3 ms·

There are literally millions of voices out there proposing different ways to look at the world. It's physically impossible to listen to more than a small propo

by badsock 10y ago

There are literally millions of voices out there proposing different ways to look at the world. It's physically impossible to listen to more than a small proportion of that number in your lifetime, so it's reasonable to have your first level filter be "is it easy to find examples of them saying things that are very obviously stupid".

curiousgeorgio 10y ago
My point has more to do with the source of your information than the quantity of information you should consume. Regardless of your particular political views, you must acknowledge that the mainstream media is far from an unbiased source (recent leaks have made that clearer than ever). Thus, if your "first level filter" is only based on what the media says, you're looking at a small sample from a very skewed dataset. Everyone uses filters and makes judgements on limited information; the point is, you'll be better off looking to primary sources and listening to some of what people actually have to say before drawing conclusions. The media at this point is essentially useless for that purpose. If I were to judge your character based on a single quote from your lifetime, would you rather I ask your greatest enemy for that quote, or pick a random sample on a good day?
- badsock 10y ago
  You raise a good point in your last paragraph. When you said "If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning", it sounded like you were making the argument that you have to get deep into an author before you can judge them.
- matt4077 10y ago
  That's conspiracy hogwash. Replace "media" with "the medical community" and it sounds like a snake-oil salesman. Journalism today is better than it ever was. The bias of quality journalism today is simply a general, tentative consensus that the political and economic system of what you'd collectively call "the west" is working quite well in principle. I'm not going to look at idiots ranting into their webcams on youtube. Considering how easy it is for something good to "go viral", I'm quite happy to wait until the good stuff gets separated from the 99+% that is idiotic. I do talk to people, quite a lot actually considering a few volunteer engagements. Many of these people life vastly different lives than I do, from the homeless alcoholic to a guy who just inherited some 9-digit fortune. I have learned that a drunk lunatic ranting on the subway /is not/ suffering from the pain of his insights into the conspiracy controlling everyone's mind. He's just drunk, and wrong, and annoyingly loud. When I talk to journalists, they are almost without exception some of the most dedicated, well-educated, interesting and self-reflecting people. They mostly share a core set of believes ("no whiskey before noon", "someone bragging about sexual assault must never be president"), and I'm happy to share these with them, because otherwise they'd have to start every article at first principle. Regarding that quote: It isn't just something he once said. It's one of his pet theories, and I doubt that a well-adjusted person could even come up with something like that.

by badsock 10y ago

curiousgeorgio 10y ago

My point has more to do with the source of your information than the quantity of information you should consume. Regardless of your particular political views, you must acknowledge that the mainstream media is far from an unbiased source (recent leaks have made that clearer than ever). Thus, if your "first level filter" is only based on what the media says, you're looking at a small sample from a very skewed dataset. Everyone uses filters and makes judgements on limited information; the point is, you'll be better off looking to primary sources and listening to some of what people actually have to say before drawing conclusions. The media at this point is essentially useless for that purpose. If I were to judge your character based on a single quote from your lifetime, would you rather I ask your greatest enemy for that quote, or pick a random sample on a good day?

badsock 10y ago
You raise a good point in your last paragraph. When you said "If you were familiar with Molyneux and his full line of reasoning", it sounded like you were making the argument that you have to get deep into an author before you can judge them.
matt4077 10y ago
That's conspiracy hogwash. Replace "media" with "the medical community" and it sounds like a snake-oil salesman. Journalism today is better than it ever was. The bias of quality journalism today is simply a general, tentative consensus that the political and economic system of what you'd collectively call "the west" is working quite well in principle. I'm not going to look at idiots ranting into their webcams on youtube. Considering how easy it is for something good to "go viral", I'm quite happy to wait until the good stuff gets separated from the 99+% that is idiotic. I do talk to people, quite a lot actually considering a few volunteer engagements. Many of these people life vastly different lives than I do, from the homeless alcoholic to a guy who just inherited some 9-digit fortune. I have learned that a drunk lunatic ranting on the subway /is not/ suffering from the pain of his insights into the conspiracy controlling everyone's mind. He's just drunk, and wrong, and annoyingly loud. When I talk to journalists, they are almost without exception some of the most dedicated, well-educated, interesting and self-reflecting people. They mostly share a core set of believes ("no whiskey before noon", "someone bragging about sexual assault must never be president"), and I'm happy to share these with them, because otherwise they'd have to start every article at first principle. Regarding that quote: It isn't just something he once said. It's one of his pet theories, and I doubt that a well-adjusted person could even come up with something like that.