this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
-166 points (12.3% liked)
Memes
45888 readers
1439 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.
Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).
That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.
If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.
It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).
No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.
As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.
Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.
As far as my proof on link-boy is that his history kinda proves that he doesn't research shit. His go-to method seems to be find-link-vomit-link. There is no fucking way he would have time to dig into that stuff based on volume alone. Is that "proof"? No. It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are.
By definition, you are correct on some points, btw. Dissent is dissent. However, dissent with bad information is just poor form. Endlessly shitposting like OP does is hardly quality dissent: OP just pushes narratives with cartoons and it reads like a fucking state media source. You can find the same style of shit all over right-wing media sources as well: Repeat the same basic points ad-nauseum.
As far as link-boy is concerned, I suppose he can dissent all over the place as much as he wants as well. It's doesn't change his history of link-flooding.
Also, "despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what? Your own social bubble? Really?
It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.
So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.
So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?
It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.
I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.
Addendum:
Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.
Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.
Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.
Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.
But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.