4 ms·

The irony here is the other way around, actually. The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing politi

The irony here is the other way around, actually. The article is about how people have become better informed thanks to the internet, and how increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs, rather than ways they might previously have done so. Part of why people are better informed is that the internet makes it easier to bypass 'elite consensus' in a handful of media outlets, and also, easier to link to sources to cite them in arguments. PathOfEclipse is demonstrating this in action: he is citing sources for his beliefs, including sources from different partisan factions like the CBS poll he quotes at the end. In response, you're taking a pre-internet approach. Dismissive and without intellectual merit, your post simply asserts that none of PathOfEclipse's sources should be considered legitimate, not even the (hopefully somewhat objective) opinion poll made by a left wing news outlet, that shows widespread bipartisan agreement by voters on the question of what happened on January 6th. PathOfEclipse clearly wins this round. He uses the internet in the ways people hoped in the 90s it would be used - to cite evidence for calm, level headed beliefs and arguments that boil down to "cool it folks". There's nothing wrong here.

cgriswald 5y ago
There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand (in the case of obvious pablum) or a source is found lacking, they either claim victory (as you have done on his behalf here), the entire conversation derails into arguments about the sources themselves, or they trot out additional sources, continually putting the burden on the other party to show why these sources either don't support the claims or are otherwise without merit. The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.
- fortuna86 5y ago
  > It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts. This is what any honest exchange of ideas requires, and these conditions are almost never met online (social media, forums, etc.) Id also add that source validation is required (as you point out an 'overlapping set of facts.') If you can't agree that a major news media organization with full time fact checking (no matter their political bent) is objectively better than a shiftless blog or single social media personality with a dodgy history of accuracy, then there is no hope for exchange. It's just a boxing match. The problem comes down to "you don't trust the sources that I trust." Why people tend to trust sources that clearly aren't worthy of anyone's trust largely depends on their own confirmation bias.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Again, this is just railing against the turning tide. Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false <here>" will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power. The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false. Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.
    - fortuna86 5y ago
      > "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs. > If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers. > The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. I think I know where this is going. > Patterns will soon become apparent. Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ > Yes, it's slow and hard work It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure. > either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally). > Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.
fortuna86 5y ago
> increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs The irony here (ha) is while people are more polarized, actual ideology has almost completely gone away, replaced with vague slogans (MAGA) that don't actually mean anything and are designed to weaponize nostalgia in a way that is useful for particularly amoral politicians. Keep in mind, the GOP literally had no formal platform for 2020, just "we're with Trump" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-content/615607/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-c...)

cgriswald 5y ago

There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand (in the case of obvious pablum) or a source is found lacking, they either claim victory (as you have done on his behalf here), the entire conversation derails into arguments about the sources themselves, or they trot out additional sources, continually putting the burden on the other party to show why these sources either don't support the claims or are otherwise without merit. The kind of conversation you are suggesting is being offered here isn't. It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts.

fortuna86 5y ago
> It requires a lot of good faith, and a relatively credible and overlapping set of facts. This is what any honest exchange of ideas requires, and these conditions are almost never met online (social media, forums, etc.) Id also add that source validation is required (as you point out an 'overlapping set of facts.') If you can't agree that a major news media organization with full time fact checking (no matter their political bent) is objectively better than a shiftless blog or single social media personality with a dodgy history of accuracy, then there is no hope for exchange. It's just a boxing match. The problem comes down to "you don't trust the sources that I trust." Why people tend to trust sources that clearly aren't worthy of anyone's trust largely depends on their own confirmation bias.
- native_samples 5y ago
  Again, this is just railing against the turning tide. Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange because any evidence or argumentation of the form "news org X said Y which is proven false <here>" will be rejected as an inherently illegitimate challenge to power. The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. You don't have to do it every time. Patterns will soon become apparent. Once done you can reserve such work for cases where someone disagrees and is citing a source you know to be false. Yes, it's slow and hard work. The discovery of truth always has been; either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN is just holding society back at this point.
  - fortuna86 5y ago
    > "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machines than even you most slanted news orgs. > If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual exchange I admit it has happened, like you can pull 1 or 2 examples using 30 years of history, but it's extremely uncommon. And you haven't sourced anything in making your arguments. If the statistics say individual social media accounts (or any specific account) have greater accuracy than news organizations with full-time fact checking, now is the time to provide those numbers. > The solution is to, when possible, fact check sources yourself. I think I know where this is going. > Patterns will soon become apparent. Yep. You are describing how people go down internet rabbit holes and become conspiracy theorists. "Doing your own research" is incredibly hard, we rely on trusted sources to do this work. What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method is an excellent intro into media (source) literacy: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ > Yes, it's slow and hard work It's literally impossible if you don't use trusted sources. If you attempt to understand vaccine science with no science background, international trade policy with no econ history, etc. You are setting yourself for failure. > either toughen up or be quiet and leave the work to other people. Please, you aren't a hero for trusting the wrong people (who are telling you what you want to hear, coincidentally). > Bleating about how terrible it is not everyone automatically regurgitates CNN And you end with a fundamental misrepresentation of what I am saying, not surprising. You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others. Living every moment of your life with "I need to research this" means a standard trip to the shop would take 8 hours.

fortuna86 5y ago

> increasing political polarization is due to people making political choices based on more sophisticated ideological alliances and deeper held beliefs The irony here (ha) is while people are more polarized, actual ideology has almost completely gone away, replaced with vague slogans (MAGA) that don't actually mean anything and are designed to weaponize nostalgia in a way that is useful for particularly amoral politicians. Keep in mind, the GOP literally had no formal platform for 2020, just "we're with Trump" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-content/615607/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/party-no-c...)