Misinfo Wars

[LMNO]

Anyone have "misandry" on their bingo lists?

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

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?

[LMNO]

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.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

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.

[Salty]

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.

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

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

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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/

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Relevant: http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-students-dont-know-when-news-is-fake-stanford-study-finds-1479752576

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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.   

[Hagtard Celine Dion Mustard]

Relevant: https://www.inverse.com/article/24175-barack-obama-fake-news-facebook-climate-change

[Vanadium Gryllz]

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.

[Junkenstein]

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.

[MMIX]

Not wishing to overstate the obvious but

All 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

With 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]

[Vanadium Gryllz]

Not wishing to overstate the obvious but

All 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

With 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. 

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.