163
I love watching tankies squirm under adequate questioning of their morals.
You all fail to be genuine and it's genuinely amazing.
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
163 points (96.0% liked)
science
14986 readers
638 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Saw one yesterday that demanded proof against her argument. Someone provided it, she didn’t like it so she said it wasn’t true- then demanded true proof from a different source.
Of course that too was provided, this time by another person, and this also was dismissed as not true.
Several examples and fact-checked articles later she folded her arms and bailed. Never having admitted she was wrong.
It was truly remarkable!
Bunch of dickheads apparently feeling attacked in these comments
Thankfully I have plenty of popcorn lol. 🍿 help yourself to some if you'd like.
Power. Done, saved you a read.
Is it power? These are delusions. They don't affect reality.
Mostly, they appear to be coping for anxiety and stress. Trump's MAGA is a way to convince conservatives that "the patriots are in control" when they're plainly powerless. The Mueller She Wrote crowd needs to believe police exist for powerful people and it's not all just punching down.
All these lies seem to exist and get regurgitated because the truth is too awful to contend with.
like me saying that Hasbro hired pinkertons to threaten the commander rules committee into handing over control of the format
[removed by mod]
If I pump put baseless conspiracies nonstop then statistically I'll get something sort of right at some point. It doesn't mean I was right to espouse that bullshit on the first place. Showing your work matters. If you got to a right conclusion accidentally by making shit up , it doesn't mean you were "right" or that people were we're wrong to laugh at you. There's a thing called Epistemology. Humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Learn about it .
So you hold your regime to the similar standard?
Can you ask a coherent question? Who is my regime? You're not being charged by the word. Be specific.
Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact. Do you hold these people as accountable the same way you are doing here with some random Neo nazis farming twattrr for cash?
Owners of the US have fake news run propaganda that has no basis in fact.
Generalizing this far is not rational or productive. There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within. Zooming out this far isn't productive. Might as well go further and say "people lie, therefore nothing can be trusted". Sounds deep, but is just a futile meaningless statement. Most problems with news media stem from distortions of fact, but obviously do have some basis in fact so right off the bat your premise is faulty.
Do you hold these people as accountable
If you're asking whether I hold media accountable for lying or for bad reporting (no, they are the same. If you can tell the difference that's on you), then yes I do.
You're now far off topic. Spreading baseless conspiracy theories constantly and having some of them be sort of adjacent to the truth isn't a vindication. It doesnt mean you were right to say what you said.
Must be nice believe this lol
You guys always prove to be completely incapable of rational thought. It's why the article triggered you so much.
i explained my position. you offered nothing to rebut tbh
You explained nothing. I clearly answered your one trivial question and you have no follow up lol.
There are varying degrees of quality in US media with varying problems within.
If you think this, you don't understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.
If you think this, you don't understand the media and the role it plays within the regime.
...? Was there any argument in there somewhere? It's barely an assertion. As expected, even on an anonymous forum without any consequences you're still unable to actually assert a rational position and back it up lol. Do you think maybe that's because you're full of shit?
-
Topic brought up bad faith actor spreading bad info
-
I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye
-
We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that "media" is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy "media is ok" but these rando's are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though. My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework... muhh team good/right, other team bad. I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can't change your mind and that's fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.
-
you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me... but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?
-
I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.
- I posited that entire media eco system behaves this way but we society turn a blind eye
-
Ridiculous assertion. All it takes is a single person not acting in bad faith to disprove , which is the problem with absolute statements. You can be 99 percent right (you're not) and still be wrong. Can you prove that literally 100 percent of news media is acting in bad faith? If so, why all this bullshit? Just lead with the proof.
-
Prove it. You're asserting bad faith on the part of thousands of people (which implies knowledge of literally everyone's intent. Are you god? Lol) without evidence.
- We had an exchange on what I meant by this, with you highlighting that "media" is varying and explaining away how media behavior is not the same. Essentially creating dichotomy "media is ok" but these rando's are the enemy. You did not provide facts to turn my opinion though.
Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're actually doing logic dude. My statement does not in any way create a "dichotomy". It could right, it could be wrong, or anywhere in between. Nothing said implies "media is ok". Nothing you said implied they're wrong. Using the vocabulary of logic doesn't mean you're thinking logically. Try harder.
My position is that you are still working within the standard politics framework... muhh team good/right, other team bad.
Nothing I said implied that. You literally just imagined it, like you did the "dichotomy".
I fundamentally disagree with this approach. I can't change your mind and that's fine. I think readers had a decent exchange to read.
Of course you can. You make a logical argument, backed by evidence. Why is that so hard? You haven't even tried.
- you proceed to engage with a bit of charge which cool by me... but i would want he key issue addressed. Why does main stream media gets a pass for this from avg person?
This is not the question you originally asked, and assumes several assertions that you haven't backed up with anything let alone proven. It's also such a vague question that an answer is impossible. You have assumed that your read on "the media" as a whole is right (apparently 100 percent of them are acting in bad faith? Lol), that somehow people know this (proof?) and give them a pass( what does that mean? People complain about the media all the time).
- I would posit that the media and idiots on twitter are prolly funded by the same bad faith actors, well a soup of them from different sides. But what they are not funded by is avg people.
I would posit that you're dazzled by the true complexity of the world and so you simplify and imagine things in order to fit it into your head and make it make sense. "The media " is not funded by one person or the same people. This is trivially probable.
But what they are not funded by is avg people.
Who are these average people? Aren't they the ones giving media a pass for all acting in bad faith?
Study epistemology dude. The questions you're asking aren't all bad. But you literally don't know how to think. You just simplify until things make sense to you. That's not how you find truth. The question of "how do I know what I think is true is actually true" is an extremely important one. Smart people have been asking it for thousands of years. Try learning from literally any of them. Epistemology is important.
You're talking about Fox "News" right?
All of it.... Regime whores doing owners bidding and normies larp as gospel and do so as narrative shifts.
Frankly, some of it is push back against busy-bodies who seem to be totally incapable of parsing the concept that the Internet isn't some sort of bastion of absolute truth. It's sarcasm that idiots take far too seriously. More than a little is because certain autocratic wanna-bees seem to desire to use the Internet to intrude upon people's most private thoughts and moments.
But yes, explain it all away as some sort of nefarious plot to justify even further intrusions into people's lives.
Or, you know, it's fun. It's not fun to admit there are 1200 diagnosed psychopaths with the same amount of money as 95% of all humans to have ever existed combined that all got there independently and without alien or demon help. It's just depressing to admit these few effectively own most governments, not due to secret abuse rituals or aliens, but simply because their amount of money is high enough that most governments cannot resist their influence.
It's depressing to acknowledge that reality as it really exists for 99.9% of humanity is inescapable, irredeemable, irrifixible, garbage made so not by nature or external fantastical factors, but by just a few people with more money and influence than the rest of us.
So why not have fun? The moon is a hollow satellite built by reptiles to overtake the natural reincarnation process in order to trap people here forever so they can harvest the energy created by our suffering, these reptiles of course wear skin suits and place themselves in the highest levels of society and government so they can watch their farm of infinite suffering grow.
so why not have fun?
No raindrop feels itself responsible for the flood.
By perpetuating and increasing human stupidity, you're enabling the situation you're complaining about.
No raindrop feels itself responsible for the flood.
I love that, and I don't think I've heard it before.
I came across this phrase organically by accidental haiku:
Water drops in the Ocean never mean to be- come a tsunami
Incorrect, we've been fighting that situation for longer than your language has existed. It does nothing to stop having fun. Were not going to magically fix the people that take conspiracy theories seriously, they were always like that, and will be like that long after you give up.
It's not fun because I am a functional adult.
That's nice dear, most adults are not functional and didn't have rich enough parents to ever be functional. STEM majors really should have a forced 4 years of humanities, especially sociology, before being allowed online.
we do it because it's funny
Pretty sure that's why the US does war stuff. They think it's fucking hilarious.
The fact you don't find it funny is your problem 🤷
(You're a hypocrite if that burns at all)
I’ve sometimes thought about that. Maybe in an alternate reality there’s a someone with my face who isn’t held back by any sort of morality whatsoever. Once you open that door, you can totally start spreading the stupidest ideas you can think of, and you’ll find someone who believes it and becomes your devout follower. I have a feeling that Scientology came about as a result of this sort of thinking.
I still find it insane how people can take almost anything on the internet at face value, apart from maybe reputable news outlets and properly reviewed research and technical stuff - and even THAT with a grain of salt.
It's just too much fun to post bullshit, and obviously there are too many people bullshitting for so many reasons.
We used to call it "shooting the shit" in the pre-authoritarian days, and it was just an ordinary part of socializing with like minded individuals. I'm convinced that the only reason the Internet was allowed to be good at first, was to lure everyone into holding personal conversations on social media and messaging apps, so that they could police everyone's everyday speech.