Soros bankrolling Facebook

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Quite to the contrary, I applaud and welcome all manner of "fake news" to compete with the purveyors of approved "truth".   Broadcast television was subjected to censorship,  standards, and codes or risk losing licenses.   Canada has even made false news subject to regulatory retaliation.

Content rules over news now....and it will never go back to the dry facts of who, what, when, why, and where.

Interesting idea.  I don't know if there are examples where the fakes remained fake and continued to thrive.  Supermarket tabloids could be an example, but they always had celebrity gossip to keep them going, and eventually even the Enquirer had to succumb to safe journalistic practices.

But if "fake news" means news outlets that publish unfiltered rumours for the curious to read, with the knowledge that their news is unproven, then maybe it will survive.  You will still need curators to publish the stories that pass muster, even if they do so reluctantly.  I have found the grand total of one story in the election cycle that convinced me, because a MSM outlet picked it up and investigated it.  Even one such story proving true is surprising enough to me, and reminds me that no one should be so smug as to think they can't be wrong.

[?Impact]

Let us not forget one of the most historic instances of fake news. It was broadcast on the CBS radio network on October 30th, 1938.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Interesting idea.  I don't know if there are examples where the fakes remained fake and continued to thrive.  Supermarket tabloids could be an example, but they always had celebrity gossip to keep them going, and eventually even the Enquirer had to succumb to safe journalistic practices.

 

"Fake news" has always existed and there is no reason to expect that it would or should not propagate with technology.  

Truth and lies have been digitally democratized.    The result is more content to fill ever expanding bandwidth and consumers around the world.

 

Quote

But if "fake news" means news outlets that publish unfiltered rumours for the curious to read, with the knowledge that their news is unproven, then maybe it will survive. 

 

I hope not....clinging to the false notion of approved and credible "news outlets" is part of the problem, not the solution.   So called "journalists" have been relegated to the ranks of self anointed climate change experts.   

 

[Argus]

16 hours ago, taxme said:

Soros runs everything that equates to liberalism,socialism, and communism. Facebook, Twitter and Goggle are now going to go after any website that he does not like: 

Nonsense and blather.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, ?Impact said:

No, they use those terms to accurately describe the racists and deniers out there. The world is fairly clear cut, but there are people that hide behind "free speech" to spread hatred and falsehoods and they should be exposed. It is simply free speech to expose them.

And there are people who are intellectually incapable of discussing political or social events without becoming enraged and resorting to personal attacks. Many of them are on the Left and they tend to instinctively reach for their 'go-to' word if it's in any way possible to do so. A number of them are here on this site, clearly.  Such people would be better off admitting their lack of intellect and finding something more suitable to do, like reading comic books.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

True, but 'educating people' itself is the nut that has to be cracked,

What kind of education? The professor who was fired from Florida State University for claiming Sandy Hook never happened was a PHD. Aren't we supposed to presume that people with PHDs are suitably educated?

[?Impact]

57 minutes ago, Argus said:

Such people would be better off admitting their lack of intellect and finding something more suitable to do, like reading comic books.

Lack of intellect. The perfect way to describe those that always resort to throwing around 'left' as if it were an all encompassing pejorative. 

[cybercoma]

15 hours ago, TimG said:

The use of terms like "racist" or "denier" are deliberate tools for preventing people from expressing ideas that vary from left wing ideology.

How does criticizing something people say limit them from saying it? Does free speech to you mean free from criticism? People should say whatever the hell they want and everyone else should just sit there silent? You claim you're against limiting free speech, but you come out with this nonsense limiting people from calling pointing out racism or denial. This is hugely hypocritical.

More importantly, I don't think you understand free speech at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with interpersonal relationships. It has to do with the government.

[cybercoma]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

True, but 'educating people' itself is the nut that has to be cracked

Only communists and socialists educate people. Haven't you heard? They control the universities and they're going to turn America into Soviet-era Russia. People actually believe that bullshit.

Edited December 19, 2016 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

And there are people who are intellectually incapable of discussing political or social events without becoming enraged and resorting to personal attacks. Many of them are on the Left and they tend to instinctively reach for their 'go-to' word if it's in any way possible to do so. A number of them are here on this site, clearly.  Such people would be better off admitting their lack of intellect and finding something more suitable to do, like reading comic books.

You seem to think people who call your arguments "racist" are enraged. They're not. They just think your ideas are sad and pathetic. That's not rage, as much as you'd like to think you're that important.

[taxme]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Nonsense and blather.

So say's you. And just who are you? The expert on all things political? Time for a reality check yourself. 

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, taxme said:

So say's you. And just who are you? The expert on all things political? Time for a reality check yourself. 

It has nothing to do with political. It has to do with sanity. I'm not the most sane person here - but from the looks of the crowd, very nearly.

[taxme]

41 minutes ago, Argus said:

It has nothing to do with political. It has to do with sanity. I'm not the most sane person here - but from the looks of the crowd, very nearly.

Did you just wake up? Everything these days is political. Sanity is slowly being erased, and insanity is taking over. Well, it is my personal opinion that I am quite a sane politically incorrect guy because common sense and logic rule my life. I just cannot help it. Aw well.   

[TimG]

3 hours ago, cybercoma said:

How does criticizing something people say limit them from saying it?

Not my argument. What I am saying is when people use terms like "racist" or "denier" they are not presenting a rational or logical argument. They are simply creating propaganda designed to discredit people they oppose. It is exactly the same motivation behind the "fake news" purveyors. Now if people are going to insists that free speech be limited because "fake news" purveyors are bad for society then the exact same argument applies to people who call people names instead actually discussing the arguments presented. That means no more lefties screaming racism any time someone says something they don't like. Of course, I realize that no one would consider such a restriction acceptable so my question is why is it acceptable to restrict fake news providers who are no worse?

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, TimG said:

That means no more lefties screaming racism any time someone says something they don't like. 

The way you throw around 'lefties' continually like a pejorative without presenting a rational or logical argument, it is simply propaganda. I would say that is thrown around in that manner about a hundred thousand times more often than 'racist' or 'denier' ever is. 

[TimG]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The way you throw around 'lefties' continually like a pejorative without presenting a rational or logical argument, it is simply propaganda. I would say that is thrown around in that manner about a hundred thousand times more often than 'racist' or 'denier' ever is. 

Well "lefties" is not inherently a pejorative like "racist" or "denier". But the tactic is similar. I guess you don't like it when you are fed your own medicine. If the objective is a rational and civilized discussion then they all must be set aside. If that is not the objective then why should we care about "fake news"? 

[cybercoma]

6 hours ago, TimG said:

What I am saying is when people use terms like "racist" or "denier" they are not presenting a rational or logical argument.

Your exact argument, verbatim, was that those criticisms limit free speech. Now you're just criticizing those things for being "irrational" or "illogical" when those things are meant to point out irrational and illogical arguments. Your argument here is like a petulant child saying, "no, you are!" and has nothing to do with your original point that it silences people or limits their free speech in some way. It doesn't. Not one bit. So now you're moving goalposts, which is hilarious for someone talking about logic and reason.

Edited December 20, 2016 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

So, we're saying that insults and derailments are not good for discussion ?  Aha.  Good to know.

Parsing this discussion of the term 'racist' objectively, I think we would agree 'racism' is real but perhaps its use is too inexact.   The reason I say that is that there are degrees of racism, IMO, and I don't see the word reflecting all of them.  People are generally less comfortable with, say, idealogical racism (ie. inferiority of races) which is seen as wrong.  They are, however, clearly ok with softer racism in the form of generalizations, observations - even pejorative ones - about race.

I have seen this in action on MLW when I tried to compare a poster's generalizations about race vs. religion.  I discovered that he felt racism was disgusting, but he felt that generalizing about other groups was fine as long as it wasn't black people.  He didn't seem to me to know that generalizing itself has problems too.

So when one says "that is racist" they are just pointing out that the poster has violated their definition of that term, whether its harder or softer racism.  The term 'racist' is a general shorthand for a pejorative and insulting generalization, but calling it out isn't helpful if the other speaker/poster has a different definition.  The word has at that point lost its meaning.  

I think if people are talking past each other by using the term 'racist', or if they fall into a side-discussion of 'what is racism anyway' then we can improve the discussion by changing it to using the term 'wrong' and explaining why.

All of this is a result of the demons of slavery persisting, and the overt racism of the past years being used as an easy moral lesson in movies and our collective narrative IMO.  So the term racist is equated with evil southern sheriffs and such people.  But the intellectual left uses the term more literally, and so you have this disconnect.

----- 

I think 'racist' needs to be replaced so we can better define collective morality.  I don't know if that would help us better define 'fake news' though.

[TimG]

9 hours ago, cybercoma said:

Your exact argument, verbatim, was that those criticisms limit free speech.

I was making two separate arguments . Calling people names, in itself, does not limit free speech. But the use of those terms in our society now comes with real consequences not unlike calling someone a witch in Salem.  The recent example of the student union at Wilfred Laurier destroying a man's business because he used the word "slave" in a clearly humorous ad. When society allows groups like the student union to get away with handling out those kinds of punishments for speech infractions then calling people names DOES limit free speech whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Separate from that there is the question of how people who resort to such name calling are really not morally different from the fake news providers. People who think they are entitled to label people with derogatory names in order to discredit them really have no business complaining about fake news. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by TimG

[TimG]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think 'racist' needs to be replaced so we can better define collective morality.  I don't know if that would help us better define 'fake news' though.

We don't need to redefine words if the SJWs would not keep trying to change the meanings of words in order denigrate people who disagree with their political positions.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, ?Impact said:

The way you throw around 'lefties' continually like a pejorative without presenting a rational or logical argument, it is simply propaganda

Seriously? Do you consider yourself to not be on the left of the political spectrum?

[Argus]

13 hours ago, TimG said:

Well "lefties" is not inherently a pejorative like "racist" or "denier". But the tactic is similar.

No, it's not. The antonym of lefty would be righty, or conservative. Would you be offended or insulted if someone used those terms to describe you? I wouldn't be. The term leftist is not intended as an insult but a descriptor. The term racist, on the other hand, is always intended as a pejorative, and usually used inaccurately by people who are either too stupid to know what the word means or too ignorant and emotional to argue a point coherently without personalizing the discussing and hurling insults.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Parsing this discussion of the term 'racist' objectively, I think we would agree 'racism' is real but perhaps its use is too inexact.   The reason I say that is that there are degrees of racism, IMO, and I don't see the word reflecting all of them.  People are generally less comfortable with, say, idealogical racism (ie. inferiority of races) which is seen as wrong.  They are, however, clearly ok with softer racism in the form of generalizations, observations - even pejorative ones - about race.

Maybe the problem is people know what racism is and thus resist the desire of those on the left to vastly expand the term to include generalizations which are generally accurate, even if they don't have anything to do with race. I note that nobody on the left seems to hesitate about using generalization when describing groups like Americans, though, or conservatives, or Christians. Then, it's fine. This is also the same group which spent months on the floor screaming and howling and pulling its hair out because the Conservatives made it legal not to answer Statistical questions. What are statistics but generalizations? 

Thus in the US we see crime statistics broken down by race, completely accepted by US civil rights groups, something Canadian Leftists would fight to the death to prevent in Canada.

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I have seen this in action on MLW when I tried to compare a poster's generalizations about race vs. religion.  I discovered that he felt racism was disgusting, but he felt that generalizing about other groups was fine as long as it wasn't black people.  He didn't seem to me to know that generalizing itself has problems too.

You and I have discussed this topic and I have no problem generalizing about any group, be it blacks or anyone else, so long as there is some evidence that the generalization is correct. And that's the key; evidence. The Left ignores or resists evidence of collective behavior whenever it offends their knee-jerk beliefs in inclusiveness. 

[Michael Hardner]

Let's not pretend lazy thinking is a left/right thing.  That's lazy.

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The term leftist is not intended as an insult but a descriptor.

Absolutely no different than racist or denier; they are also equally descriptors. When someone uses 'leftie' to describe someone making an environmental argument then it is 100% being used as a pejorative because there is absolutely no correlation with political spectrum. It is all about frequency, and leftie is used as a pejorative about a thousand fold more often than are either racist or denier. My favourite pejorative is progressive, because I can just hear the people expectorate as they use it. Your sneer is very visible, and your disrespect is clear when you pretend otherwise.

The simplistic nature of the perceived political spectrum is exactly why the term leftie is inappropriate. I consider myself to be far more a conservative than most that make that claim, but I am not at all a Conservative. Even though I voted Liberal in the last federal election for the first time in well over 20 years, I am just as much as conservative as I am a liberal. Even the qualifiers 'social' and 'fiscal' are far from precise, and are usually only used by those that want to pretend they are responsible without being hillbillies. What they fail to understand is it is not responsibility they are taking about but just the opposite. Generally those that use the term 'fiscal conservative' are really trying to avoid their financial obligations.