4 ms·

Objective truth does exist, and I think a lot of us who believe that also believe that you are engaging in a false choice fallacy. edit: to be clear, I think B

Objective truth does exist, and I think a lot of us who believe that also believe that you are engaging in a false choice fallacy. edit: to be clear, I think Bannon continues to use his platform to achieve concrete political, electoral political ends and shouldn't be viewed through the lens of a media corporation's metrics (profitability or audience)

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
I believe Breitbart publishes crap. The comment I responded to ascribes a motive to their expansion. That requires more evidence. Consider, for example, the fake news which came out of Macedonia this past cycle [1]. We can objectively agree it's crap. We can reasonably disagree as to whether the authors were principally motivated by economic or political carrots. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-how-its-done/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-h...
- ForrestN 10y ago
  Steve Bannon, of Breitbart, has spoken and written about his desire to tear down civic institutions within the United States and use Breitbart as a platform for the new wave of White Nationalists. The evidence is quite clear in the case of Breitbart.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > [Bannon's] desire...the evidence is quite clear We disagree on what can be objectively known. I don't think one can know another's internal mind state. Motives exist purely in minds. Fact: Bannon has spoken and written about these desires. Fact: Breitbar publishes crap. Fact(ish): Breitbart's expansion into Germany will likely have a negative impact on its election quality and sociopolitical stability. Not a fact: what motivates the people at Breitbart to do this. Part of combatting fake news is basing decisions and discussions around what can be objectively agreed upon.
    - ForrestN 10y ago
      If your point is a philosophical one about the nature of knowledge then we have gone far afield of the comment you were responding to. The leader of Breitbart has publicly announced a strategy to change the United States' political and governmental norms. He is now arguably the most powerful figure in the Trump administration, which has already begun pursuing that strategy. Breitbart's actions in other countries are consistent with that strategy. True, maybe the deepest motive for Bannon's stated strategy is that he wants to angrily reject his father's scorn and through world domination (or at least world destabilization) finally earn his love and thus be able to love himself. But that's not really the subject at hand. "Fake News" is just rebranded propaganda. Systematically trying to convince the public of lies is bad, regardless of motive. But we can also see clearly the first order motives of the people behind most of this current wave of propaganda even if we can't follow a chain of causality back to the deepest motives of human nature.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
bluecalm 10y ago
Objective truth does exist in many areas but it doesn't matter. Most of the news served is about the commentary and claims which are not verifiable. Consider those two versions of commentary on the same event: "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to stick it to Israel by not vetoing UN resolution" vs "Obama finally recognizes that US has to respect Geneva conventions - not vetoing an act of respect for the law and human rights"). Both tell a story of factual event (Obama administration not vetoing a resolution US usually vetoes) and both add opinionated commentary which can't easily (if at all) be verified. Is either of those fake news? I not then you won't catch the thing people complaining about fake news rage about. If yes you are venturing Ministry of Truth territory - state run censorship known all too well for anyone growing up in communist states of Central/Eastern Europe.

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

I believe Breitbart publishes crap. The comment I responded to ascribes a motive to their expansion. That requires more evidence. Consider, for example, the fake news which came out of Macedonia this past cycle [1]. We can objectively agree it's crap. We can reasonably disagree as to whether the authors were principally motivated by economic or political carrots. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-how-its-done/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fake-news-macedonia-teen-shows-h...

ForrestN 10y ago
Steve Bannon, of Breitbart, has spoken and written about his desire to tear down civic institutions within the United States and use Breitbart as a platform for the new wave of White Nationalists. The evidence is quite clear in the case of Breitbart.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > [Bannon's] desire...the evidence is quite clear We disagree on what can be objectively known. I don't think one can know another's internal mind state. Motives exist purely in minds. Fact: Bannon has spoken and written about these desires. Fact: Breitbar publishes crap. Fact(ish): Breitbart's expansion into Germany will likely have a negative impact on its election quality and sociopolitical stability. Not a fact: what motivates the people at Breitbart to do this. Part of combatting fake news is basing decisions and discussions around what can be objectively agreed upon.
  - ForrestN 10y ago
    If your point is a philosophical one about the nature of knowledge then we have gone far afield of the comment you were responding to. The leader of Breitbart has publicly announced a strategy to change the United States' political and governmental norms. He is now arguably the most powerful figure in the Trump administration, which has already begun pursuing that strategy. Breitbart's actions in other countries are consistent with that strategy. True, maybe the deepest motive for Bannon's stated strategy is that he wants to angrily reject his father's scorn and through world domination (or at least world destabilization) finally earn his love and thus be able to love himself. But that's not really the subject at hand. "Fake News" is just rebranded propaganda. Systematically trying to convince the public of lies is bad, regardless of motive. But we can also see clearly the first order motives of the people behind most of this current wave of propaganda even if we can't follow a chain of causality back to the deepest motives of human nature.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

bluecalm 10y ago

Objective truth does exist in many areas but it doesn't matter. Most of the news served is about the commentary and claims which are not verifiable. Consider those two versions of commentary on the same event: "Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to stick it to Israel by not vetoing UN resolution" vs "Obama finally recognizes that US has to respect Geneva conventions - not vetoing an act of respect for the law and human rights"). Both tell a story of factual event (Obama administration not vetoing a resolution US usually vetoes) and both add opinionated commentary which can't easily (if at all) be verified. Is either of those fake news? I not then you won't catch the thing people complaining about fake news rage about. If yes you are venturing Ministry of Truth territory - state run censorship known all too well for anyone growing up in communist states of Central/Eastern Europe.