3 ms·

>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Sometimes is not that simple. A lot of this is related to personal biases and just the

by caisah 10y ago

>it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. Sometimes is not that simple. A lot of this is related to personal biases and just the way the brain works. Ofcourse people can try to train theirselves into being more skeptic but in a world in which every day you are bombarded with information is pretty hard to find the time and motivation to do so.

kensai 10y ago
Personal bias and brain tricks contributions are really blown out of proportions here. Most of the stuff that happens in the fact vs fiction is unfortunately of this aspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA
TaylorAlexander 10y ago
I feel like what you're saying is: humans have inherent flaws. Even if it were the case that Mark Zuckerburg was exploiting those flaws for personal benefit, I find it hard to blame him - we live in and support a society that encourages that behavior. If exploiting human flaws for profit is an undesired outcome for human organizations, we should work to stop encouraging that behavior. I will however provide a counter point to my own argument, which is that we should name and shame those who abuse human nature at society's expense for their own benefit. Otherwise we end up with a society full of people who are actively harming society. Honestly I don't know what to think. I just wanted to provide both of these views. I'm curious what the response to either views is.
- rustynails 10y ago
  There are media codes of conduct. There are anti-discrimination laws. There are departments set up for supervising ethics. There are even people appointed specifically to monitor and stop prejudice. You would assume this would stop lying, manipulating, bullying and prejudice by the media but it does not. As an example, Hillary Clinton's exit speech was particularly sexist and _nobody_ in the media took her to task, "And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable, and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams." https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 It's just one of many examples of prejudice and injustice that are pushed aggressively by almost every media outlet. When did we ever exclude kids based on their gender so blatantly and with such pride? How far we've regressed. A school near me is doing the same thing (Mount Carmel College). A co-ed school that shows almost only girls in their pictures/website/billboards, yet, there is not a single complaint from anyone. There is so much discrimination from so many sources that you'd have to be blind not to notice it. It's despicable to declare a gender war on little boys, yet, I see no one protesting, especially ideologies that talk the most about prejudice. Any time people point out these prejudices in public, you hear some glib comments about 50 years ago. You pull out the newspapers from 50 years ago to illustrate revisionist history and it is suddenly 100 years ago. This problem is systemic. The truth is that humanity seems to need a bogey man. Today, that's likely the "all Muslims are terrorists" and "any white male is privileged (irrespective of age)", leading to some extreme bullying. The only way for extremism to stop is to meet it head on, yet, not one "reputable" media outlet is willing to do so. Some say Breitbart is good, but, I found it sexist to the same degree that Ars Technica, The Verge, New York Times, etc are, just targeting the opposite gender. However, Breitbart is in the overwhelming minority (ie. sexist favouring males is the ~1% of media today). What we need is decent people willing to tackle the prejudice. For some reason, the protests of decent people remain almost unheard. Whether it's domestic violence by women, overwhelming predominance of male suicide, predominance of male cancer, overwhelming predominance of male homelessness, overwhelming predominance of male incarceration, extreme prejudice against boys in school education or any other male oriented topic, the media manipulates, lies, misrepresents and bullies. To give a small example, how many times have you heard prostate cancer is a joke and almost nobody dies from it? Compare the stats yourself: MORE incidents than breast cancer and MORE deaths, despite the constant snipes by many media outlets to the contrary. https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Society desperately needs people to protest vigorously. Hold Ars Technica, The Verge, Vox, Vulture, Daily Beast, New York Times, BBC, News Corp, etc accountable. Throw the book at the lot of them! Huge fines will fund more cases against other media outlets.

by caisah 10y ago

kensai 10y ago

Personal bias and brain tricks contributions are really blown out of proportions here. Most of the stuff that happens in the fact vs fiction is unfortunately of this aspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5d4yVP7sNA

TaylorAlexander 10y ago

I feel like what you're saying is: humans have inherent flaws. Even if it were the case that Mark Zuckerburg was exploiting those flaws for personal benefit, I find it hard to blame him - we live in and support a society that encourages that behavior. If exploiting human flaws for profit is an undesired outcome for human organizations, we should work to stop encouraging that behavior. I will however provide a counter point to my own argument, which is that we should name and shame those who abuse human nature at society's expense for their own benefit. Otherwise we end up with a society full of people who are actively harming society. Honestly I don't know what to think. I just wanted to provide both of these views. I'm curious what the response to either views is.

rustynails 10y ago
There are media codes of conduct. There are anti-discrimination laws. There are departments set up for supervising ethics. There are even people appointed specifically to monitor and stop prejudice. You would assume this would stop lying, manipulating, bullying and prejudice by the media but it does not. As an example, Hillary Clinton's exit speech was particularly sexist and _nobody_ in the media took her to task, "And to all the little girls who are watching this, never doubt that you are valuable, and powerful and deserving of every chance and opportunity in the world to pursue and achieve your own dreams." https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.3843541 It's just one of many examples of prejudice and injustice that are pushed aggressively by almost every media outlet. When did we ever exclude kids based on their gender so blatantly and with such pride? How far we've regressed. A school near me is doing the same thing (Mount Carmel College). A co-ed school that shows almost only girls in their pictures/website/billboards, yet, there is not a single complaint from anyone. There is so much discrimination from so many sources that you'd have to be blind not to notice it. It's despicable to declare a gender war on little boys, yet, I see no one protesting, especially ideologies that talk the most about prejudice. Any time people point out these prejudices in public, you hear some glib comments about 50 years ago. You pull out the newspapers from 50 years ago to illustrate revisionist history and it is suddenly 100 years ago. This problem is systemic. The truth is that humanity seems to need a bogey man. Today, that's likely the "all Muslims are terrorists" and "any white male is privileged (irrespective of age)", leading to some extreme bullying. The only way for extremism to stop is to meet it head on, yet, not one "reputable" media outlet is willing to do so. Some say Breitbart is good, but, I found it sexist to the same degree that Ars Technica, The Verge, New York Times, etc are, just targeting the opposite gender. However, Breitbart is in the overwhelming minority (ie. sexist favouring males is the ~1% of media today). What we need is decent people willing to tackle the prejudice. For some reason, the protests of decent people remain almost unheard. Whether it's domestic violence by women, overwhelming predominance of male suicide, predominance of male cancer, overwhelming predominance of male homelessness, overwhelming predominance of male incarceration, extreme prejudice against boys in school education or any other male oriented topic, the media manipulates, lies, misrepresents and bullies. To give a small example, how many times have you heard prostate cancer is a joke and almost nobody dies from it? Compare the stats yourself: MORE incidents than breast cancer and MORE deaths, despite the constant snipes by many media outlets to the contrary. https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://prostate-cancer.canceraustralia.gov.au/statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-statistics https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-types/... Society desperately needs people to protest vigorously. Hold Ars Technica, The Verge, Vox, Vulture, Daily Beast, New York Times, BBC, News Corp, etc accountable. Throw the book at the lot of them! Huge fines will fund more cases against other media outlets.