3 ms·
Those intermediate organizations have been biased in the past and seem to have become increasingly biased to the point of becoming useless for those that want t
by ska 8y ago
Those intermediate organizations have been biased in the past and seem to have become increasingly biased to the point of becoming useless for those that want to focus on facts rather than opinion & commentary.
I'm not convinced that is true, but even if it were the important question isn't "are they biased?" but "are we replacing it with something worse?". So far, the latter seems plausible.
Developing a general skepticism isn't a bad thing in and of itself, so long as it is tempered by the real goal which is to have a reliable mechanism for evaluating and accepting new information.
We know that widely available information is generally good for democracy.
This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc.
- rewgs 8y agoThank you, absolutely agree. Everytime I hear someone say that supposed "liberal" institutions are "biased," I genuinely struggle to come up with an answer to the question "biased towards what?" other than "objective reality."
- aeternus 8y agoHow about this idea of "safe spaces"? And also the idea that it is generally okay to attempt to shut down, yell over, or ban speech or ideas that they don't agree with. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-intolerant_us_58d957a6e4b02a2eaab66ccf https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/safe-spaces-college-int...
- carry_bit 8y ago> This is only true if the information is correct, and quite the opposite if we are talking propaganda etc. But the best propaganda is true, or at least points to the truth. Does that mean some truths being widely know are bad for democracy?
- ska 8y agoThat is not what propaganda means. By its very nature it [tends to be] misleading. By all means clear communication of facts is beneficial for democracy. But that is not what propaganda is. [edit: dragonwriter pointed out it is not strictly necessary for it to be misleading - this is true and not what I meant to suggest. In practice nearly always is misleading. It's purpose is to manipulate, which is always detrimental to democracy imo]
- dragonwriter 8y ago> That is not what propaganda means. By its very nature it is misleading. No, propaganda is designed to influence belief and behavior in a particular way (the defining example was material designed to lead people to the Catholic faith; “propaganda” comes from the former [pre-1967] Latin name of the modern Catholic Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples [0]); it is not necessarily intended to be misleading. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Evangelization_of_Peoples https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Evangel...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]