4 ms·

It’s a fair point, and it’s a shame that something we took for granted growing up in the 90s - a culture of being reflexively critical of all media, whether sta

It’s a fair point, and it’s a shame that something we took for granted growing up in the 90s - a culture of being reflexively critical of all media, whether state or private - now finds itself awkwardly shoehorned into the hellscape of 21st century American politics. I will say also though that I wouldn’t _personally_ equate the sort of biases you allude to in your comment - extremely troubling though they are - with content produced by actual malicious actors. My litmus test for whether to respond to a piece of media with healthy skepticism or outright rejection often comes down to a simple gut-check: “Is this coming - ultimately - from a place of hate?”. I’ve found that to be surprisingly effective. I also feel like that was a political lesson we were supposed to have learned from 20th century history - maybe the most significant and enduring lesson. But here we are again, and it’s true what they say: every generation has to fight for it.

yesco 3y ago
> My litmus test for whether to respond to a piece of media with healthy skepticism or outright rejection often comes down to a simple gut-check: “Is this coming - ultimately - from a place of hate?”. I’ve found that to be surprisingly effective. How exactly are you confirming this "surprising effectiveness"? Going with what your gut thinks is literally the default for everyone, it's the opposite of critical thinking. I think what you are saying ultimately reduces down to the question: 'Do you like this person?', which is a fine position to have, but don't lie to yourself that it's anything other than that.
- darkteflon 3y ago
  Claims made in circumstances where there’s evidence of hatred or malice - either as motive or intent - warrant scepticism and a higher burden of proof relative to other claims since, as we know from recent and not-so-recent history, the weaponisation of hate is both a very effective and frequently-deployed political strategy. That formulation okay with you? It’s just an heuristic. Apparently one that makes no sense to you. Have a great weekend.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    That heuristic causes you to miss all the self serving lies that are everywhere. It might make your social life flourish since you trust all of those lies and people like when you trust them, but it will make your head full of lies and falsehoods. For example, a fat person might say that being fat has nothing to do with how much they eat, I have heard that many times, that doesn't come from a place of hate but you shouldn't trust it anyway. It is however self serving, that is the main thing to look out for.
shadowgovt 3y ago
I sometimes feel like modern education could really use a "defense against the Dark Arts"-style information savviness class. In theory, it's one of the things research projects are supposed to teach you (critical thinking), but I think it could stand to be even more focused: embrace and emphasize the notion that people state falsehoods as truth, whether it be due to lack of attention to detail, conflicting incentives, or overt malicious intent. Comprehension is a balance. Believe too much and you've left the path of reason. But we've also seen skepticism come right round to conspiracy theory... Believe too little, and someone ends up standing in a pizze parlor brandishing a firearm demanding to see the nonexistent basement.

yesco 3y ago

> My litmus test for whether to respond to a piece of media with healthy skepticism or outright rejection often comes down to a simple gut-check: “Is this coming - ultimately - from a place of hate?”. I’ve found that to be surprisingly effective. How exactly are you confirming this "surprising effectiveness"? Going with what your gut thinks is literally the default for everyone, it's the opposite of critical thinking. I think what you are saying ultimately reduces down to the question: 'Do you like this person?', which is a fine position to have, but don't lie to yourself that it's anything other than that.

darkteflon 3y ago
Claims made in circumstances where there’s evidence of hatred or malice - either as motive or intent - warrant scepticism and a higher burden of proof relative to other claims since, as we know from recent and not-so-recent history, the weaponisation of hate is both a very effective and frequently-deployed political strategy. That formulation okay with you? It’s just an heuristic. Apparently one that makes no sense to you. Have a great weekend.
- Jensson 3y ago
  That heuristic causes you to miss all the self serving lies that are everywhere. It might make your social life flourish since you trust all of those lies and people like when you trust them, but it will make your head full of lies and falsehoods. For example, a fat person might say that being fat has nothing to do with how much they eat, I have heard that many times, that doesn't come from a place of hate but you shouldn't trust it anyway. It is however self serving, that is the main thing to look out for.

shadowgovt 3y ago

I sometimes feel like modern education could really use a "defense against the Dark Arts"-style information savviness class. In theory, it's one of the things research projects are supposed to teach you (critical thinking), but I think it could stand to be even more focused: embrace and emphasize the notion that people state falsehoods as truth, whether it be due to lack of attention to detail, conflicting incentives, or overt malicious intent. Comprehension is a balance. Believe too much and you've left the path of reason. But we've also seen skepticism come right round to conspiracy theory... Believe too little, and someone ends up standing in a pizze parlor brandishing a firearm demanding to see the nonexistent basement.