Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Hoaxes: should we be more critical?

spud

Das dingo
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,988
Location
My house.
#26
I will probably be gone by then. The best strategy is to just behave and lay it out that you mean nothing adversarial
So what do you think of Alex jones getting deplatformed and recently conspiracy theorists being more or less under the view of the public media. I understand this is a little off topic for the thread buuuut it does fall under the idea of someones career being destroyed over false allegations and alternative news.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
546
Location
Canada
#27
So what do you think of Alex jones getting deplatformed and recently conspiracy theorists being more or less under the view of the public media. I understand this is a little off topic for the thread buuuut it does fall under the idea of someones career being destroyed over false allegations and alternative news.
Alex Jones I thought was a comedian, the things he does and says are almost a parody of a conspiracy theorist. I genuinely though the ban was a publicity stunt for his next show, like everyone was in on it and he would show up at YouTube and like, fight a lizard man.

That said, deplatforming is wrong. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
 

Vekseid

Most imposing inkwell.
Administrator
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,726
#28
We see a lot of left wing violence too, hun. It’s very common and ranges from serious violence to harrasment, so let’s not forget that.

Fringe, violent people are going to be on all sides, it’s wrong to paint an entire group with a brush because you don’t agree with them.

Here is that murder of republicans by left voting individuals you wanted. Also, the black panthers were obama supporters
You point to one failed murder attempt. If you want to count failed attempted murders, you should consider a world in which the MAGAbomber was successful in that case. You searched for that example. I simply listed a number of incidents I remembered off the top of my head.

You mention being in Canada, have you forgotten this one?

Making this sort of equivalency between the violence of the right and left is hyperbolic. You still couldn't name one person who has died to left wing violence. I've listed ten, plus an attempt at mass terrorism.

Look, we could shout various violent people onto the stage and pretend one side is worse, but that’s not my intention. I live in canada, and I can’t and would not vote trump. However, it’s wrong to pretend that only one side wants to fight and intimidate with violence. I think we can both agree, that the real issue here is that we need to stop being partisan and just work together to make a better country (in canada too since that’s where I am).
Yeah we tried that. Obama tried that. Took up the Republican health plan, and look at what they tried to do with it. There are idiots who think there is a difference between the ACA and Obamacare, here.

Republicans have given up trying to govern so hard they nearly failed to pass a tax cut for rich people.

What is happening in the US is that people are being presented with wildly different accounts of reality, based on who they read and listen to.

On one hand, you have the corporate apparatus, which outside of CNN is more often than not willing to correct itself and strive to present a more or less reasonable account of reality, though often beholden to advertisers, shareholders, etc.

On the other, you have the right wing media apparatus, which presents an American under siege, from within and without. By brown people. By (((globalists))). By those who for one reason or another sympathize with them (liberals).

Many who follow the latter consider people willing to admit their errors to be inherently flawed. Thus, they consider such sources more untrustworthy.

Not that corporate media is blameless. I count as friends quite a few people who have had their words chopped up and rearranged for television. In some cases overdubbing. CNN is particularly horrendous for this. People worrying about deep fakes - we live in a blissful era where this shit can finally be called out.

For worse or for the worst, though, if you follow one of these paths of information, someone following the other is going to appear to be straight up deranged.

We've had a member here who not only thinks that all Muslims should be killed, but that everyone who doesn't agree with that should be killed alongside them.
...at some point, someone's view of reality has gone so far outside of yours that merely speaking to them becomes difficult.

----

This all isn't to say that I don't expect there to be a high profile murder by a left winger eventually. Every major social movement in this country has been accompanied by the implicit threat of violence, and sometimes the act of violence as well.

People like to pretend that Malcolm X had nothing to do with the success of MLK and the Civil Rights Movement.

As surely as history repeats itself, people will get angry, people will act on that anger.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
546
Location
Canada
#29
Why would you excuse a shooting? Are you implying a body count somehow makes it worse? I am wondering exactly how that would have any importance in a discussion where my point is that both sides have radical, violent persons, and any attempt to cover the left’s contributions is wrong. If anything, you have openly proved that point.

Again, you resort to an attacker who had certain beliefs and conflate all “right wing” as the same. I still remember danforth, despite you claiming that I’m “searching” for these thinggns andtpu are somehow “off the top of your head” with yours. Again, let me stress, it’s bit about “ok boys, tally up the kills...” it’s about that both sides have and will always have political actors with a violent way to push whatever agenda they feel needs to be pushed. You insist that the violence is “worse” and yet we see plenty of horrible violence from both sides.

Am I defending the right? No, I’m simply reminding you that if you wish to conflate an entire group as a criminal for the actions of the extremely few, it’s a game you won’t enjoy playing and won’t solve social problems. If you disagree on how republicans handle legislature, vote. Do your part to be heard, but don’t pretend that they are in some way beneath trying to appeal to because you disagree, it’s probably that attitude that ensures that they do.

As for the media...cmon. Are you serious? Are you trying to pretend that the left wing are not in any way helping to divide your country? Did you not follow the Covington kids? As the media labeled them massive racists, Twitter was ablaze with death/violent threats because of the narrative that many outlets such as cnn pushed? What about this very thread, in which Jussie and the media smeared every republican over the now likely fake attack? Do you intentionally ignore these facts?

I’m sorry, that was unfair to say, but please, really think about this. Would you be happier if the bodies piled up on both sides? Or maybe, if both sides came to understand each other better with less of this toxic ideology. Both sides need to be less tribal, but you can only start with yourself.

I would not bring Islam into a discussion on political and radical violence, as since you feel a body count is important to decide if a group is bad, I can point to centuries of butchery, that still is well alive today. They need to change culturally and religiously, but unlike you, I won’t paint them all as evil simply because they have some violent members (certainly more then the republicans)
Your final comment is truely depressing.
Political Violence is nothing but an excuse to be violent, end of story. Once they defeat their current enemy, a violent ideology needs only find its next. Antifa meets this criteria perfectly, the alt right marched one time and they got mocked and socked, now? They march on police, start street fights, it’s a never ending tide of pathetic violence.
 

Vekseid

Most imposing inkwell.
Administrator
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,726
#30
Why would you excuse a shooting? Are you implying a body count somehow makes it worse? I am wondering exactly how that would have any importance in a discussion where my point is that both sides have radical, violent persons, and any attempt to cover the left’s contributions is wrong. If anything, you have openly proved that point.
Where did I excuse it?

Are you saying that murder is okay as long as the other side has any inkling of violence?

You have still not provided a single right wing death at the hands of the left.

I'm not claiming every left winger is 'perfect', but this highlights the extraordinarily lopsided nature of partisan violence in the US and Canada. The perpetrator is almost certain to be either right wing or Muslim.

And certainly, Islam is by far the religion most responsible for religiously based murder. You tally up all the murders in the name of any other religion, you'll struggle to get to Timur's total much less adding the Seljuks and their descendants (down to the Armenian Genocide) along with the Ghaznavids. No one who looks up the facts is going to deny this. Should it get talked about more? Definitely.

I have no hypocritical views on this. If one philosophy is disproportionately pumping out murderers, it ought to be discussed.

Which is why I call this false equivalence out.

It is not helpful. It does nothing to resolve the situation, it only patronizes.

You know, that term people were using 'This is why Trump won'

It patronizes because it lets the patronizer duck asking why. Why a given violent attack happens. The left wing shooting - what media did they consume that led them to that?

I doubt it's MSNBC.

Meanwhile, we have the likes of Alex Jones driving hatred of very specific groups of people - the parents of Sandy Hook victims, for example.

One of his listeners tried to do something stupid.

Are we to throw up our hands and say 'Whelp, what are you going to do?'

There is a colossal amount of this sort of rhetoric coming from leading figures on the right. This rhetoric has directly been linked to attempts at violence.

There is no equivalent rhetoric by such prominent figures on the left, and accordingly, the amount of violence in comparison is much less, accordingly.

Your language paints over why, and for the small part you play in furthering the 'both sides' narrative, it enables these murders to continue without a proper resolution.

This shit will only stop when enough people seriously start asking why, and take actions required accordingly.
 

spud

Das dingo
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,988
Location
My house.
#31
Are we to throw up our hands and say 'Whelp, what are you going to do?'

.
I have a question then, Whats your solution to all of this? If you believe that there is far more violence coming from the right then what do you think should be done to stop them from killing people? You're saying take action but what Action would you enact hypothetically
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Messages
546
Location
Canada
#32
In what way am I trying use a both sides argument? My position is more that fringe elements of both sides are the ones causing violence.

We are going in circles, so let me restate my sposition in a way you might appreciate better. My opinion is that both sides have a specific, radical community just looking for an excuse to boil over. A bad trip on drugs, someone looked at the wrong, does not matter. A racist can be a trump supporter, a bigot can feel the bern. However, I am asking that you reconize that both sides need to be equally challenged for their part in the political climate that allows radicals to slowly form, and stop painting a group with the same brush as the fringes. If you refuse, then I only want to say this.

Ever religion, race, creed, king, queen, politician, and gender has a list of crimes they have commited. It is better to reconcile and try to find common ground and not just go “but that one guy shot that guy!” You mentioned a person that wished death to all muslims? Did you ever talk to him/her? Try to pull them in instead of toss them as an “undesirable opinion?”

Some of the people we talked about today were often ostracized socially from others. Reach out, it might just save a person.
 

Vekseid

Most imposing inkwell.
Administrator
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,726
#33
I have a question then, Whats your solution to all of this? If you believe that there is far more violence coming from the right then what do you think should be done to stop them from killing people? You're saying take action but what Action would you enact hypothetically
1) Foster a culture of critical thinking. Learn fallacies, syllogisms, test yourself, make it a good thing to engage in. This isn't just for 'fake news' like we're discussing here, either. AI is eventually going to get involved in formulating scams, people are going to need to defend themselves. Math, logic, and critical thinking are the arms and defenses of the 21st century. Anyone who thinks otherwise, prepares otherwise, is preparing for the wrong war.

2) Foster a culture of de-isolization. I wrote about this on E, but a big part of why our social structures are breaking down is that the institutions that once fostered cross-cultural bonds are being put out of reach, or permitted through outsourcing or whatnot to rot. Jobs that once depended on a large military apparatus instead go to contractors, for example, and we have fewer random individuals forming bonds like this. Instead we get hateful viewpoints that seek out like minded partners on the Internet, so now we have subcultures like incels and so on. As @NadiatheTinkerer mentioned in her post, a lot of this radicalization occurs because people feel ostracized.

3) Better mental health care on a national scale, and less stigma for it. Many of the people involved in these atrocities were known potential actors beforehand. If I were to listen to Frank Herbert on this, the blame for many of these killings rests on the authorities in the society that lets these known actors commit the violence they knew would occur.

4) Address desperation. Similar to the second point, but this is for the impersonal stuff like finances. People should watch out for policies by politicians that make people more desperate. This is where extremism festers, as people are pushed to more and more radical solutions for their very genuine grievances. There are a number of ways to go about this, most of which are pretty well beyond the scope of this thread.
 

spud

Das dingo
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,988
Location
My house.
#34
1) Foster a culture of critical thinking.

ok

1) How long would that honestly take, sure we foster a culture of critical thinking and teach people to think for themselves, the idea that AI are going to formulate scams is a bit odd... I've heard more about AI taking over the service industry and killing off many if not a lot of the job opportunities but I'm not sure what you mean by Scams. How long would you expect this to take? Change the entire schooling system (unless you mean just teaching people online which is even more ridiculous) and then on top of that insure that people don't try to teach their children otherwise?

2) I don't think this is honestly possible with the way that we're moving forward, Isolation is a huge problem for mental health I agree but in the new age there's no way that we can get anyone away from the computer. Giant corporations are trying to insure they snatch up as much time as possible for you to look at their sites instead of doing anything else. The hateful viewpoints seeking out like minded partners I think is just a product of being able to talk to anyone, in a world where you might have had one or two bigots living in a small town now you have access to anyone who's a hateful bigot or a racist or extreme left whatever. This might be an issue with spending too much time on the computer but honestly how to do get someone who hates everyone and wants to kill people away from other people who think like him??? With a pedophile network its very similar, people with similar interests using the internet to do horrible things. Simply fostering the idea of going out and meeting new people in the real world won't get rid of this problem.

3) I agree

4) next to impossible, especially with the way we're going. Like I said before with the advancements of AI we're going to lose jobs and throw people who are hard working under the bus, there is literally no way to avoid this. Desperation in the next 20 years is inevitable, if you think people are crazy now.. Wait till they can't afford groceries or to pay off their debts and then society is telling them "you should get a job in programing" Or "Was a waste of a job anywyas" there is going to be countless murders... We're kinda headed towards a civil war.
 

Lexyll

Meteorite
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
9
#35
I think, in general, people need to be more incredulous of the information they are receiving. We need to ask ourselves where the information is coming from, whether those sources paint a complete picture, and the motivation of the person/group disseminating the information.

We also need to be especially incredulous of data and statistics. Numbers can lie. Studies that are biased, poorly constructed, or have a small or unrepresentative sample will not accurately reflect reality. Let's say I want to get the opinion on how much people, from a scale of 1 to 10, like hot dogs. If I go ask people dining at a vegan restaurant, the results (I would assume) aren't going to be favorable. If I only ask 3 people and one of them happens to have an incredible fondness for hot dogs, then the results will inaccurately overstate how much people like hot dogs. When presented with numbers, we need to ask ourselves what the methods used were to get those numbers and, once again, ask whether the sources paint a complete picture and question the motivations of the person/group gathering the information.

I keep saying "we" because this incredulity is something I struggle with myself. Sometimes I'll take information at face value and forget to view it critically, especially if the information seems to support my own beliefs. Incredulity isn't a switch- it's a muscle. We have to work at it and build it up. I hope that the members of the public work on being critical of the information presented to them.

Now, I'm going to try and figure out where I can get a good hot dog this late at night. Why did I choose such a delicious example?
 

Vekseid

Most imposing inkwell.
Administrator
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
1,726
#36
ok

1) How long would that honestly take, sure we foster a culture of critical thinking and teach people to think for themselves, the idea that AI are going to formulate scams is a bit odd... I've heard more about AI taking over the service industry and killing off many if not a lot of the job opportunities but I'm not sure what you mean by Scams.
How long would you expect this to take? Change the entire schooling system (unless you mean just teaching people online which is even more ridiculous) and then on top of that insure that people don't try to teach their children otherwise?
This really isn't the topic to explain AI. In any case, scam operations are not different from the jobs that are at risk. Up until now they've been largely restricted to the ability of human operators to conduct them. I can't tell you what an artificial general intelligence is going to do. The scope of possible synthetic minds is greater than the scope of possible biological minds, which is greater than the scope of minds evolved on Earth, which is greater than the scope of human minds.

If you want to see an example of this, look up the paperclip maximizer.

If you want to see a more practical example, look up 'this person does not exist' and similar efforts to alert people of the power AI already has to deceive.

With more critical thinkers and a greater focus on logic, there is a greater buffer, and a greater chance that we will be able to leverage some tools in our defense. A more credulous population is going to be more robust against such attacks.

How long it takes is kind of a moot question. Reach as many people as possible. Those who can't, I suppose you can pray for them.

2) I don't think this is honestly possible with the way that we're moving forward, Isolation is a huge problem for mental health I agree but in the new age there's no way that we can get anyone away from the computer. Giant corporations are trying to insure they snatch up as much time as possible for you to look at their sites instead of doing anything else. The hateful viewpoints seeking out like minded partners I think is just a product of being able to talk to anyone, in a world where you might have had one or two bigots living in a small town now you have access to anyone who's a hateful bigot or a racist or extreme left whatever. This might be an issue with spending too much time on the computer but honestly how to do get someone who hates everyone and wants to kill people away from other people who think like him??? With a pedophile network its very similar, people with similar interests using the internet to do horrible things. Simply fostering the idea of going out and meeting new people in the real world won't get rid of this problem.
I mentioned a very specific example of one such breakdown, it's obvious how to reverse it - start banning contractors from doing military jobs. Eventually all government jobs. Similar programs can take place in the educational system. The idea is to drive institutions that mix society, and there are a great many of them to take advantage of. They've just been gutted and are getting dilapidated.

4) next to impossible, especially with the way we're going. Like I said before with the advancements of AI we're going to lose jobs and throw people who are hard working under the bus, there is literally no way to avoid this. Desperation in the next 20 years is inevitable, if you think people are crazy now.. Wait till they can't afford groceries or to pay off their debts and then society is telling them "you should get a job in programing" Or "Was a waste of a job anywyas" there is going to be countless murders... We're kinda headed towards a civil war.
It's not like we're magically producing less. Proposals like basic income are already gaining traction. Gut rent seeking at the same time and society turns out fine on this count.
 

BlisteredBlood

The Crucified Angel
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
2,849
Location
Rhode Island
#37
I had some thoughts regarding the recent reporting about the Jussie Smolett attack(hoax) and it got me wondering if the repercussion of this was actually good. Like, not just about this case in particular but other claims that gain media attention and all.

On the one hand, it can be potentially damaging to victims who are already hesitant to report things, if they think they might not be believed.

On the other, it is super crazy how fast the news media will jump on a narrative(guilty, not guilty) before all the facts are even known. I think that can be really damaging, ripe for people to get away with persecuting others and being untruthful and getting attention for being a victim when they're not.

I'm glad victims are believed so easily, that we're sympathetic to that on default. But I think it gets out of hand when people are condemned in the court of public opinion without any scrutiny or critical thinking, especially if the accusations end up being false.

You know what they say: when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me. Do you think exposed hoaxes, like with the Smolett situation, are good to shed some light on an unscrupulous and overzealous media pushing stories ahead of reporting on facts? Or do you think this is just bad/damaging to true victims?
There's actually a video about this that while kind of took a few potshots - okay, a LOT of them - at the Smolett situation, it was extremely well researched by Aydin Paladin that I'd like to share.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdbDtj-Dms


When I think about it in my own worldview though, it's probably better to wait for all of the collected evidence to come in before one makes a judgment call. With this being current year however, it doesn't bode well for either side of the spectrum. Which is actually kind of sad if you think about it especially in the case of Michael Jackson in light of the whole Leaving Neverland "documentary" that aired on HBO recently that claimed that it would be the final nail in the coffin of the child molestation allegations... Only for it to be nothing more than a four hour foray of anecdotal evidence and that was it. A long, drawn out four hour long spider fart. Which is actually shocking to say, because the UK version of said documentary had some content that was cut out of the US release that ran for three hours and fifteen minutes! But even then, there wasn't much that was missing, as that version had the same amount of hearsay that would never fly in either a civil case nor a criminal one.

But hey, it's all about people's feelings, never mind the facts. After all, facts are just used by the evil, mean CIS white male who's probably a transphobic, xenophobic, misogynistic racist! Just connect the dots and you'll see!

Except... Plot twist... The person in the video who made this is in fact, a woman. Not sure if she's a lesbian or not, not gonna start making guesses, don't care one way or the other.

Main point, though. That wasn't me being hyperbolic nor was it intended to be inflammatory. That's word for word, beat for beat what people of today use as a means to put you down in the vain hopes that you'll shut up and go away like you're supposed to. No, you're meant to condemn the accused before any shred of evidence materializes itself like it's a one sided kangaroo court and if you even so much as ask a question or show a piece of evidence that contradicts the narrative at play, you're immediately shunned and shouted down until you too are hung, dried and quartered. It's a case of putting out the cart before the horse, as it were.

In summation, my point here is this. There's a major difference between rumor mongering and putting together a carefully constructed case with facts and figures that explains why X and Y equals Z. Yes, there's always going to be that gut feeling every once in a while, but therein lies the issue. Sometimes, you have to temper your instincts with logic in order to truly discern what it is that you're trying to explain to people.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
38
Location
Ft. Zinderneuf
#38
If there is or isn't a grand jury indictment or a trial, it is very unlikely you will ever know what the evidence really is because you're always going to view it through a media lens, and the media will always tell you its interpretation, and the media is always biased. further, what the jury hears as evidence is not going to be same as what the media digs up because that isn't always admissible. trials aren't popularity contests. trials are public, you could, if you made the effort, to watch and listen yourself, but that don't worry, the media will do your job for you.

either you trust the judicial system to get it right almost all the time, or act on your agenda and take to the streets, or, most likely, vent on social media.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Maple Grove
#39
When it comes to many things in life skepticism is a wonderful tool. You especially have to weigh the pro's and con's of listening and believing versus fact checking, as well as how you handle yourself when dealing with those who claim to have become a victim.

I think that the first thing you have to think about is what the person has to gain and what another person could lose. There has been a rash of false news and claims by both sides, from some news sites being lazy and not fact checking, to people wanting to pull the wool over others eyes. We live in a world that despite the comforts of technology isn't perfect. Money, fame, pushing agendas and more can be the benefit if you're successful with one of these hoaxes. To combat these hoaxes and to protect the victims who are actually hurt it's important that people use their brains and think about things. If you listen and believe you shut your brain off, you turn the possibility off that someone could be hoodwinking you. Human history is more or less the grand sum of those willing to take extra steps to ensure they win, even if it means taking steps that would lead to lying, rule breaking, and other less savory options.

I think the best thing that can be done is to not over-react and be harsh to a victim if they come out. If someone comes out stating something, address the claim and see if there is any evidence. People don't need to jump to conclusions for one side or the other. I think in the end most people would agree a logical but empathetic approach would work, with a dash of not overreacting. That's just my opinion on things like that though.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
38
Location
Ft. Zinderneuf
#40
...handle yourself when dealing with those who claim to have become a victim.
Did it occur to you that there's a presumption of innocence in this country?


I think the best thing that can be done is to not over-react and be harsh to a victim if they come out. If someone comes out stating something, address the claim and see if there is any evidence. ....
How do you "fact check" when the fact checkers (the media) have an agenda, when the alleged victim has an agenda in pushing the story, or even avoid confirmation bias?
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Maple Grove
#41
Of course there is a presumption of innocence. Innocent till proven guilty is an important thing in this country. If you are accused of a crime it does not equal being guilty of a crime. It doesn't stop mob mentality, but then again people wanting mob justice don't really seem to care about actual justice.

As for as information gathering you have to do the best you can. There are usually ton's of people gathering information and combing through everything. There will always be those who are interested in uncovering the truth, finding the real story, and some will be much better at gathering those facts.

The best you can do is find trusted sources, those that have integrity. Sure it's not perfect but nothing in life is guaranteed. You just have to do the best you can weeding out the bullshit from what actually happened. The media might not be a good source, but there is always other places to go, other people who will want to get the story out there, to have the truth exposed.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2019
Messages
38
Location
Ft. Zinderneuf
#42
("you" is not directed at anyone personally, I'm using the word in a generic sense)

where "trusted sources" = "confirmation bias." if someone's accused of a crime, then "the truth" is what the jury decides. otherwise, forget due process and try him on social media, which will happen anyway. are you out in the field interviewing witnesses or collecting forensic or other evidence? if so, stop tampering. if you're not, you're not exposing the truth -- almost no one gathers information, they read stories online because the search engine algorithm has selected stories and sources for you based on your past search history and you call it research. you could point out that the jury is not given all of the facts that have some relation to the question of whether the accused is guilty or not, and that this is a kind of filter, but that filter is based on 400 years of developing Anglo-American practical jurisprudence and social policy. example: a woman's past sexual history won't come before the jury as a defense in a rape prosecution, but, sure as shit, some "trusted source" will "expose the truth" and post it on social media.

there are exceptions, but there aren't many journalists named Woodward or Bernstein left.
 
Top Bottom