6 ms·

This is published by an organization known for deceit. Thus, everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt with the full knowledge they engage in d

This is published by an organization known for deceit. Thus, everything they write should be taken with a grain of salt with the full knowledge they engage in deceitful misinformation practices for the purpose of political action. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Institute#Disinformation_about_Single-Payer_Healthcare https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pacific_Research_Insti...

jefftk 5y ago
It looks like they've gotten the facts right in this case; https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-construction https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-cons... has similar coverage from several months ago. That this would make new housing more expensive, isn't generally viewed as necessary for fire safety, and is funded by the concrete industry, don't seem to be disputed?
- wpietri 5y ago
  How do we know that this source is better? I can't find anything on their site about ownership.
yuliyp 5y ago
Is there something that you actually believe is deceitful here? Is it the analysis of the impact of expanding the Fire District? Is it the data about the impact on building costs? Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? Refusing to read and consider arguments from people you disagree with isn't a particularly useful strategy for gaining knowledge about a topic.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? This one, for me. I know nothing about it. Without further information, I wouldn’t want to conclude anything from a biased source (other than noting that the issue exists).
- wpietri 5y ago
  This isn't about disagreement. If somebody sincerely, honestly, and without conflict of interest has something to say on a topic, I'm interested. Especially if they have done some hard work around understanding and acknowledging other perspectives. On the other hand, there are a lot of people out their paid to create and push propaganda. As a general rule, one shouldn't engage with it. If even the writer may not believe something, one isn't obliged to take it seriously. Indeed, I think it's a frequently exploited mistake to bring more credulity and good faith to something than the source itself does. Much better to spend one's time finding reasonably sincere sources and reading those.
  - yuliyp 5y ago
    It's hard to find people interested enough to write publicly about something but having no vested interest in an issue. To that end, I still prefer to read things from people who I would disagree with rather than those I agree with, as it forces me to refine my beliefs and examine them more closely: can I actually find clearer evidence to reinforce what I thought I had believed that was in conflict with what I read? Can I refute it? Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me? Sometimes I'll find that they were indeed making up an alternate reality or misrepresenting things. Sometimes I'll find something where the arguments being presented are unrelated to the data being presented. Sometimes I'll find disagreements in values leading to different interpretations of the same data. Sometimes I'll find that I learn something. It does take discipline to do this, though: with many sources I have to be on high alert for anything that seems like it's trying to invoke my emotions to get me to agree with the article. In the case of this article, I went and read their source material (the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report on this: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%205-27-21.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%2... ), and found that the article fairly reasonably summarized the report. The last two paragraphs of the article are where most of their opinions are interjected, and I view their claims of the motivation of the backers with some skepticism. The claims about safety seem in line with what I could glean from the report, but I'm not very sure I understand the nuances of analyzing fire statistics across diverse neighborhoods.
    - 5y ago
- kevin_b_er 5y ago
  When an organization is known for deceit for political purposes, it means I must expend extra effort to determine what information they have twisted, what information they have intentionally left out, and what the angle is. It requires extra effort to attempt to discover where the deceit rests. Why should I expend that much effort from an organization who's got an agenda and isn't known for their honesty? How much knowledge can be gained from looking through misinformation? Why should I poison myself with potential propaganda? What does it gain me then but an attempt to bait me?
car 5y ago
Yeah, empty about page is a red flag. And then this: “It’s a relief that Americans oppose Congress’s drug pricing proposals once voters learn the true consequences of these misguided reforms,” said Sally C. Pipes, the brief’s co-author and PRI president, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy.”
ladberg 5y ago
There's a similar article by a more trustworthy source, so I'd definitely believe it: http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2021/6/13/dont-expand-fire-district-1-eliminate-it http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2021/6/13/dont-expand... You can also just read the proposal yourself and draw your own conclusions: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-2019.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-...

jefftk 5y ago

It looks like they've gotten the facts right in this case; https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-construction https://urbanize.city/la/post/los-angeles-wildfire-wood-cons... has similar coverage from several months ago. That this would make new housing more expensive, isn't generally viewed as necessary for fire safety, and is funded by the concrete industry, don't seem to be disputed?

wpietri 5y ago
How do we know that this source is better? I can't find anything on their site about ownership.

yuliyp 5y ago

Is there something that you actually believe is deceitful here? Is it the analysis of the impact of expanding the Fire District? Is it the data about the impact on building costs? Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? Refusing to read and consider arguments from people you disagree with isn't a particularly useful strategy for gaining knowledge about a topic.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Is it the claims about whether wood-framed buildings are safe enough? This one, for me. I know nothing about it. Without further information, I wouldn’t want to conclude anything from a biased source (other than noting that the issue exists).
wpietri 5y ago
This isn't about disagreement. If somebody sincerely, honestly, and without conflict of interest has something to say on a topic, I'm interested. Especially if they have done some hard work around understanding and acknowledging other perspectives. On the other hand, there are a lot of people out their paid to create and push propaganda. As a general rule, one shouldn't engage with it. If even the writer may not believe something, one isn't obliged to take it seriously. Indeed, I think it's a frequently exploited mistake to bring more credulity and good faith to something than the source itself does. Much better to spend one's time finding reasonably sincere sources and reading those.
- yuliyp 5y ago
  It's hard to find people interested enough to write publicly about something but having no vested interest in an issue. To that end, I still prefer to read things from people who I would disagree with rather than those I agree with, as it forces me to refine my beliefs and examine them more closely: can I actually find clearer evidence to reinforce what I thought I had believed that was in conflict with what I read? Can I refute it? Can I understand why they reached a different conclusion than me? Sometimes I'll find that they were indeed making up an alternate reality or misrepresenting things. Sometimes I'll find something where the arguments being presented are unrelated to the data being presented. Sometimes I'll find disagreements in values leading to different interpretations of the same data. Sometimes I'll find that I learn something. It does take discipline to do this, though: with many sources I have to be on high alert for anything that seems like it's trying to invoke my emotions to get me to agree with the article. In the case of this article, I went and read their source material (the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety report on this: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%205-27-21.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_rpt_dbs_%2... ), and found that the article fairly reasonably summarized the report. The last two paragraphs of the article are where most of their opinions are interjected, and I view their claims of the motivation of the backers with some skepticism. The claims about safety seem in line with what I could glean from the report, but I'm not very sure I understand the nuances of analyzing fire statistics across diverse neighborhoods.
  - 5y ago
kevin_b_er 5y ago
When an organization is known for deceit for political purposes, it means I must expend extra effort to determine what information they have twisted, what information they have intentionally left out, and what the angle is. It requires extra effort to attempt to discover where the deceit rests. Why should I expend that much effort from an organization who's got an agenda and isn't known for their honesty? How much knowledge can be gained from looking through misinformation? Why should I poison myself with potential propaganda? What does it gain me then but an attempt to bait me?

car 5y ago

Yeah, empty about page is a red flag. And then this: “It’s a relief that Americans oppose Congress’s drug pricing proposals once voters learn the true consequences of these misguided reforms,” said Sally C. Pipes, the brief’s co-author and PRI president, CEO, and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy.”

ladberg 5y ago

There's a similar article by a more trustworthy source, so I'd definitely believe it: http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2021/6/13/dont-expand-fire-district-1-eliminate-it http://www.betterinstitutions.com/blog/2021/6/13/dont-expand... You can also just read the proposal yourself and draw your own conclusions: https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-2019.pdf https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2019/19-0603_mot_06-05-...