3 ms·

Tell me, have you been following the drastic divergence between the media reporting on the rittenhouse trial and the actual courtroom testimony that has been li

Tell me, have you been following the drastic divergence between the media reporting on the rittenhouse trial and the actual courtroom testimony that has been livestreamed from day one? I bring this up in particular because it is an especially egregious display what is otherwise typical partisanship - and effectively these outlets have spread misinformation, with sophistry and by lying through omission, such that relying on their collusive reporting on the matter would completely obfuscate the fact that even ignoring the original videos of the incident (conveniently scrubbed from the polite corners of the internet), the prosecution had absolutely no case - not to mention their star witness was shown to have lied repeatedly in his testimony to police, withheld evidence, etc. Point being that the word "disinformation" at this point is a manufactured buzzword designed to dishonestly suppress dissent - and if your views on any politically charged topic, including the "safe and effective" vaccines, align at all with the consent that these blatantly partisan outlets have been manufacturing, I would urge you to at least consider that you are the one who has been lining up so virtuously behind disinformation. At the very least you are participating in just as severe of an echo chamber as that which you perceive your opposition to be taking part in.

mindslight 5y ago
No, I haven't. The Rittenhouse trial is solidly in the political entertainment category, which I try to avoid. I would be surprised if there weren't massive distortions going on, since the core of the disinformation machinery is the political machine manufacturing wedges to drive engagement. > being that the word "disinformation" at this point is a manufactured buzzword designed to dishonestly suppress dissent Except that the term really does capture the dynamic. Based on your description of the Rittenhouse trial, would you not describe that reporting as disinformation? From what you've said, it sounds like people will be better informed if they don't tune into such reporting. Hence "disinformation". I'm a libertarian who generally views both political machines as hostile entities. But what really destroyed my symmetrical view (suspension of disbelief of bad faith) is seeing the anti-mask disinformation bubble play out. Here is a topic that is directly applicable to everyone, easily understandable, and quite objective [0]. Yet the establishment party raised a political banner that directly contradicts common sense while harming its followers. And yet supporting that political movement is seemingly more important than self preservation (memes are a hell of a drug). That's objectively straight up "disinformation" - anybody spreading anti-mask nonsense is actively undermining our society in a very clear way. Now of course this "disinformation" label can't help but be used with a bias, to further drive disinformation bubbles in either team's forums. On the original topic I do think hiding downvotes is a poor change (I'd love richer semantic criticism that doesn't just collapse a person's opinion into for/against). But my comment was addressing the self-righteous responses pigeonholing the entire dynamic as a political play by one team, ignoring the real objective reality being overridden. [0] The only argument of substance I've seen against masks is that ersatz cloth masks don't do anything. Which would be a worthy critique to support wearing proper equipment instead. But instead it's being used to indict the entire concept of respiratory protection.

mindslight 5y ago

No, I haven't. The Rittenhouse trial is solidly in the political entertainment category, which I try to avoid. I would be surprised if there weren't massive distortions going on, since the core of the disinformation machinery is the political machine manufacturing wedges to drive engagement. > being that the word "disinformation" at this point is a manufactured buzzword designed to dishonestly suppress dissent Except that the term really does capture the dynamic. Based on your description of the Rittenhouse trial, would you not describe that reporting as disinformation? From what you've said, it sounds like people will be better informed if they don't tune into such reporting. Hence "disinformation". I'm a libertarian who generally views both political machines as hostile entities. But what really destroyed my symmetrical view (suspension of disbelief of bad faith) is seeing the anti-mask disinformation bubble play out. Here is a topic that is directly applicable to everyone, easily understandable, and quite objective [0]. Yet the establishment party raised a political banner that directly contradicts common sense while harming its followers. And yet supporting that political movement is seemingly more important than self preservation (memes are a hell of a drug). That's objectively straight up "disinformation" - anybody spreading anti-mask nonsense is actively undermining our society in a very clear way. Now of course this "disinformation" label can't help but be used with a bias, to further drive disinformation bubbles in either team's forums. On the original topic I do think hiding downvotes is a poor change (I'd love richer semantic criticism that doesn't just collapse a person's opinion into for/against). But my comment was addressing the self-righteous responses pigeonholing the entire dynamic as a political play by one team, ignoring the real objective reality being overridden. [0] The only argument of substance I've seen against masks is that ersatz cloth masks don't do anything. Which would be a worthy critique to support wearing proper equipment instead. But instead it's being used to indict the entire concept of respiratory protection.