6 ms·

I disagree. The premise for someone to believe all this BS, isn't that they're convinced by the new theory, but that everything the conventional media or the go

by bsaul 10y ago

I disagree. The premise for someone to believe all this BS, isn't that they're convinced by the new theory, but that everything the conventional media or the government say is probably false, and made to hide some hidden agenda. That's the root upon which all the additional propaganda can prosper. And the embarrassing truth than conventional media and politics refuse to admit is that there are good reasons for people not to believe them anymore.

mirimir 10y ago
There has never been good reason to believe them. Sometimes you can see that clearly. Consider how Germany, Japan and Russia were portrayed in movie newsreels during 1900-1970, and in TV news. It's all propaganda. Edit: For example, why did the US leave so many troops in Germany after WWII? Standard dogma is the Cold War. But, perhaps not surprisingly, some German veterans weren't all that happy about the outcome. About occupation. That came out in disputes about pacification after the US invaded Iraq.
- fauigerzigerk 10y ago
  >Standard dogma is the Cold War. Yes, it's "standard dogma" to use your pointlessly biased phrase. It's also an incredibly plausible explanation considering that Russian troups were stationed in East Germany and in the rest of Eastern Europe. >But, perhaps not surprisingly, some German veterans weren't all that happy about the outcome. That's right, some of those who had faught in the Nazi war were unhappy about having lost. However, most Germans never voted for Hitler in the first place and once liberated they happily went on to become one of the most prosperous nations on earth. All during "occupation" as you call it.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    Pretty safe to say that those in West Germany were happier to lose to the US or UK forces than those in the East losing to the Soviets.
    - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
      Yes, but I fear that the US may have drawn a somewhat flawed conclusion from that success. I think the outcome of toppling a dictator depends hugely on the reason for that dictator's ascent and the cultural context.
    - irixusr 10y ago
      They were happy to loose to the West who had less reason (by an order of magnitude or more) to hate them. That Stalin was butcher seems a bit mute compared to the German responsibility of the savagery of the Eastern Front.
      - mirimir 10y ago
        It's perhaps worth remembering that Putin is from Leningrad, and that his older brother died in the German siege. Also, he was close to Yeltsin, and watched him die from alcoholism, after relentless humiliation by the US and allies. So it's a fair bet that he has issues.
      - MRFREDOD 10y ago
        CHEATING ADULTERY INFIDELITY OF SPOUSE GET PROOFS? HIRE A PROFESSIONAL PI fortressinvestigation@outlook.com OR eliteprohackers@gmail.com
tajen 10y ago
> everything the conventional media say is probably false Exactly, and I'll take an example on the gender pay gap situation. Why this one? Because it drives crowds like crazy. If I take this random article [1], and it's a general trend, its title is a lie in the face of the very statistics that its sources are based on (and note that the underlying source isn't even scientifically cross-checked). The title and intro says women are paid $0.76 for a $1. After integrating a few criteria, it says that the measured difference is 2.4% (and that's without even taking into account all considerations). But most people in America only remember the 76% figure, which would depict a disgustingly macho situation... if it were true. When you hear, let's call them, "mainstream media" deforming a story from 2.4% to 76% and spinning off a title depicting a disgusting image of men (and I didn't even start cross-checking the study, I'm just using the article's own source), it's hard to trust that journalists aren't hugely deforming other stories. It's not a tiny problem: When the same journalists try to alert on Trump's behavior with women (which probably are crimes, so it's quite bad to elect such a president), they get brushed off by voters as a probably biased piece by an undercover Democrat who's trying to turn everything into sexism (like the article above). So, yes, credit to conventional media: Not so much. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-women-with-the-same-jobs.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-wome...
- mtberatwork 10y ago
  This isn't false news, I just think you are misreading the article. It states that overall (the uncontrolled gap according to the study) the gap is 24% (not 76% fyi) but when controlling for education, experience and title the gap is 2.4%. Point being, a gap still exists, even when controlling for these various factors...which is reflected in the title: "Men still earn more than women with the same jobs"
  - dukeluke 10y ago
    The point isn't the specifics of that one article. The point is that because most news organizations have soiled their reputation by misconstruing statistics to generate outrage, many people don't trust legitimate outrage-worthy articles anymore.
Udo 10y ago
(deleted)
- Noseshine 10y ago
  Sure - but you are talking about those spreading stories, he was talking about those - far more numerous - who are consuming stories, from all sides. You shifted the frame. There's nothing we can do about some people coming up with... "theories", they will always exist unless you have a dictatorship and total control. However, they are harmless just like a virus meeting a well-vaccinated group of people is harmless.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by bsaul 10y ago

mirimir 10y ago

There has never been good reason to believe them. Sometimes you can see that clearly. Consider how Germany, Japan and Russia were portrayed in movie newsreels during 1900-1970, and in TV news. It's all propaganda. Edit: For example, why did the US leave so many troops in Germany after WWII? Standard dogma is the Cold War. But, perhaps not surprisingly, some German veterans weren't all that happy about the outcome. About occupation. That came out in disputes about pacification after the US invaded Iraq.

fauigerzigerk 10y ago
>Standard dogma is the Cold War. Yes, it's "standard dogma" to use your pointlessly biased phrase. It's also an incredibly plausible explanation considering that Russian troups were stationed in East Germany and in the rest of Eastern Europe. >But, perhaps not surprisingly, some German veterans weren't all that happy about the outcome. That's right, some of those who had faught in the Nazi war were unhappy about having lost. However, most Germans never voted for Hitler in the first place and once liberated they happily went on to become one of the most prosperous nations on earth. All during "occupation" as you call it.
- arethuza 10y ago
  Pretty safe to say that those in West Germany were happier to lose to the US or UK forces than those in the East losing to the Soviets.
  - fauigerzigerk 10y ago
    Yes, but I fear that the US may have drawn a somewhat flawed conclusion from that success. I think the outcome of toppling a dictator depends hugely on the reason for that dictator's ascent and the cultural context.
  - irixusr 10y ago
    They were happy to loose to the West who had less reason (by an order of magnitude or more) to hate them. That Stalin was butcher seems a bit mute compared to the German responsibility of the savagery of the Eastern Front.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      It's perhaps worth remembering that Putin is from Leningrad, and that his older brother died in the German siege. Also, he was close to Yeltsin, and watched him die from alcoholism, after relentless humiliation by the US and allies. So it's a fair bet that he has issues.
    - MRFREDOD 10y ago
      CHEATING ADULTERY INFIDELITY OF SPOUSE GET PROOFS? HIRE A PROFESSIONAL PI fortressinvestigation@outlook.com OR eliteprohackers@gmail.com

tajen 10y ago

> everything the conventional media say is probably false Exactly, and I'll take an example on the gender pay gap situation. Why this one? Because it drives crowds like crazy. If I take this random article [1], and it's a general trend, its title is a lie in the face of the very statistics that its sources are based on (and note that the underlying source isn't even scientifically cross-checked). The title and intro says women are paid $0.76 for a $1. After integrating a few criteria, it says that the measured difference is 2.4% (and that's without even taking into account all considerations). But most people in America only remember the 76% figure, which would depict a disgustingly macho situation... if it were true. When you hear, let's call them, "mainstream media" deforming a story from 2.4% to 76% and spinning off a title depicting a disgusting image of men (and I didn't even start cross-checking the study, I'm just using the article's own source), it's hard to trust that journalists aren't hugely deforming other stories. It's not a tiny problem: When the same journalists try to alert on Trump's behavior with women (which probably are crimes, so it's quite bad to elect such a president), they get brushed off by voters as a probably biased piece by an undercover Democrat who's trying to turn everything into sexism (like the article above). So, yes, credit to conventional media: Not so much. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-women-with-the-same-jobs.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/men-still-earn-more-than-wome...

mtberatwork 10y ago
This isn't false news, I just think you are misreading the article. It states that overall (the uncontrolled gap according to the study) the gap is 24% (not 76% fyi) but when controlling for education, experience and title the gap is 2.4%. Point being, a gap still exists, even when controlling for these various factors...which is reflected in the title: "Men still earn more than women with the same jobs"
- dukeluke 10y ago
  The point isn't the specifics of that one article. The point is that because most news organizations have soiled their reputation by misconstruing statistics to generate outrage, many people don't trust legitimate outrage-worthy articles anymore.

Udo 10y ago

(deleted)

Noseshine 10y ago
Sure - but you are talking about those spreading stories, he was talking about those - far more numerous - who are consuming stories, from all sides. You shifted the frame. There's nothing we can do about some people coming up with... "theories", they will always exist unless you have a dictatorship and total control. However, they are harmless just like a virus meeting a well-vaccinated group of people is harmless.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]