5 ms·
None of this is strictly incorrect, but it's a mistake to conclude that since all sides are biased the truth is unknowable and you might as well throw up your h
by loudmax 4y ago
None of this is strictly incorrect, but it's a mistake to conclude that since all sides are biased the truth is unknowable and you might as well throw up your hands and retreat entirely. In fact, the goal of disinformation isn't necessarily to make you believe things that are wrong, the goal is to create enough confusion to make you believe that you simply can't know what's going on.
If you assign equal weight to NASA and flat earth websites you might as well conclude that apparently there is controversy among so-called "experts", so who knows, maybe the earth is round and maybe it isn't. You can think this way, but it's clearly bullshit. While NASA isn't magic and they have made mistakes and have lost spacecraft, their level of credibility isn't equal to flat-earthers.
The governments of the United States (and the European and Asian democracies) and Russia both have agendas and both push narratives they want you to believe. This is true. But if you think the democratic and totalitarian governments are equally trustworthy you're deluding yourself.
- d0mine 4y agoCouldn't agree more on "it is a mistake to conclude...the truth is unknowable" Just ask yourself: who benefits? (aka follow the money). For example, short term: where the increase in military spendings go? On basic facts: you could compare economic military power of various countries (order of magnitude is enough), the number of countries bombed (order of magnitude is enough), the number of military bases (order of magnitude is enough), etc. Then make your own conclusions.
- xyzelement 4y agoI get what you are saying but I think the analogy of NASA and flat earth is not appropriate. To entertain that example: I've been to the southern hemisphere and I've seen the toilet flush the other way. I've seen the curvature of the earth from an airplane. Perhaps more importantly, there's consensus among many disconnected and conflicting parties (eg: Soviet and US space programs) And even most importantly - I don't see the motive to lie. NASA's funding isn't contingent on the earth being spherical. That's totally different than a hot war going on right now, where the belligerents disagree on everything from what led up to it to how many casualties there are on each side. That's probably the most difficult situation for you as an outsider to suss out - your own information is low and there's a big reward for making you see one narrative or the other.
- teddyh 4y ago> I've been to the southern hemisphere and I've seen the toilet flush the other way. That’s a myth, by the way.
- xyzelement 4y agoIt is totally not a myth. I have seen it. I guess technically, the water flushes the same way but it looks backwards to you because you're looking at it upside down.
- teddyh 4y agoIt’s a myth. • https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coriolis-effect/ • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coriolis_force&oldid=1137453020#Draining_in_bathtubs_and_toilets https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coriolis_force&ol...
- faeriechangling 4y ago>But if you think the democratic and totalitarian governments are equally trustworthy you're deluding yourself. The totalitarian Saddam Hussein said he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, which was true, and the democratic government of the United States said he did, which was false. A million people died because people decided to trust a democracy more than they trusted a totalitarian government. Because they trusted the largest media outlets of that democracy who all helped sell the governments lies. Because that level of analysis simply isn't good enough. If people at the time had only listened to uninvolved third parties, nobody would have died, as they were pointing out the flimsiness of the democracies case.