3 ms·

This sort of non-reasoning is all too common now in partisan news sources. They project opinions out to their viewers without any reasoning or supporting eviden

This sort of non-reasoning is all too common now in partisan news sources. They project opinions out to their viewers without any reasoning or supporting evidence. You've spotted a good example on the left. The right does it too with all sorts of racism and antifa nonsense. Oh and apparently the election was stolen. All around our political climate over the last 20 years has gotten progressively more insane and tribalistic. Another poster in another thread once said that during the Bush and Obama years, safeguards against misleading the US public with counterintelligence ops were removed. I feel like that must have something to do with the explosive growth of the partisan-bullshit-drama-news business. The obvious factors in changing news media are the internet and social media, but I don't think that fully explains the widening divide and eager abandonment of objective reality.

mattgreenrocks 5y ago
Objective reality is sometimes painful, nuanced, and rarely has tidy solutions. It is a poor vehicle for a narrative. Thus, it is weaponized by contorting it into half-truths that serve the important purpose of affirming pre-existing values. The past year has made it extraordinarily clear that the epistemology of science is far too demanding for most people. And that’s okay; it just usually isn’t so starkly obvious.
culebron21 5y ago
This is exactly what happened in the late XIX century, when first mass media appeared, and did about the same: they'd cherry-pick evidence to support their prior opinions and painted the oposite side as villains. Dreyfus affair was the highlight of that phoenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair Unfortunately, same thing is happening with YouTube bloggers right now: I checked economists of 3 different kinds, and all of them would mostly pick the other's argument, exaggerate it to absurdity, then blame the opponent being socialist/social darwinist/nazi/anarchist/etc. Most of audience enjoys simple confirmation of their views, and accepts whatever is put in its favor: pure theorizing, demagogic questions, anectdotal evidence and cherry-picked data. Many reject any evidence that puts their worldview under stress -- I personally had this moment with friends, who'd just claim "this is not important, X is always Y, and Y > Z."

mattgreenrocks 5y ago

Objective reality is sometimes painful, nuanced, and rarely has tidy solutions. It is a poor vehicle for a narrative. Thus, it is weaponized by contorting it into half-truths that serve the important purpose of affirming pre-existing values. The past year has made it extraordinarily clear that the epistemology of science is far too demanding for most people. And that’s okay; it just usually isn’t so starkly obvious.

culebron21 5y ago

This is exactly what happened in the late XIX century, when first mass media appeared, and did about the same: they'd cherry-pick evidence to support their prior opinions and painted the oposite side as villains. Dreyfus affair was the highlight of that phoenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair Unfortunately, same thing is happening with YouTube bloggers right now: I checked economists of 3 different kinds, and all of them would mostly pick the other's argument, exaggerate it to absurdity, then blame the opponent being socialist/social darwinist/nazi/anarchist/etc. Most of audience enjoys simple confirmation of their views, and accepts whatever is put in its favor: pure theorizing, demagogic questions, anectdotal evidence and cherry-picked data. Many reject any evidence that puts their worldview under stress -- I personally had this moment with friends, who'd just claim "this is not important, X is always Y, and Y > Z."