3 ms·

People having open discussions is misinformation?

by coolso 5y ago

newsbinator 5y ago
People having open discussions with people I like and agree with is wonderful. People having open discussions with people I don't like and disagree with is "giving a platform" and must be punished.
- awb 5y ago
  - testrun 5y ago
  - newsbinator 5y ago
    Mr. Rogers having an open discussion with a post-WW1 / pre-WW2 Hitler would be fascinating and probably not useless. The problem starts when Hitler is having discussions with only people who listen to Hitler. Without an interlocutor to say "wait a minute, that's crazy talk and here's why", it's easy to fall into an echo chamber of group-think.
    - awb 5y ago
      Hitler was a manipulator. He would never come into a discussion with a rational, balanced perspective, or be open to feedback. He wouldn’t even really be speaking with Mr. Rodgers, he’d be using him to talk to disaffected, vulnerable people he can use to further his aims. I agree that it’s interesting to think about a conversation between the two, but only if Hitler approached the conversation in the same way Mr. Rodgers would and unfortunately from history there’s no indication that would ever happen.
  - the_doctah 5y ago
    We should burn every copy of Mein Kampf right?
    - awb 5y ago
      It’s banned in Germany. Not saying it solves the problem, but there are many different shades of free speech and every country I know of has at least some limitations.
kaczordon 5y ago
awb 5y ago
Yes, it certainly can be. You can refer to almost any political talk radio, any hosted segments on cable TV news networks and any opinion piece in the newspaper for starters. Almost no fact checking and incredibly biased, or downright misinformation. Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That’s certainly not true by any stretch of the imagination. That fact that a statement is made in public doesn’t make it true.
- coolso 5y ago
  > Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That is not what I'm saying. I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Just as I'm sure the commenter I replied to would object if I referred to any news source he cited - NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CDC, FDA, etc. - and defined it simply as "misinformation". The word in and of itself is misinformation, typically meant to steer people away from reading, hearing, and seeing information they don't like. And it shouldn't be tolerated. We as a society need to start fostering open discussion of topics and viewpoints that the establishment and its followers doesn't like or approve of.
  - awb 5y ago
    > I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Right, but they are calling some of the specific content misinformation. The fact that it’s an open discussion on a non-establishment podcast is irrelevant to the content being verifiable or reliable or rational. And no, we don’t need more open discussions about every single viewpoint, regardless of feasibility. Just being anti-establishment doesn’t mean you have something worth saying or sharing. You need to have a little more substance than just doubting the establishment for the sake of doubting the establishment. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because you’re a virologist and have a theory that can be tested or a question about the research or development process that the establishment can’t answer adequately, great, let’s get that view out there. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because doing so gets you attention from Rogan’s ~11M listeners per episode, or because you just want to challenge the establishment then sorry, you’re not adding value to the national conversation.

People having open discussions is misinformation?

by coolso 5y ago

People having open discussions is misinformation?

People having open discussions with people I like and agree with is wonderful. People having open discussions with people I don't like and disagree with is "giving a platform" and must be punished.

awb 5y ago
- testrun 5y ago
- newsbinator 5y ago
  Mr. Rogers having an open discussion with a post-WW1 / pre-WW2 Hitler would be fascinating and probably not useless. The problem starts when Hitler is having discussions with only people who listen to Hitler. Without an interlocutor to say "wait a minute, that's crazy talk and here's why", it's easy to fall into an echo chamber of group-think.
  - awb 5y ago
    Hitler was a manipulator. He would never come into a discussion with a rational, balanced perspective, or be open to feedback. He wouldn’t even really be speaking with Mr. Rodgers, he’d be using him to talk to disaffected, vulnerable people he can use to further his aims. I agree that it’s interesting to think about a conversation between the two, but only if Hitler approached the conversation in the same way Mr. Rodgers would and unfortunately from history there’s no indication that would ever happen.
- the_doctah 5y ago
  We should burn every copy of Mein Kampf right?
  - awb 5y ago
    It’s banned in Germany. Not saying it solves the problem, but there are many different shades of free speech and every country I know of has at least some limitations.

kaczordon 5y ago

awb 5y ago

Yes, it certainly can be. You can refer to almost any political talk radio, any hosted segments on cable TV news networks and any opinion piece in the newspaper for starters. Almost no fact checking and incredibly biased, or downright misinformation. Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That’s certainly not true by any stretch of the imagination. That fact that a statement is made in public doesn’t make it true.

coolso 5y ago
> Think about what you’re saying: No open discussion can possibly contain misinformation. That is not what I'm saying. I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Just as I'm sure the commenter I replied to would object if I referred to any news source he cited - NYT, WaPo, WSJ, CDC, FDA, etc. - and defined it simply as "misinformation". The word in and of itself is misinformation, typically meant to steer people away from reading, hearing, and seeing information they don't like. And it shouldn't be tolerated. We as a society need to start fostering open discussion of topics and viewpoints that the establishment and its followers doesn't like or approve of.
- awb 5y ago
  > I am opposed to the boiling down of a non-establishment discussion podcast to the singular word "misinformation. Right, but they are calling some of the specific content misinformation. The fact that it’s an open discussion on a non-establishment podcast is irrelevant to the content being verifiable or reliable or rational. And no, we don’t need more open discussions about every single viewpoint, regardless of feasibility. Just being anti-establishment doesn’t mean you have something worth saying or sharing. You need to have a little more substance than just doubting the establishment for the sake of doubting the establishment. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because you’re a virologist and have a theory that can be tested or a question about the research or development process that the establishment can’t answer adequately, great, let’s get that view out there. If you doubt the vaccine efficacy because doing so gets you attention from Rogan’s ~11M listeners per episode, or because you just want to challenge the establishment then sorry, you’re not adding value to the national conversation.