Right. I’m a contrarian by nature so i enjoy exploring opposing ideas. But, more importantly, how the hell can you develop strong opinions about things without fully understanding the oppositions arguments? Its like being an offensive coordinator in football and knowing absolutely nothing about defense… it makes no fucking sense.
Maybe the reason why there is a narrative of right-wing folks feeling persecuted by SM is because there are +20million of them who are batshit believers in Qanon, etc, while the extreme leftists (who also get censored by SM) are no where near that number? I mean, i dont see debate about abortion, lowering taxes, balancing the budget, etc being an issue on SM, right? Even real touchy stuff like immigration law, same sex marriage, freedom of religon stuff doesnt get censored or result in a banhammer. Guns and guns rights are posted all the time. So really, what are the topics and posts that result in SM censoring?
There was an organization in PDX that got banned. They say they were simply keeping tabs on BLM/antifa rioters/protestors so citizens could know if they were coming to a nearby neighborhood, and they were banned because they promote self defense and lean right. Really, they got banned because their viewerbase leans heavily tacticool right, and Proud Boys and other far right militias were using that as intel to plan clashes with protests and rioters.
That and I think it is to common that people overestimate their cognitive abilities, and are too sure they are correct in their position. One should always be skeptical about being correct.
I think Hitchens had a great quote on this. I don’t remember it completely, but he said he would try to be able to argue the oppositions side better than they could before engaging in a debate with them.
she and some of her colleagues have been exploring media literacy initiatives to help “rein in” the press and combat misinformation after last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol.
To me this sounds like a media literacy initiative to help people decipher reporting from editorializing, and when to spot fake news or weakly supported stories. Wouldn’t it be a good thing if the public was educated on how and when to call bullshit, on bullshit media stories?
That was a horribly biased article from a notorious rag, but did i miss something, or is the part i quoted really the meat and potatoes of the article?
This is stuff people should have already learned in high school. Isn’t part of HS English learning how to write citing sources and recognizing good sources from bad, as well as understanding the difference between a research paper and an opinion piece? I forgot, kids aren’t asked to write anymore (just like college). Hence the writers at Huffington Post.
No doubt at all. I was just replying to ins on his topic of Q.
Yeah I agree with this as well. Is it too much to ask for a single standard?
What are you referring to? Totalitarianism is by definition a government philosophy or system, not a corporate one unless you live in an anarcho-capitalist society where corporations are all powerful.
Trump has spewed more authoritarian BS than anyone in the last few years. How is a private entity take private action on private users of their private service totalitarianism?
Categorizing them as publishers and editors is one way to go about things, which is a separate discussion. But the fact of the matter is that according to current law they are classes as platforms. You therefore cannot take action against them under current law.
I do not support extra judicial action so government’s hands are tied until such time as these companies are reclassified.
Also, if we were to take the actions you suggest we would be taking speech out of private hands and into government. This by definition would lead to an increase of censorship not a decrease.
I don’t care how crappy someone is, I don’t want the government with more power to censor.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. You have to be well rounded and well informed to be able to hold solid thoughts in the first place.
Good Lord yes. In the words of the eminent Dr. Richard Feynman, “The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
This drives me up a wall, this is stuff that I remember being taught and should be taught, because by the time you get out to the “real world” you kinda need these skills
A big problem is that the humanities are not seen as having value in today’s society. There is an emphasis on STEM, which isn’t necessarily bad, when it shouldn’t be an either or. Both should be taught. Why do kids have to wait until college to study philosophy? If they even study it in college. Also, when it comes to the humanities, the various subjects are taught like sociology classes. So you have classes like Shakespeare for Feminists. Everything has to have contemporary political commentary attached. This is one reason why I think people are quick to label something with an ism. we are being taught to look at everything with an ism detector.
Which media do you think one the most radical left wing (hesitate to use this description) politician in our history, is needing to corral? MSM is literally joined at the DNC hip.
I posted this, because l think it likely you didn’t get it in your news feed.
100%. I think this also comes back in large part to the fear of offending someone or leaving something out while simultaneously being taught to view the past world through the lens of our 21st century mindset… Which can translate into every little single thing being labeled everywhere. Obviously you can’t do this. in order to understand the world you need to understand how the people you are studying viewed the world, not overlay your preconceptions onto their history.
More importantly for me personally though, is that humanities are taught lazily. In other words kids still get English class, but it’s not hard and in many places if a kid doesn’t get a high enough grade it’s not the kids fault it’s the teacher’s fault! You might even have to write up a report explaining why this kid didn’t pass your class and what you did to try to help him. This is ass backwards, for innumerable reasons. This isn’t necessarily the teacher’s fault so much as the system within which they work. But again it can come down to the teacher being lazy as well. But really, if that’s the system where is the incentive to make it challenging for the kids? Make them write and think and reason? it’s gone, because you were the one that’s going to get blamed for them not passing instead of their lazy ass for not doing their homework.
I forgot to add the whole “my truth” stupidity. We were talking about Eco on one of these threads and he wrote about the idea of limitless interpretations. Take any novel and 100 people can come up with 100 interpretations. The thing is, they can’t all be right. In some cases we don’t know exactly what an author is saying but we can narrow it down to a few choices.
A student can write a paper giving his interpretation of something and it can be logical and follow all of the rules for a paper like that yet still be wrong. If we know what the author meant then there is no but it’s my truth. But this is where we are; intent doesn’t matter because it’s all about interpretation and perception. And this happens in colleges because even professors, with an agenda, teach “their truth.” In a way, we teach kids to express feelings before we teach them to state facts. They search for the ism before figuring out the is.
The NY Post is a rag, because it is a trashy daily tabloid, not because it leans right. WSJ isn’t a rag. That article is poorly written and extremely misleading. That “story” didn’t make it in my news feed because AOC saying democrats are possibly looking at ways to increase media literacy is a pretty small story compared to the other news storylines right now: insurrection and possible conspiracy, impeachment, the Biden agenda for the first 100 days, threats on innaguration day, etc.
YES. This is one thing that I have a hard time expressing how much I dislike. It makes me glad that I work in science, where although there may be a range of possibilities the job is to figure out which one is actually real and why. Not make up some sort of crazy interpretive bullshit out of thin air.
When it’s reasonable I’m all for the possibility of different interpretations, but it’s not always reasonable. And if we are not trying to figure out what the author meant and was trying to express then why are we analyzing a piece of literature anyway? What’s the point if you’re not trying to figure out what the author was getting at?
along with that, although it doesn’t have a bearing on this thread, one of the things that bothers me is when analyzes of certain works are carried to the 100th degree of deconstruction. “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” And sometimes the author was really just writing what it sounds like. Making up a lot of different words and meanings to sound smart actually makes me feel the opposite about the person writing.
Well stated.
That was pounded into my head as well, with the exception being historical analysis or “lessons learned” kind of goals
I would say to AOC, and I don’t necessarily disagree with teaching people how to think critically, that maybe they should start with her and the rest of the liars in office. They are the main source for misinformation. They are also in a position to correct the media when it doesn’t tell the truth. Example: Trump is the one saying there has been massive election fraud and that he has evidence to prove it. If some weirdo on the internet said it, Trump could have stepped in and said that it’s not true and ended the whole fraud BS.
AOC has pushed the narrative that defunding the police works. She said, imagine a city without police, it looks like a suburb. What? She grew up in the suburbs so she should know they have cops.
You start with what was meant, then you can compare it to how we look at it from our perspective, and somewhere in between you find a connection that expresses some universal human truth.
According to wikipedia, the post became what it is now when murdoch bought it in '76. It’s been around for 200 years I think. Just Google “NY Post headlines” and look at the images haha
I posted a video.
Cali - you are fixated on the legitimacy of a newspaper, which by the way is like 4th largest in the US and 200+ years old.
I actually saw video on tv eating breakfast and just grabbed a link.
Care to discuss the real issue - conservatives “need to be educated”? Which 90 IQ dumbass tyrant needs to do that - AOC or Pelosi with her gender/mask/metal detector rules? Maybe Xi can send over the playbook on the newly happy and reeducated.