example: A poll in the
True York Times says that people voted for Dillary Clump because of a lax stance on copyright law.
There are two ways a conclusion from this information can be asserted:
- "Clump voters are pirates and this poll proves it."
- "If the True York Times poll is correct, there might be a strong correlation between digital piracy and people voting Clump."
The first response is subject to a criticism of "Well, the
True York Times is owned by copyright lawyers, so I don't believe it." The second version circumvents this by taking for granted that the information
might still be true while simultaneously admitting that
it might not be.
A productive discussion with someone who holds solid convictions isn't a debate; it's an interview. The only kind of person who is open to being proven wrong is someone who understands and appreciates logic more than their own opinions. Just remember: most people don't want to be
correct; they want to be
right.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 16, 2016, 10:20:26 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 06:28:26 AM
Go ye forth into the internet, and tell me what percentage of what you read is true.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 16, 2016, 05:10:32 PM
Oh, it wasn't rhetorical. It was getting at the OP's point about the relative distribution of factual vs. non-factual information. Now that we live in an era where anyone can create their own guru mini-empire with nothing more than a Facebook page, I would hazard a guess that the majority of the words we read convey information that is not factual.
Obviously exact percentages are a virtual impossibility, especially when considering the subjective nature of certain kinds of truth. However, with enough time and effort, it should be possible to achieve some kind of approximation of the ratio of habitually disinformative websites and social media spheres to neutral and informative ones.
Yeah, that's what I keep saying about statistical analysis, large sample sizes, repeated samples, normal curve, blah blah blah.
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 05:29:34 PM
I may need to clarify more. My idea is that there are more instances of disinformation, but it's the same disinformation. For example, there's disinfo that says Clinton's emails show she actively prevented military assistance during the Benghazi attacks. You see that piece, you do some fact checking, you determine it's false.
But that one piece of disinfo is being written up by two or three dozen bogus fake news sites, and it's being shared on social media thousands of times. It's incredibly tedious, borderlining on impossible, to keep debunking the same story every time a new bogusnews.com site posts an article on it. In addition, because so many different sites are writing it up, it give the false impression that if this many news outlets are covering it, there must be some element of truth to it.
I don't think it's accurate to say that it's the same disinformation, because where it once took some outlay of capital to put one's stupid, erroneous ideas into the public eye via a print medium, it is now yours for the price of a Facebook page. Fuck, all by myself I have how many? Most of them are relatively inactive, but a few are very popular and one has 26,000+ members. I have seen memes I created shared in unrelated groups by people I don't know.
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on November 18, 2016, 12:32:13 AM
There's a related question to this that is bothering me. I'm heavily steeped in a tumblr social justice worldview, having read that dashboard far too many damn times over (is it a year now?) the past several months. My area is heavily rural and conservative. I live in a town burned to the ground by the Confederates, and many people in town love wearing their flag.
I spent a lot of time arguing with a man at work, who supported Trump before his candidacy, or well, trying to politely discuss it with him. I decided to avoid citing sources he didn't trust. He listed one website as his source for information, and sure as hell didn't trust Fox News. I just ended up deciding we must live in alternate universes.
....meandering meant to lead up to one question: how the FUCK can we discuss anything anymore, if we can't even figure out what the facts of reality are? The echo-chamber effect is causing our understanding of reality to bifurcate more and more. Whether or not it's true or false, we can't talk if we can't even share premises. We can't argue those premises without agreeing on more primal premises. The turtles down below are starting to crack under the pressure.
TL;DR: Misinfo/info aside, what facts can we, the people of the world, use as basis for discussion? Everything seems to depend on your party now!
Everything used to depend on your tribe. Party affiliation is essentially membership in a tribe. Nothing fundamental has changed.
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 06:42:20 PM
You got it.
The end result seems to be the same, but I was trying to clarify that the net balance of lies::truth was the same. It's the signal-boosting repetition that has thrown it out of wack.
I would posit that this definition takes far too narrow a view of how one defines the proportion of fact vs. disinformation. If 30 sources claim that alkaline water is good for you for every 1 source that claims it is woo, do you consider that a 1:1 ratio?
And thats without even taking into consideration the almost fabulous amount of completely random made-up bullshit from people whose only agenda is being crazy as fuck or capitalizing off the paranoid, like the claim that African women don't need to menstruate and only do so because of the Western diet, that rainbows are caused by deadly mind-control chemicals, that drinking distilled water will kill you, or that the color amber has quantum healing wavelengths. We live in an era where literally ANYONE, however insane or mercenary, can write an infographic or put up a webpage, and people will believe it.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
A new question:
Would effective neutralization of prolifically disinformative news sources help curb the kinds of misinformation commonly propagated and reinforced by common discourse? In other words, would it make people less ignorant - or more able to be dissuaded from ignorance - on social media and in public?
Nope.
Quote
Or, in the absence of controlled disinformation, would people just saturate the world with bullshit by regularly generating their own?
What, exactly, do you think is currently happening?
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 07:35:50 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:58:46 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
If you're interested in the idea of signals or messages as organic, fluid, or essentially "living" things which are subject to the forces of entropy, then cybernetics is an appropriate field of study to immerse one's self in. I was wondering if you'd already done so.
The book reads a bit like stereo instructions but taps into a few really key ideas about the way that information works.
I can't imagine why Pent would be interested in or know anything about cybernetics or information systems. Would you Pent? :lulz:
Quote from: BrotherPrickle on November 18, 2016, 12:32:13 AM
how the FUCK can we discuss anything anymore, if we can't even figure out what the facts of reality are? The echo-chamber effect is causing our understanding of reality to bifurcate more and more. Whether or not it's true or false, we can't talk if we can't even share premises.
Learn how to fact-check. Take a class in it, if possible. Don't just look at a number of articles; vet the sources. Often you can find several articles that all seem to agree, only to find they are all just "reporting" another article. Try to trace to the initial source, and learn to evaluate credibility of original sources. Multiple concurring original sources which all came to their conclusion through original research and analysis and do not appear to be unduly influenced by monetary or idealogical dependence on any large funding body are your best bets for factual accuracy.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 05:07:33 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
Or, in the absence of controlled disinformation, would people just saturate the world with bullshit by regularly generating their own?
What, exactly, do you think is currently happening?
A mixture of both controlled disinformation as well as that which is generated naturally people's inclination towards self-affirming nonsense. Both are reinforced in feedback loops through social networking and other kinds of Internet-based echo-chambers.
Quote
I can't imagine why Pent would be interested in or know anything about cybernetics or information systems. Would you Pent? :lulz:
Well, I guess I picked up on that? Not sure why my intuition was met with reservation, but whatever.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 05:46:03 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 05:07:33 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:50:20 PM
Or, in the absence of controlled disinformation, would people just saturate the world with bullshit by regularly generating their own?
What, exactly, do you think is currently happening?
A mixture of both controlled disinformation as well as that which is generated naturally people's inclination towards self-affirming nonsense. Both are reinforced in feedback loops through social networking and other kinds of Internet-based echo-chambers.
Quote
I can't imagine why Pent would be interested in or know anything about cybernetics or information systems. Would you Pent? :lulz:
Well, I guess I picked up on that? Not sure why my intuition was met with reservation, but whatever.
Yeah, it's more a matter of you not having bothered to read the board at all or try to figure out who knows more than you about what before saying shit that sounds incredibly stupid to anyone with actual expertise in the subject. :lol:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 06:12:37 AM
Yeah, it's more a matter of you not having bothered to read the board at all or try to figure out who knows more than you about what before saying shit that sounds incredibly stupid to anyone with actual expertise in the subject. :lol:
"...not having bothered to read the board" ... ?
I'm not going to read through eight years of posts in order to save myself the trouble of
actual socializing.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 05:18:41 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 07:35:50 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:58:46 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
If you're interested in the idea of signals or messages as organic, fluid, or essentially "living" things which are subject to the forces of entropy, then cybernetics is an appropriate field of study to immerse one's self in. I was wondering if you'd already done so.
The book reads a bit like stereo instructions but taps into a few really key ideas about the way that information works.
I can't imagine why Pent would be interested in or know anything about cybernetics or information systems. Would you Pent? :lulz:
Nope, I'm just here looking for a charismatic guru :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 18, 2016, 07:16:32 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 05:18:41 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 07:35:50 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 17, 2016, 07:06:02 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 17, 2016, 06:58:46 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Human Use of Human Beings by Norbert Wiener?
Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it.
If you're interested in the idea of signals or messages as organic, fluid, or essentially "living" things which are subject to the forces of entropy, then cybernetics is an appropriate field of study to immerse one's self in. I was wondering if you'd already done so.
The book reads a bit like stereo instructions but taps into a few really key ideas about the way that information works.
I can't imagine why Pent would be interested in or know anything about cybernetics or information systems. Would you Pent? :lulz:
Nope, I'm just here looking for a charismatic guru :lulz:
If you're an expert on cybernetics, I hope you can appreciate the irony which is the total communications breakdown of this exchange. It's one thing for people to react with hostility in a political thread where I refer to hypothetical people as
assholes, but to be laughed at and given shit for
not already knowing whoever the hell
you are is downright
dirty pool.
Great. I'm the "new guy". I didn't read the half-organized and non-searchable ten-thousand previous posts in order to find the one where it's made clear that you in particular are the Ghost of Norbert Wiener himself. What's more, your blurb in the "Who's Who" thread (which I actually did read) doesn't mention anything having to do with any of this. And since you have no idea who I am, I must know fuck-all about the subject, right?
I don't mean to come down on you specifically, but these tag-team style shenanigans are wildly out of place in this thread.
In an alternate universe, we might have had an interesting conversation. But in this one, I'm obviously not worth an easy answer to a simple question.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
I don't mean to come down on you specifically, but these tag-team style shenanigans are wildly out of place in this thread.
Sorry to disappoint but these tag-team style shenanigans are pretty much the whole board :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 18, 2016, 07:57:15 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
I don't mean to come down on you specifically, but these tag-team style shenanigans are wildly out of place in this thread.
Sorry to disappoint but these tag-team style shenanigans are pretty much the whole board :lulz:
:notnice:
Also,
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: LMNO on November 15, 2016, 06:42:20 PM
You got it.
The end result seems to be the same, but I was trying to clarify that the net balance of lies::truth was the same. It's the signal-boosting repetition that has thrown it out of wack.
I would posit that this definition takes far too narrow a view of how one defines the proportion of fact vs. disinformation. If 30 sources claim that alkaline water is good for you for every 1 source that claims it is woo, do you consider that a 1:1 ratio?
Good point. I hadn't looked at it from the reverse view.
Apropos of very little, it really seems like Colbert's "truthiness" routine has become entirely normalized by now. In the campaign, there would be reporting that Trump claimed the rates of violent crime were skyrocketing. This isn't true, and occasionally a news report would mention that in passing, but they were more focused on the Trump voter
feeling like it's true, which the news somehow decided was a valid reason for voting Trump.
"I voted for someone based on false information, but it felt good" doesn't seem like a good place to start a conversation, though.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 06:21:16 AM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 06:12:37 AM
Yeah, it's more a matter of you not having bothered to read the board at all or try to figure out who knows more than you about what before saying shit that sounds incredibly stupid to anyone with actual expertise in the subject. :lol:
"...not having bothered to read the board" ... ?
I'm not going to read through eight years of posts in order to save myself the trouble of actual socializing.
Some people just, you know, lurk a little, skim the last few weeks, make some chitchat, shit like that. Just to get a feel for the place, kinda figure out who people are before condescending to them. You know. Socializing.
Using appropriate social behavior.
Hell, even I like to get current before I post, if I've been gone a while. Pick up on context, read the room, etc.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 07:41:59 AM
In an alternate universe, we might have had an interesting conversation. But in this one, I'm obviously not worth an easy answer to a simple question.
Now you have it figured out.
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
Some people just, you know, lurk a little, skim the last few weeks, make some chitchat, shit like that. Just to get a feel for the place, kinda figure out who people are before condescending to them. You know. Socializing.
Which I did at various points for a period of several months. How can you have the expectation that I would ever have come across information about one specific person? How can you
berate me for asking a question about whether or not he was interested in a specific field of academic study?
You can't. You didn't like what I had to say in the other thread, so you came into this one to be a
bitch.
And just
what the hell is condescending about asking someone if they were familiar with something? If anything, the
response was condescending. "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it." Well, hello, Mr. Fancy Pants! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbkmjctIaXI&t=0m16s)
Quote
Using appropriate social behavior.
Something you threw out the window the moment you tried telling me that my head was "too far up my own ass" because you didn't agree with my point of view. You wouldn't know what
appropriate social behavior was if it came up to you, told you that you look nice today, and asked if you'd read any good books lately.
QuoteYou wouldn't know what appropriate social behavior was if it came up to you, told you that you look nice today, and asked if you'd read any good books lately.
Newsfeed? :lulz:
Quote from: Hitler on November 18, 2016, 08:13:16 PM
You can't. You didn't like what I had to say in the other thread, so you came into this one to be a bitch.
:lulz:
There it is.
Quote from: Vivat Alty on November 18, 2016, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: Hitler on November 18, 2016, 08:13:16 PM
You can't. You didn't like what I had to say in the other thread, so you came into this one to be a bitch.
:lulz:
There it is.
Italics make things
extra hurtful.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 08:13:16 PM
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 03:59:48 PM
Some people just, you know, lurk a little, skim the last few weeks, make some chitchat, shit like that. Just to get a feel for the place, kinda figure out who people are before condescending to them. You know. Socializing.
Which I did at various points for a period of several months. How can you have the expectation that I would ever have come across information about one specific person? How can you berate me for asking a question about whether or not he was interested in a specific field of academic study?
Mostly because there is an active thread that makes it really really unmistakably obvious.
Quote
You can't. You didn't like what I had to say in the other thread, so you came into this one to be a bitch.
No, it was really just because there is an active thread that makes it really really unmistakably obvious. But it's nice to see my prediction that you're a misogynistic little turd validated. :lol:
Quote
And just what the hell is condescending about asking someone if they were familiar with something? If anything, the response was condescending. "Interesting question. I'm sure there's a reason for it." Well, hello, Mr. Fancy Pants! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbkmjctIaXI&t=0m16s)
Sure, blame Pent for responding less-than-warmly to your asinine behavior.
Quote
Quote
Using appropriate social behavior.
Something you threw out the window the moment you tried telling me that my head was "too far up my own ass" because you didn't agree with my point of view. You wouldn't know what appropriate social behavior was if it came up to you, told you that you look nice today, and asked if you'd read any good books lately.
Tell yourself whatever makes you feel better, precious little fragile flower.
Quote from: Vivat Alty on November 18, 2016, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: Hitler on November 18, 2016, 08:13:16 PM
You can't. You didn't like what I had to say in the other thread, so you came into this one to be a bitch.
:lulz:
There it is.
LIKE CLOCKWORK. :lulz:
Quote from: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on November 18, 2016, 08:25:35 PM
Mostly because there is an active thread that makes it really really unmistakably obvious.
Well,
FUCK ME for having not accidentally stumbled upon that
one particular thread, right?
Quote
No, it was really just because there is an active thread that makes it really really unmistakably obvious. But it's nice to see my prediction that you're a misogynistic little turd validated. :lol:
Still a bitch. And apparently the kind that throws around the word
misogynistic like it's confetti.
Quote
Sure, blame Pent for responding less-than-warmly to your asinine behavior.
Telling someone that what they'd just written is fascinating and then
asking if they'd read a particular book isn't fucking
asinine. It's normal human interaction.
Does adding someone to your ignore list prevent you from seeing their posts? I could really do without this
toxic nonsense.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 08:39:15 PM
Does adding someone to your ignore list prevent you from seeing their posts? I could really do without this toxic nonsense.
Oh, look, it
does!
Damn, that feels better.
That's too bad, she's one of the more interesting people on the board.
Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
That's too bad, she's one of the more interesting people on the board.
So am I.
Don't care; she burned that bridge on her own. If she wants to calm her tits, she can send me a personal message and say, "Hey, let's be friends. I won't tell you that your head is up your ass, and you won't question the extremist attitudes of people who can't think outside their own paradigm. Deal?"
Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
That's too bad, she's one of the more interesting people on the board.
It's not like he's capable of learning, so I doubt it makes any difference one way or the other.
Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
That's too bad, she's one of the more interesting people on the board.
Too bad she's a
BITCH.
Quote from: Vivat Alty on November 18, 2016, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2016, 08:48:24 PM
That's too bad, she's one of the more interesting people on the board.
Too bad she's a BITCH.
Such a bitch. Also, a nasty woman.
I bet he's really kicking himself for arguing with someone who turned out to be female, when he could have been calling me a bitch and telling me to calm my tits this whole time.
:lulz:
Or explaining how the clitoris works. That was a good one.
If I weren't an interesting person (or, at the very least raising interesting points/questions), nobody would be responding to me in the first place. I'm not here to troll the board; I'm not some random crazy from the dark corners of the Intarwebz. I came here to discuss and to debate certain things that I thought other people who consider themselves Discordians might want to talk about.
If you think I'm boring, you wouldn't be reading this deeply into the thread. So laugh all you want, friend; I'm here to stay unless the admins think it's appropriate to ban me. (I'm not asking to be banned.)
And you've been met with derision, scorn and found lacking. Perhaps we don't care that you're SUPER IMPORTANT so maybe spend your time elsewhere?
Thing is, Nigel has proven how interesting she is over the space of years.
You posted garbage yesterday.
My, unwarranted and kind, suggestion is to post something in another area. Try a recipe. Spags love recipes. Check out my candied yams.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 18, 2016, 09:25:11 PM
And you've been met with derision, scorn and found lacking.
Not by everyone. There are some who clearly disagree with me but aren't willing to act like children in order to express it. And there are a few who seem to understand what I've been saying. I find that promising.
Quote
Perhaps we don't care that you're SUPER IMPORTANT so maybe spend your time elsewhere?
I'll let you take some time to step back and cool your jets before I stop paying attention to anything you have to say. I may be wrong, but my initial impression is that you aren't a total asshole. I'd appreciate it if you confirmed that suspicion.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 09:34:56 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 18, 2016, 09:25:11 PM
And you've been met with derision, scorn and found lacking.
Not by everyone. There are some who clearly disagree with me but aren't willing to act like children in order to express it. And there are a few who seem to understand what I've been saying. I find that promising.
Quote
Perhaps we don't care that you're SUPER IMPORTANT so maybe spend your time elsewhere?
I'll let you take some time to step back and cool your jets before I stop paying attention to anything you have to say. I may be wrong, but my initial impression is that you aren't a total asshole. I'd appreciate it if you confirmed that suspicion.
So you're set on the problem being other people?
Cool, guy. You'll get far not questioning that mistaken belief.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 18, 2016, 09:41:33 PM
So you're set on the problem being other people?
I'm not sure you actually understand what you even mean by this. It certainly isn't a sensible response to anything I said.
Yes, it is.
As you demonstrate, the problem is other people, not you.
Hint- The problem is you.
Second hint - You're an asshole.
Third hint - The second hint is understated.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 18, 2016, 09:11:53 PM
If I weren't an interesting person (or, at the very least raising interesting points/questions), nobody would be responding to me in the first place.
On the other hand, traffic has been down.
Just wanted to say that chinbagpelvis's appearance has given me more laughs than I've had in a while. For this I say Thank You!
I think there might still be some meat left on your bones chin, so don't give up! These bastards are sure to tire at some point so Fortify your Heart, you glorious herald of discordia's True Path, for the blind and unenlightened denizens of this board have surely lost their way. They have become mired in the Bog of Group Think, intoxicated by it's heady stench, unable to see the arm reaching to pull them out. You are that arm, chin and they need you. I can tell you, these attacks on your character, it's all bravado and bluster designed to scare away anyone who threatens to break a hole in their meticulously constructed chamber of echoes. You are the person to do this, I truly believe it.
Stay strong and stay focused, for you have the Iron Sword of Clear Thought. Wield it right and you shall undoubtedly cleave through the walls of illogic and unreason that surround them, and truly then shall they be free.
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag. These things do be complicate
:lulz:
:lulz:
Quote from: Sung Low on November 19, 2016, 12:50:46 AM
Just wanted to say that chinbagpelvis's appearance has given me more laughs than I've had in a while. For this I say Thank You!
I think there might still be some meat left on your bones chin, so don't give up! These bastards are sure to tire at some point so Fortify your Heart, you glorious herald of discordia's True Path, for the blind and unenlightened denizens of this board have surely lost their way. They have become mired in the Bog of Group Think, intoxicated by it's heady stench, unable to see the arm reaching to pull them out. You are that arm, chin and they need you. I can tell you, these attacks on your character, it's all bravado and bluster designed to scare away anyone who threatens to break a hole in their meticulously constructed chamber of echoes. You are the person to do this, I truly believe it.
Stay strong and stay focused, for you have the Iron Sword of Clear Thought. Wield it right and you shall undoubtedly cleave through the walls of illogic and unreason that surround them, and truly then shall they be free.
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag. These things do be complicate
:potd:
I laughed. The people on the bus got off at the next stop.
Walking's good for those slovenly bastards.
Quote from: Sung Low on November 19, 2016, 12:50:46 AM
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag.
I'm sure the irony of the phrase "misogynistic douchebag" eluded everyone.
So - let me get this straight - someone acts like a bitch until you get fed up with them enough to call them out for being a bitch, then people accuse you of playing into their expectations while assuming your attitudes towards women in general. I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
There's a word for that. Pre... pre judge... prejudsomething.
Eh, I'm sure I'll remember what it is eventually.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
Joe Arpiao only called one Mexican a spic.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2016, 03:38:37 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
Joe Arpiao only called one Mexican a spic.
Oh, I see. Your contention is because I chose an appropriately gender-specific insult.
So if I called you a dick, would that make me a feminist?
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:47:10 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 19, 2016, 03:38:37 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
Joe Arpiao only called one Mexican a spic.
Oh, I see. Your contention is because I chose an appropriately gender-specific insult.
So if I called you a dick, would that make me a feminist?
Keep on digging, dude. You'll be out of that hole in no time. :lulz:
Quote from: Sung Low on November 19, 2016, 12:50:46 AM
Just wanted to say that chinbagpelvis's appearance has given me more laughs than I've had in a while. For this I say Thank You!
I think there might still be some meat left on your bones chin, so don't give up! These bastards are sure to tire at some point so Fortify your Heart, you glorious herald of discordia's True Path, for the blind and unenlightened denizens of this board have surely lost their way. They have become mired in the Bog of Group Think, intoxicated by it's heady stench, unable to see the arm reaching to pull them out. You are that arm, chin and they need you. I can tell you, these attacks on your character, it's all bravado and bluster designed to scare away anyone who threatens to break a hole in their meticulously constructed chamber of echoes. You are the person to do this, I truly believe it.
Stay strong and stay focused, for you have the Iron Sword of Clear Thought. Wield it right and you shall undoubtedly cleave through the walls of illogic and unreason that surround them, and truly then shall they be free.
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag. These things do be complicate
:roflcake:
82 from this thread please Roger.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 18, 2016, 09:52:23 PM
Yes, it is.
As you demonstrate, the problem is other people, not you.
Hint- The problem is you.
Second hint - You're an asshole.
Third hint - The second hint is understated.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
Quote from: Sung Low on November 19, 2016, 12:50:46 AM
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag.
I'm sure the irony of the phrase "misogynistic douchebag" eluded everyone.
So - let me get this straight - someone acts like a bitch until you get fed up with them enough to call them out for being a bitch, then people accuse you of playing into their expectations while assuming your attitudes towards women in general. I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
There's a word for that. Pre... pre judge... prejudsomething.
Eh, I'm sure I'll remember what it is eventually.
I don't think douchebag is a misogynistic term, it seems to be more commonly used as a derogatory term towards people of the male persuasion.
'An obnoxious or contemptible person, typically a man.' says the Oxford English dictionary.
I don't know you outside of what you've posted here. In a short space of time you've called a woman a bitch multiple times and suggested that she 'calm her tits'. Please enlighten me as to what I should have inferred from this.
Quote from: Sung Low on November 20, 2016, 02:06:25 AM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 19, 2016, 03:30:24 AM
Quote from: Sung Low on November 19, 2016, 12:50:46 AM
Or, you might just be a misogynistic douchebag.
I'm sure the irony of the phrase "misogynistic douchebag" eluded everyone.
So - let me get this straight - someone acts like a bitch until you get fed up with them enough to call them out for being a bitch, then people accuse you of playing into their expectations while assuming your attitudes towards women in general. I called one bitchy girl a bitch, so I must hate all women, right?
There's a word for that. Pre... pre judge... prejudsomething.
Eh, I'm sure I'll remember what it is eventually.
I don't think douchebag is a misogynistic term, it seems to be more commonly used as a derogatory term towards people of the male persuasion.
'An obnoxious or contemptible person, typically a man.' says the Oxford English dictionary.
I don't know you outside of what you've posted here. In a short space of time you've called a woman a bitch multiple times and suggested that she 'calm her tits'. Please enlighten me as to what I should have inferred from this.
It was also the first truly hostile descriptor he used with anyone. I assume CGE is a dude.
Quote from: Sung Low on November 20, 2016, 02:06:25 AM
I don't think douchebag is a misogynistic term, it seems to be more commonly used as a derogatory term towards people of the male persuasion.
'An obnoxious or contemptible person, typically a man.' says the Oxford English dictionary.
If
bitch in the context in which I used it is a misogynistic term, then
douchebag is a misandrous one. That's the irony. Don't worry, because it's not a big deal. I don't actually care.
Let's look at Oxford for the definition of
bitch:
"A spiteful or unpleasant woman."
Accurate.
Quote
I don't know you outside of what you've posted here. In a short space of time you've called a woman a bitch multiple times and suggested that she 'calm her tits'. Please enlighten me as to what I should have inferred from this.
I called her a
bitch for
spitefully going out of her way to discredit me in an extremely unfair manner. She immediately called me
misogynist in retaliation. If she wants to be defined by her sexuality by instantly rushing towards sexist accusations, then so be it. I gave her what she wanted. She can calm her tits, sit on a stick, and get back in the kitchen. How's that for misogyny?
If I were a
misogynist, I'd have started hurling insults at her the moment she drew attention to her gender. I even stopped her dead in her tracks and told her that
I didn't care.
Anyone trying to white-knight her over it can screw off. She and about three other fuckwads welcomed me to this forum with extreme hostility. Was it because I said that protestors were assholes? No, it was because I was being critical of people they happened to ideologically agree with. People are so polarized by politics that even an impassioned call to reason is met with scorn. I was immediately told to
eat seven dicks. Did I lash out and accuse that person of
homophobia?
This is nonsense. Just like my original argument in the thread that started this bullshit, people are moving to defend the bad behavior of
their own while condemning it from anyone else.
Anyone who can dish it out but can't take it back deserves to be in my ignore list, which I am very happy to have discovered. My only regret is that I did not find it sooner; perhaps I wouldn't have assumed my only option was to fight fire with fire. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the only people I've traded insults with were the ones who took the initiative. The only people I've blocked are those who have shown intellectual dishonesty as a debate tactic by repeatedly luring me into attempting to clarify my points and then shitting all over them as the proverbial pigeon does to the chessboard.
Have I allowed my responses in these skirmishes to permanently tarnish my image on this board? Perhaps, but my post activity so far has been in the vein of bringing attention to disinformation and a lack of critical thought, and I refuse to apologize to trolls.
Of course, I've also made appeals to being measured and rational. Does that make me a hypocrite for losing my cool? Probably. I'm certainly willing to admit it.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 20, 2016, 02:54:23 AM
Quote from: Sung Low on November 20, 2016, 02:06:25 AM
I don't think douchebag is a misogynistic term, it seems to be more commonly used as a derogatory term towards people of the male persuasion.
'An obnoxious or contemptible person, typically a man.' says the Oxford English dictionary.
If bitch in the context in which I used it is a misogynistic term, then douchebag is a misandrous one. That's the irony. Don't worry, because it's not a big deal. I don't actually care.
Let's look at Oxford for the definition of bitch:
"A spiteful or unpleasant woman."
Accurate.
Quote
I don't know you outside of what you've posted here. In a short space of time you've called a woman a bitch multiple times and suggested that she 'calm her tits'. Please enlighten me as to what I should have inferred from this.
I called her a bitch for spitefully going out of her way to discredit me in an extremely unfair manner. She immediately called me misogynist in retaliation. If she wants to be defined by her sexuality by instantly rushing towards sexist accusations, then so be it. I gave her what she wanted. She can calm her tits, sit on a stick, and get back in the kitchen. How's that for misogyny?
If I were a misogynist, I'd have started hurling insults at her the moment she drew attention to her gender. I even stopped her dead in her tracks and told her that I didn't care.
Anyone trying to white-knight her over it can screw off. She and about three other fuckwads welcomed me to this forum with extreme hostility. Was it because I said that protestors were assholes? No, it was because I was being critical of people they happened to ideologically agree with. People are so polarized by politics that even an impassioned call to reason is met with scorn. I was immediately told to eat seven dicks. Did I lash out and accuse that person of homophobia?
This is nonsense. Just like my original argument in the thread that started this bullshit, people are moving to defend the bad behavior of their own while condemning it from anyone else.
Anyone who can dish it out but can't take it back deserves to be in my ignore list, which I am very happy to have discovered. My only regret is that I did not find it sooner; perhaps I wouldn't have assumed my only option was to fight fire with fire. I think it's fairly obvious to anyone paying attention that the only people I've traded insults with were the ones who took the initiative. The only people I've blocked are those who have shown intellectual dishonesty as a debate tactic by repeatedly luring me into attempting to clarify my points and then shitting all over them as the proverbial pigeon does to the chessboard.
Have I allowed these skirmishes to permanently tarnish my image on this board? Perhaps, but my post activity so far has been in the vein of bringing attention to disinformation and a lack of critical thought, and I refuse to apologize to trolls.
Of course, I've also made appeals to being measured and rational. Does that make me a hypocrite for losing my cool? Probably. I'm certainly willing to admit it.
:spittake:
QuoteShe and about three other fuckwads welcomed me to this forum with extreme hostility.
Remember that old Greek story about Eris sitting around with a bunch of dudes talking about the duality of man?
:lulz: This guy can't be for real.
Plus, he's so hung up on being butthurt that I think his idea that protesters are assholes is stupid that he completely dropped his misinformation argument to focus exclusively on that, effectively ruining his one potentially decent thread here.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on November 18, 2016, 01:43:23 PM
In the campaign, there would be reporting that Trump claimed the rates of violent crime were skyrocketing. This isn't true, and occasionally a news report would mention that in passing, but they were more focused on the Trump voter feeling like it's true, which the news somehow decided was a valid reason for voting Trump.
Newt Gingrich specifically tried to explain this situation on the air, but he was repeatedly shut down because the other reporter seemed to think that he was attempting to legitimize it by merely
acknowledging it.
I blame the newsmedia, largely. Making people
feel like something is true without actually
lying to them and outright saying that it's true has been their bread and butter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iAecAtJVdE) for at least as long as I can remember.
People do it to themselves, even without the disinformation. I can remember hearing lots of people talk in casual conversations about having voted for Obama for campaign promises he never even made. They just
assumed that because he was the first black president that his focus was going to be on race relations. As if a single president could somehow
undo half a century of institutionalized problems.
Anyone have "misandry" on their bingo lists?
Quote from: LMNO on November 20, 2016, 02:11:34 PM
Anyone have "misandry" on their bingo lists?
Are you still hung up on this? Or are you going to reward using troll tactics to subvert discussion? Am I embarrassed that I gave into it? Yeah. Do I care? No. Argue with children long enough, and eventually you start saying childish things.
Using misnomers to label an opponent is a reprehensible practice. Misogyny is no more accurately spotted in this subforum than Nazism. It's just another example of demonizing and dehumanization. It's mental bullshit.
At what point did people convert Discordianism into a mask for Social Justice Warriors?
Your conclusion compiler appears to be stuck in binary mode, between objective and subjective worldviews.
The clicking sound you hear is the switch flipping back and forth. This can lead to a perception failure. If you don't hear anything, it may have already happened.
Quote from: LMNO on November 20, 2016, 07:04:22 PM
Your conclusion compiler appears to be stuck in binary mode, between objective and subjective worldviews.
The clicking sound you hear is the switch flipping back and forth. This can lead to a perception failure. If you don't hear anything, it may have already happened.
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of how
unchallenged my points are.
This guys shtick is the same ever time.
If you call out his bullshit reasoning for being as non-functional, illogical, or circular, and he's not being challenged properly.
What a little shit.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program:
Relevant: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/google-eric-schmidt-cyber-information-is-good-even-if-its-wrong-fakenews-trump-elections-climatechange-diplomat/?utm_content=bufferb3395
Quote from: Vivat Alty on November 20, 2016, 07:16:20 PM
This guys shtick is the same ever time.
If you call out his bullshit reasoning for being as non-functional, illogical, or circular, and he's not being challenged properly.
What a little shit.
For everyone's daily rage (except CGE, of course, who will fap):
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/15/heres-why-there-ought-to-be-a-cap-on-women-studying-science-and-maths/
Relevant: http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-students-dont-know-when-news-is-fake-stanford-study-finds-1479752576
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 22, 2016, 09:45:05 AM
Relevant: http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-students-dont-know-when-news-is-fake-stanford-study-finds-1479752576
It was an op-ed from an asshole, you shitstain. :lulz:
Relevant: https://www.inverse.com/article/24175-barack-obama-fake-news-facebook-climate-change
I was listening to a podcast yesterday and one of the hosts mentioned that back in the pre-internet days, people used to have to rely on encyclopedias as their sources of authoritative knowledge. The poor bastards.
They further went on to state that some author (maybe? I was half listening) used to buy every different set of encyclopedias that he came across, in order to be able to accurately portray the things that he was writing about.
However, when he cross-referenced facts across different encyclopedias he found that sometimes details, dates etc. would be different in different books.
So has information always been false in one sense or another? With the internet we've simply all got a whole library of encyclopedias willing to tell us different things if we'd just look.
Quote from: Xaz on November 23, 2016, 07:57:14 AM
I was listening to a podcast yesterday and one of the hosts mentioned that back in the pre-internet days, people used to have to rely on encyclopedias as their sources of authoritative knowledge. The poor bastards.
They further went on to state that some author (maybe? I was half listening) used to buy every different set of encyclopedias that he came across, in order to be able to accurately portray the things that he was writing about.
However, when he cross-referenced facts across different encyclopedias he found that sometimes details, dates etc. would be different in different books.
So has information always been false in one sense or another? With the internet we've simply all got a whole library of encyclopedias willing to tell us different things if we'd just look.
That last part is quite true. Just look at the difference in "facts" between say, Wikipedia, Conservipedia and rationalwiki. We are increasingly able to look at sources that support existing bias which essentially results in picking your own preferred echo chamber.
Not wishing to overstate the obvious but
QuoteAll affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Sri Syadasti
So imagine you are a conscientious writer [NB that is a generic 'you', I'm not suggesting that you personally aren't a conscientious writer]. So you do the best research you can, you read widely, you assess the quality and accuracy of your sources and eventually you end up writing a piece on, for example, Hillary Clinton and yet you still end up getting a small detail wrong her date of birth for example. How would you characterise this minor inaccuracy? Does it invalidate all the other well researched and [notionally] accurate information in your piece? Does it put it on the same footing as a piece which for example claims that Hillary Clinton has a death squad who assassinate her enemies, or that she is part of a child trafficking ring who kill and eat children?
When you said
QuoteWith the internet we've simply all got a whole library of encyclopedias willing to tell us different things if we'd just look.
and, forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, portrayed the problem as being a minor problem of interpretation and not a burning issue of such huge import as to put a lying shyster in the White House or have the UK jump off a cliff yelling Make Britain Great Again.
My current interpretation, for what its worth, is that Barthes' concept "The death of the author" is a good point to step back and try to get some perspective on what is going on. http://artblog.catherinehoman.com/roland-barthes-the-death-of-the-author-critical-summary/
I have listened intently to as many UKIP voting "traditional Labour voters" since the referendum and as much of the "authentic" voice of rust-belt America as I have been able to find since the election, because I feel a desperate need to be able to find some genuine points of reference in this World Turned Upside Down. I'm not finding any. I feel like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality where burning witches actually makes sense and that being the case I can't see how rational human beings can restore us to reality. Whopping lies are always going to be more exciting and media sexy than boring truths. I just never expected to see them as part of mainstream political debate in the 21stC.
[/hyperbole]
Quote from: MMIX on November 23, 2016, 11:20:19 AM
Not wishing to overstate the obvious but
QuoteAll affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Sri Syadasti
So imagine you are a conscientious writer [NB that is a generic 'you', I'm not suggesting that you personally aren't a conscientious writer]. So you do the best research you can, you read widely, you assess the quality and accuracy of your sources and eventually you end up writing a piece on, for example, Hillary Clinton and yet you still end up getting a small detail wrong her date of birth for example. How would you characterise this minor inaccuracy? Does it invalidate all the other well researched and [notionally] accurate information in your piece? Does it put it on the same footing as a piece which for example claims that Hillary Clinton has a death squad who assassinate her enemies, or that she is part of a child trafficking ring who kill and eat children?
When you said QuoteWith the internet we've simply all got a whole library of encyclopedias willing to tell us different things if we'd just look.
and, forgive me if I am misinterpreting you, portrayed the problem as being a minor problem of interpretation and not a burning issue of such huge import as to put a lying shyster in the White House or have the UK jump off a cliff yelling Make Britain Great Again.
My current interpretation, for what its worth, is that Barthes' concept "The death of the author" is a good point to step back and try to get some perspective on what is going on. http://artblog.catherinehoman.com/roland-barthes-the-death-of-the-author-critical-summary/
I have listened intently to as many UKIP voting "traditional Labour voters" since the referendum and as much of the "authentic" voice of rust-belt America as I have been able to find since the election, because I feel a desperate need to be able to find some genuine points of reference in this World Turned Upside Down. I'm not finding any. I feel like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality where burning witches actually makes sense and that being the case I can't see how rational human beings can restore us to reality. Whopping lies are always going to be more exciting and media sexy than boring truths. I just never expected to see them as part of mainstream political debate in the 21stC.
[/hyperbole]
Sri Syadasti was definitely onto something. I am also reminded of the "everything is true, nothing is permitted/nothing is true, everything is permitted" dichotomy when tying to wrap my head around these issues.
I see your point in that some inaccuracies are somehow 'more' inaccurate than others - getting a date wrong would usually be seen as a minor transgression. Sometimes it could be crucial though.
FYI - Hilary actually dresses up as a yak and dances around her secret mountain lair. The children are merely collateral. :wink:
I wouldn't say that all the conflicting information out there is a minor problem - the results that you listed are likely to have serious repercussions.
Not only are there myriad encyclopaedias out there now but anybody with an agenda can create their own and tote it as the gospel truth. I guess back in the days of print there may have been more rigourous fact checking and more severe repercussions for reporting something that turned out to be false.
If I interpreted your link correctly it is suggesting that authored works should be engaged with not only at face value but with consideration to the character and environment of the author? That is an interesting point but (and?) adds another layer of complexity/obfuscation to uncovering truth.
Which I think, while not unreasonable, causes a problem because human beings are not really rational most of the time. Decisions are made in a split second based on gut feelings. The extra energy and time required to vet every piece of incoming information for accuracy is too demanding.
Quote from: Xaz on November 23, 2016, 12:27:39 PM
Which I think, while not unreasonable, causes a problem because human beings are not really rational most of the time. Decisions are made in a split second based on gut feelings. The extra energy and time required to vet every piece of incoming information for accuracy is too demanding.
Personally I view the whole truth thing a lot like DNS propagation. Someone advances an argument that is met with consensus. Takes a while for this to percolate around to the point where it enters group consensus. Whether it's objectively true or not is mostly irrelevant. For something to be considered true the only criterion it's required to meet is mass acceptance.
What's changed with the internet is the speed at which these truths propagate around the hivemind. By extension, they can be replaced with more popular worldviews at the same speed. So now we're living in a maelstrom of ever shifting truths. There's barely enough time to consider a fact before it's been superseded by half a dozen conflicting ones. Consensus? Forget it.
My personal opinion is why bother even trying. There's little or no profit or lulz in doing so and it's fucking impossible to boot. Makes more sense to me just to cherry pick ones that look likely to best serve my agenda (whatever that might be at any given moment in time) and do my best to help them spread.
Quote from: Xaz on November 23, 2016, 12:27:39 PM
Not only are there myriad encyclopaedias out there now but anybody with an agenda can create their own and tote it as the gospel truth. I guess back in the days of print there may have been more rigourous fact checking and more severe repercussions for reporting something that turned out to be false.
Quote from: Xaz on November 23, 2016, 12:27:39 PM
If I interpreted your link correctly it is suggesting that authored works should be engaged with not only at face value but with consideration to the character and environment of the author? That is an interesting point but (and?) adds another layer of complexity/obfuscation to uncovering truth.
Equally, if not more, relevant is the Barthes' recognition that the reader is in some very real metaphysical sense also the author. Its a BIP thing. Everything the reader brings to the table is part of what they bring to their reading of the work. The "Death of the Author" is quite literal in the sense that an author does not have ultimate power to ensure that what they write is what someone else reads. It recognises that the power relationship between the author and the reader is not a simple one. Barthes is trying to suggest that the power lies not, as you might expect, with the author, [ie authority] but with the reader.
I can't say how much it pleases me to see this thread - arguably the only one of mine with any genuine
value - getting back on track.
Quote from: MMIX on November 23, 2016, 11:20:19 AM
Not wishing to overstate the obvious but
QuoteAll affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Sri Syadasti
I think the key word in Sri Syadasti is the one that is most often overlooked:
affirmations. It's important to recognize that it does not say that all
facts or that all
ideas or even that all
opinions are true, false, and meaningless, but rather anything which seems to confirm our own predispositions, positions, or conclusions.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 23, 2016, 12:52:09 PM
For something to be considered true the only criterion it's required to meet is mass acceptance.
Even "mass acceptance" - insofar as it matters - can be purposefully limted. In a society that relies less on public opinion to achieve progress and more on the expertise and recommendations of professionals, it would only matter, for instance, that most
climate scientists accept something like climate change. It would matter far less - in
theory anyway - whether or not the general public "accepts" it.
Although it's rather unsourced and somewhat conspiratorially-minded, there is a fascinating documentary called
The Century of the Self (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s) which suggests that the "elites" of the 20th century actively attempted to socially engineer a public interest in materialism as a distraction - in order to deter the average person from influencing or wanting to influence exactly these kinds of top-level problems. The argument itself is circular: make the public ignorant because the common person is too stupid to be involved. Thus, we were offered
The American DreamTM.
The irony, I think, is that the end result of all that materialism is that public opinion now
directly influences certain top-level problems. In the case of climate change, for example, alternative energy industries are now competing with fossil fuel companies, and each side is waging an information war (or possibly a
disinformation war) against the other in order to either gain or prevent public support for and patronage of these new alternatives. The side-effect is that the same public will then vote for policy-makers who represent their views on the matter, making any potential
action on climate change ultimately dependent upon how the public
feels about it.
The critical adage that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is, in fact,
true. Ignorance
has value, and disinformation mints it.
Quote
Makes more sense to me just to cherry pick ones that look likely to best serve my agenda (whatever that might be at any given moment in time) and do my best to help them spread.
This level of self-awareness can be a characteristic of enlightenment, but also of villainous malice. :wink:
Quote from: MMIX on November 23, 2016, 02:51:52 PM
Everything the reader brings to the table is part of what they bring to their reading of the work.
Robert Anton Wilson referred to this in
Maybe Logic (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7N6TOFyrLg) as "interacting-processing".
Quote from: MMIX on November 23, 2016, 11:20:19 AM
Not wishing to overstate the obvious but
QuoteAll affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. Sri Syadasti
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 24, 2016, 05:29:08 AM
I think the key word in Sri Syadasti is the one that is most often overlooked: affirmations. It's important to recognize that it does not say that all facts or that all ideas or even that all opinions are true, false, and meaningless, but rather anything which seems to confirm our own predispositions, positions, or conclusions.
Actually when I looked at this quote I took the trouble to go and confirm that my understanding of the term affirmation was such that the quote as whole really said what I thought it did.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 24, 2016, 05:29:08 AM
The critical adage that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is, in fact, true. Ignorance has value, and disinformation mints it.
Well Trump is for sure going to make bank on it, you can bet on that. I must admit, though, I prefer the whole quote though which contains a different, or maybe an alternative, 'truth' than the abbreviated version you give
Quote"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
Gotta love Asimov.
Quote from: MMIX on November 24, 2016, 01:38:08 PM
Actually when I looked at this quote I took the trouble to go and confirm that my understanding of the term affirmation was such that the quote as whole really said what I thought it did.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/268/555/60f.jpg)
Quote from: MMIX
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 24, 2016, 05:29:08 AM
The critical adage that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" is, in fact, true. Ignorance has value, and disinformation mints it.
Well Trump is for sure going to make bank on it, you can bet on that. I must admit, though, I prefer the whole quote though which contains a different, or maybe an alternative, 'truth' than the abbreviated version you give
Quote"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
Gotta love Asimov.
While I don't dispute the potentially universal application of the full quotation, I prefer to view it - at least partially - in a historical context. I sometimes think that this quote is abused today in order to defend what one might call a thread of
false-intellectualism. What I have seen more lately is a certain type of person who, while tending to feel as if they are on the correct side of "objective truth", far too often fails to adequately question
their own sources of information. Even
"intellectuals" like to hibernate in echo chambers.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 24, 2016, 05:29:08 AM
Quote
Makes more sense to me just to cherry pick ones that look likely to best serve my agenda (whatever that might be at any given moment in time) and do my best to help them spread.
This level of self-awareness can be a characteristic of enlightenment, but also of villainous malice. :wink:
Fascinating.
Have you, by any chance, read
The Celestine Prophecy by Carlos Castaneda?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 24, 2016, 10:33:54 PM
Have you, by any chance, read The Celestine Prophecy by Carlos Castaneda?
I have, yes. It was lent to me many years ago by a friend who insisted I would enjoy it. The plot was a little thin, from what I remember, but there's a conversation in the book that struck a chord with me at the time, something about enlightened societies becoming restless but failing to ask the right existential questions.
Aha, I've found it:
Quote
Eventually we arrived at what seemed to be a very logical solution. We looked at each other and
said: "Well, since our explorers have not yet returned with our true spiritual situation, why not settle into
this new world of ours while we are waiting? We are certainly learning enough to manipulate this new
world for our own benefit, so why not work in the meantime to raise our standard of living, our sense of
security in the world?
He looked at me and grinned. "And that's what we did. Four centuries ago! We shook off our
feeling of being lost by taking matters into our own hands, by focusing on conquering the Earth and
using its resources to better our situation, and only now, as we approach the end of the millennium can
we see what happened. Our focus gradually became a preoccupation. We totally lost ourselves in creat-
ing a secular security, an economic security, to replace the spiritual one we had lost. The question of why
we were alive, of what was actually going on here spiritually, was slowly pushed aside and repressed
altogether"
He looked at me intensely, then said, "Working to establish a more comfortable style of survival has
grown to feel complete in and of itself as a reason to live, and we've gradually, methodically, forgotten
our original question... We've forgotten that we still don't know what we're surviving for."
I'm not sure if this particular segment is relevant to the topic, but it's the one part of the book that I really remember appreciating.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 24, 2016, 10:33:54 PM
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 24, 2016, 05:29:08 AM
Quote
Makes more sense to me just to cherry pick ones that look likely to best serve my agenda (whatever that might be at any given moment in time) and do my best to help them spread.
This level of self-awareness can be a characteristic of enlightenment, but also of villainous malice. :wink:
Fascinating.
Have you, by any chance, read The Celestine Prophecy by Carlos Castaneda?
Ok, that was mean. :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on November 25, 2016, 12:38:54 PM
Ok, that was mean.
Nothing is
mean unless I choose to perceive it as such. Take your comment, for example. I don't see that as mean; I see it as
stupid.
I see. So you meant to agree that The Celestine Prophesy was written by Carlos Casteneda?
Wow oh wow. :lulz:
So... that was it? That was your master plan for getting one over on me?
No, but it did confirm a few suspicions.
Quote from: LMNO on November 25, 2016, 02:58:57 PM
No, but it did confirm a few suspicions.
If your suspicion was that I'm capable of making what is tantamount to a
clerical error, then congratulations. You really caught me with my pants down.
That wasn't it, but I appreciate your effort.
Quote
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5)
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Quote from: chinagreenelvis on November 26, 2016, 06:38:23 AM
Quote
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation (http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5)
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Thanks for the list! Okay, so, generally, at the time I read it, The Celestine Prophecy was all right. Now, the fact that it was not written by Castaneda is inconsequential to why I hesitate to bring it up in conversation. I think some may consider it "hokey", that's all. Funny thing, round a campfire a few weeks ago I may have brought it up myself... We were running out of wood.
Discordians are not known for disinformation. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2016, 09:42:57 PM
Discordians are not known for disinformation. :lulz:
Do we have a thread of Discordian koans? Because this should be one.
:nope:
Quote from: Xaz on November 28, 2016, 10:06:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2016, 09:42:57 PM
Discordians are not known for disinformation. :lulz:
Do we have a thread of Discordian koans? Because this should be one.
Yeah, there's a thread "meme bombs" or some such shit, it's about 300 pages.
:enough: