4 ms·

The idea that those two concepts would be even functionally related is a massive struggle for me. Like what? “Nonsense conspiracy theory makes sense because ‘N

The idea that those two concepts would be even functionally related is a massive struggle for me. Like what? “Nonsense conspiracy theory makes sense because ‘NPR has an agenda’”. Like genuinely, huh? If you don’t believe NPR, you don’t have to pick the stupidest possible alternative.

guscost 6y ago
Both groups trust that their chosen authority is the ultimate provider of truth, and generally prefer not to question that authority even when it leads to cognitive dissonance.
- aspaceman 6y ago
  All airplanes are boats because they both carry people. It’s fine to question authority. But you don’t have to pick genuine idiocy because you lack faith in some journalistic institutions. Maybe you could just, idk be a little more skeptical instead of thinking pizza places house pedophiles? It’s idiocy. Why be gentle about it? If your argument for buying into some of this stuff is “they’re all liars! That’s why I believed the stupidest possible thing” You seriously need to look in the mirror and do some self evaluation.
- glial 6y ago
  Can you give some examples?
  - guscost 6y ago
    “Right-Wing Extremists More Dangerous Than Islamic Terrorists In U.S.” https://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremists-more-dangerous-than-islamic-terrorists-in-u-s https://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremis... “Terrorist Or Hero? Politics Shape The Story Behind Antifa's Only Fatal Attack” https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894343496/terrorist-or-hero-politics-shape-the-story-behind-antifas-only-fatal-attack https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894343496/terrorist-or-hero-p... “'Here It Is': Extremism Researchers Worry About The Rising Violence During Protests” (Story about an antifa member killing a proud boy) https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909793727/here-it-is-extremism-researchers-worry-about-the-rising-violence-during-protests https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909793727/here-it-is-extremis...
    - glial 6y ago
      Sorry, I meant examples of people using a chosen authority as the ultimate provider of truth.
      - guscost 6y ago
        Ah, sure: https://twitter.com/isis_win/status/1323046887910477837 https://twitter.com/isis_win/status/1323046887910477837 https://twitter.com/backupishere/status/1044776935077941248 https://twitter.com/backupishere/status/1044776935077941248
- stonogo 6y ago
  I have never met anyone who considers NPR "the ultimate provider of truth," and neither have you.
  - guscost 6y ago
    In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole to illustrate a point.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      I'm now thoroughly lost. You've equated NPR, a non-profit news organization that's pretty widely regarded as boring, with a wild conspiracy theory of sex trafficking pizza shops. You're welcome to try again but without the hyperbole this time?
      - guscost 6y ago
        Here’s one huge difference between the two: NPR does not generally make up stories from whole cloth, without at least a real person on the record vouching for them. Their flaws are pretty much all in what stories and details they choose to report, and who they choose to interview.
    - stonogo 6y ago
      There are people in my town running for office who absolutely do believe that Q is the only trustworthy source of information, have declared so in public, and receive a nontrivial amount of support from folks who agree. You may have tried to use hyperbole to illustrate a point, but you wound up looking like you're trying to either discredit a news organization you don't like or legitimize a bullshit artist by placing the two on equal terms. It came across as disingenuous at best and you don't seem to be willing to recognize that divergence from your stated intentions. Why is that?
      - guscost 6y ago
yawnr 6y ago
Yeah seriously. What a weird false equivalence to try to suggest.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Yeah seriously. What a weird false equivalence to try to suggest. Honestly, it's probably part of a real justification narrative for trusting things like QAnon and talk radio over the mainstream media. If you do that, you at least have to put them on the same level, and if it's too difficult to build up things like the first two, then you can always try tear down the latter (since it's easier to cherry-pick enough stuff to make that passably believable: just set a very high bar then catalog the inevitable times one of the thousands of journalists didn't live up to it over the last century).
  - guscost 6y ago
    > Honestly, it's probably part of a real justification narrative for trusting things like QAnon and talk radio over the mainstream media. What?! My problem is that people fail to question reputable but comically biased sources like NPR, not that those same people don’t believe Q! This is such a ridiculous straw man! I hope you made this error in good faith.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

guscost 6y ago

Both groups trust that their chosen authority is the ultimate provider of truth, and generally prefer not to question that authority even when it leads to cognitive dissonance.

aspaceman 6y ago
All airplanes are boats because they both carry people. It’s fine to question authority. But you don’t have to pick genuine idiocy because you lack faith in some journalistic institutions. Maybe you could just, idk be a little more skeptical instead of thinking pizza places house pedophiles? It’s idiocy. Why be gentle about it? If your argument for buying into some of this stuff is “they’re all liars! That’s why I believed the stupidest possible thing” You seriously need to look in the mirror and do some self evaluation.
glial 6y ago
Can you give some examples?
- guscost 6y ago
  “Right-Wing Extremists More Dangerous Than Islamic Terrorists In U.S.” https://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremists-more-dangerous-than-islamic-terrorists-in-u-s https://www.npr.org/2015/06/24/417192057/right-wing-extremis... “Terrorist Or Hero? Politics Shape The Story Behind Antifa's Only Fatal Attack” https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894343496/terrorist-or-hero-politics-shape-the-story-behind-antifas-only-fatal-attack https://www.npr.org/2020/07/22/894343496/terrorist-or-hero-p... “'Here It Is': Extremism Researchers Worry About The Rising Violence During Protests” (Story about an antifa member killing a proud boy) https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909793727/here-it-is-extremism-researchers-worry-about-the-rising-violence-during-protests https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909793727/here-it-is-extremis...
  - glial 6y ago
    Sorry, I meant examples of people using a chosen authority as the ultimate provider of truth.
    - guscost 6y ago
      Ah, sure: https://twitter.com/isis_win/status/1323046887910477837 https://twitter.com/isis_win/status/1323046887910477837 https://twitter.com/backupishere/status/1044776935077941248 https://twitter.com/backupishere/status/1044776935077941248
stonogo 6y ago
I have never met anyone who considers NPR "the ultimate provider of truth," and neither have you.
- guscost 6y ago
  In the same sense, you have never met anyone who believes Q is the “ultimate provider of truth” and not just some secret spy cell or whatever. I used hyperbole to illustrate a point.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I'm now thoroughly lost. You've equated NPR, a non-profit news organization that's pretty widely regarded as boring, with a wild conspiracy theory of sex trafficking pizza shops. You're welcome to try again but without the hyperbole this time?
    - guscost 6y ago
      Here’s one huge difference between the two: NPR does not generally make up stories from whole cloth, without at least a real person on the record vouching for them. Their flaws are pretty much all in what stories and details they choose to report, and who they choose to interview.
  - stonogo 6y ago
    There are people in my town running for office who absolutely do believe that Q is the only trustworthy source of information, have declared so in public, and receive a nontrivial amount of support from folks who agree. You may have tried to use hyperbole to illustrate a point, but you wound up looking like you're trying to either discredit a news organization you don't like or legitimize a bullshit artist by placing the two on equal terms. It came across as disingenuous at best and you don't seem to be willing to recognize that divergence from your stated intentions. Why is that?
    - guscost 6y ago

yawnr 6y ago

Yeah seriously. What a weird false equivalence to try to suggest.

ardy42 6y ago
> Yeah seriously. What a weird false equivalence to try to suggest. Honestly, it's probably part of a real justification narrative for trusting things like QAnon and talk radio over the mainstream media. If you do that, you at least have to put them on the same level, and if it's too difficult to build up things like the first two, then you can always try tear down the latter (since it's easier to cherry-pick enough stuff to make that passably believable: just set a very high bar then catalog the inevitable times one of the thousands of journalists didn't live up to it over the last century).
- guscost 6y ago
  > Honestly, it's probably part of a real justification narrative for trusting things like QAnon and talk radio over the mainstream media. What?! My problem is that people fail to question reputable but comically biased sources like NPR, not that those same people don’t believe Q! This is such a ridiculous straw man! I hope you made this error in good faith.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]