3 ms·

I'm not familiar with the third link but the first two are prime wacko-left and wacko-right, and reality is unlikely to inhabit the midpoint.

by jl6 5y ago

h2odragon 5y ago
The wider ones perspective, the greater chance of seeing some truth. Still not a big chance, mind you.
- dahart 5y ago
  In the past I would have fully agreed with this idea in general, and it still has a ring of believability. But, there hasn’t ever been more evidence that this is not true when it comes to extreme politics than the last year. Getting more misinformation in your diet does not increase your chances of seeing any truth.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    How can you get anything but misinformation? We can barely understand bits of the world around us, and our efforts to communicate that understanding to each other are imperfect to the point we're really just making noises at each other and hoping to stimulate similar thinking, at best. Anybody who takes the effort to publish something; from the most respected journalist, rank government propaganda, and me writing this comment: all have reasons for expending that effort in addition to the "i want to share what i think is true", which we hope was the main reason. We have to read everything with the filter of "why does this person want me to think this?" "mis / dis / information" is a spectrum, and we have to see the shading in everything we consume.
    - dahart 5y ago
      Again, specious platitudes that I could agree with in general in an ideal world, but do not apply to extreme politics and disinformation campaigns. The difference between the journal “Nature” and Qanon is not “shading”. One genuinely intends to be true, and the other is purposely pushing information known to be false. One is open about it’s sources and methods, the other is not. One has a repeatable methodology, the other doesn’t. One puts their names on their publications, the other doesn’t. One is comfortable with subtlety and seeks truth, the other is a sales pitch that preys on fear and emotion. Suggesting they’re both shades of the same misinformation with the same flawed agendas and that you can’t get anything but misinformation ever is exactly what the most extreme right wing agenda wants; it has been systematically attacking public trust in science, and it’s working. This is precisely why ingesting it does not increase your chances of seeing truth, it only does damage and add FUD and confusion.

I'm not familiar with the third link but the first two are prime wacko-left and wacko-right, and reality is unlikely to inhabit the midpoint.

by jl6 5y ago

I'm not familiar with the third link but the first two are prime wacko-left and wacko-right, and reality is unlikely to inhabit the midpoint.

h2odragon 5y ago

The wider ones perspective, the greater chance of seeing some truth. Still not a big chance, mind you.

dahart 5y ago
In the past I would have fully agreed with this idea in general, and it still has a ring of believability. But, there hasn’t ever been more evidence that this is not true when it comes to extreme politics than the last year. Getting more misinformation in your diet does not increase your chances of seeing any truth.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  How can you get anything but misinformation? We can barely understand bits of the world around us, and our efforts to communicate that understanding to each other are imperfect to the point we're really just making noises at each other and hoping to stimulate similar thinking, at best. Anybody who takes the effort to publish something; from the most respected journalist, rank government propaganda, and me writing this comment: all have reasons for expending that effort in addition to the "i want to share what i think is true", which we hope was the main reason. We have to read everything with the filter of "why does this person want me to think this?" "mis / dis / information" is a spectrum, and we have to see the shading in everything we consume.
  - dahart 5y ago
    Again, specious platitudes that I could agree with in general in an ideal world, but do not apply to extreme politics and disinformation campaigns. The difference between the journal “Nature” and Qanon is not “shading”. One genuinely intends to be true, and the other is purposely pushing information known to be false. One is open about it’s sources and methods, the other is not. One has a repeatable methodology, the other doesn’t. One puts their names on their publications, the other doesn’t. One is comfortable with subtlety and seeks truth, the other is a sales pitch that preys on fear and emotion. Suggesting they’re both shades of the same misinformation with the same flawed agendas and that you can’t get anything but misinformation ever is exactly what the most extreme right wing agenda wants; it has been systematically attacking public trust in science, and it’s working. This is precisely why ingesting it does not increase your chances of seeing truth, it only does damage and add FUD and confusion.