6 ms·
This. The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behavi
by oifjsidjf 4y ago
This.
The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing
their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- beebeepka 4y agoAgreed. However, I don't have children and I wouldn't know where to begin with my niece. Thanks for reminding me I should spend more time with her. In my experience this also works for impressionable adults but you have to keep them close
- mrguyorama 4y agoFind your local librarian or english teacher, they were the ones responsible with teaching me how to judge an article or paper or book's credibility.
- rootusrootus 4y agoI hear this all the time. The joke is that both sides of the political divide think it's the other side that credulously believes everything the media peddles to them. It smells a lot like the usual 'both sides are bad' trope.
- asdff 4y agoWell, both sides are neoliberal.
- infamouscow 4y agoInstead of dismissing the point as unoriginal, why don't you address the substance of the argument and provide evidence refuting the claim both sides are bad?
- majormajor 4y agoWhat substance? > This kind if title is rich coming from the fear mongering media. Particularly as the story right above this in the most popular stories section is "America’s Fall Booster Plan Has a Fatal Paradox" and > The best thing to teach your kid is to clearly show them how the media and politicians lie and manipulate by showing their contradtory talking vs behaviour vs what they actually do side-by-side meme style. Don't have much substance at all. One has an anecdote of the form "the same website has another article with a hyperbolic title!" (This is a classic sort of "disagreement implies deceit" argument as is always brought up when scientists disagree on things, or consensus changes.) The other has a claim of "what [the media] says and does is different" in a way that suggests this is distinctive/meaningfully different in that way than in terms of any other human's behavior without any supporting substance, you're just supposed to accept it on faith that "the media" are intentionally manipulative hypocrites. Even if this is correct, it's not actually a substantial argument as presented, it will only possibly work on the already-converted.
- Bloating 4y agoboth sides, because theres only two sides to any issue
- teddyh 4y agoThe joke, of course, is that both sides do believe what (their own) media tells them.
- whoooooo123 4y agoThis doesn't preclude the possibility that one side's media tells the truth more accurately than the other's.
- teddyh 4y agoOf course, but that’s completely orthogonal. Nobody believes their own side’s media because it’s less easy to debunk; people instead believe that media because it’s the media from their own side, and as such tells people on that side what they want to hear and believe.
- jmugan 4y agoWell, we can at least say that one side in more sophisticated in how they present their truth, but I'm not sure that makes it any more truthful.
- Bloating 4y agoThats what they tell you
- hulitu 4y agoThe joke is that both sides of the political divide make no difference in their actions. The only difference is that some things are slowed down, but in the end they are implemented.
- lotsofpulp 4y agoAny data to support this? Because I can name quite a few, especially one very recent popular legal action based on political divide that have very different consequences for the populace.
- jmugan 4y agoIsn't that kind of meta? Calling it the "both-sides-are-bad trope" is a trope used by one side to say they really are superior to the other. Having both sides believe this is kind of our whole problem right now in the US.
- Bloating 4y agoBoth sides... good vs bad makes it easy
- jjulius 4y agoI would also suggest that we teach our children to read articles and understand the nuances within them, rather than assuming a worldview based on headlines alone.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI agree overall, but I can't pretend that every article even has nuance to look out for. Where was the nuance when almost the entire media was towing the line to cover up the Hunter Biden laptop leak articles as "Russian Disinformation"? It was a complete lie. That's not just one article, it was dozens with no nuance to be found.
- wpietri 4y agoFYI, lines get toed, not towed. Calling it a coverup is quite an accusation; do you have any evidence for that? I also remember it differently, with that being one theory expressed at the time, and it is certainly in line with what Russia has gotten up to in the past. I wondered how it turned out. From Wikipedia, on what independent analysts hired by the Washington Post found: "One of the analysts characterized the data as a 'disaster' from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names 'Biden Burisma,' 'Salacious Pics Package' and Hunter. Burisma Documents.'"
- fallingknife 4y agoIt was known from the very beginning that the laptop was legit because the Bidens never denied it. There are reasons to deny something that is real, but no reason not to deny something that is fake.
- wpietri 4y agoThat's definitely too black and white. Does it contain real data from him? Yes. Might it have been hardware he once owned? Also possible, but not proven. Was the data all his? As the text I quoted said, definitely not. Do a lot of people have an interest in making the Bidens look bad without regard to the truth? Definitely. But none of that addresses my actual question, which is asking for evidence that it's a coverup.