8 ms·

It's exhausting. Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not.

by geetee 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
drawkward 2y ago
>Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not. This is just silly information, and is used to sow resignation and demean actual and valid arguments. There are plenty of arguments and forums where misinformation is treated disdainfully, as it should be. HN used to be one of them, but everything anti trump and musk seems to get brigaded, rather than debated. I will point out that it is predominantly one side in American politics using misinformation as a weapon. Its the side that brought us "teach the controverry" instead of accepting the scientific reality of evolution. Its the side that made it illegal for the CDC and ATF to do studies of firearms. Its the side that claims to be anti- politics in science while at the very same time politicizing science. Your statement benefits the side that doesnt have truth on its side, and is therefore harmful.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  You're saying the party of "the President is fine don't trust the cheap fakes" is to be trusted?
  - drawkward 2y ago
    I am making two claims: 1. Not all arguments suffer from misinformation on both sides. 2. The political right uses misinformation as a weapon at a scale that dwarfs that of the political left. Your single example does not counter that argument.
    - BurningFrog 2y ago
      Do you have an objective way to measure levels of "misinformation as a weapon" that supports claim 2?
    - grandempire 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - zimpenfish 2y ago
        > The political right doesn’t have the same kind of media support. How do you figure that? From what I've seen, most US media leans right[0], if not overtly right-wing. [0] In that they'll hammer the left on every small issue whilst glossing over the more egregious actions of the right.
        milesrout 2y ago
        [flagged]
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > suddenly it is a new problem when Trump does it. Nope. January 29, 2021: "Biden has taken heat from critics over his early reliance on executive action, with Republicans saying it betrays his vow to work with Congress on to build a consensus on issues."[0] February 6, 2014: "Executive Order tyranny -- Obama plans to rule America with pen, phone"[1] November 2, 2011: "Obama uses executive orders as a political tool"[2] February 21, 2001: "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives"[3] [0] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-has-signed-40-executive-orders-and-actions-since-taking-office https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-has-signed-40-executi... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/executive-order-tyranny-obama-plans-to-rule-america-with-pen-phone https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/executive-order-tyranny-obam... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/obama-executive-orders/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/obama-executive-... [3] https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-an...
        grandempire 2y ago
        2 Fox News and a heritage link? The cnn is positive, only including a few negative quotes from republicans.
  - sanktanglia 2y ago
    One party agreed their old candidate was losing it, the other did not so your both sides argument already falls apart
    - grandempire 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - snozolli 2y ago
        Anyone who has seen an old video of Trump speaking in the 80s - 90s and compared it to today knows that his mental function is impaired by age.
        grandempire 2y ago
        I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant. But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with?
        snozolli 2y ago
        I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant Impaired by age is impaired by age. Don't try to move the goalposts. If you meant something more specific, you should have been more specific. But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with? See above. I didn't come up with anything. 2020 Biden was fine. As for 2024 Biden, I don't care if he was a head in a jar, he and his cabinet were doing great.
        grandempire 2y ago
        Goalpost moving? Does this sound like 2020 Biden to you? https://youtu.be/0_v00iGJCLY?feature=shared https://youtu.be/0_v00iGJCLY?feature=shared
      - bagels 2y ago
        Confusing insane asylums and refugee asylum by way of talking about Hannibal Lecter points in a completely different direction than what you've stated.
- b59831 2y ago
  [dead]
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
That always was possible and always required critical thinking and further evidence to resolve. People just don't have the skills, or are being brainwashed into not using their skills.
fncypants 2y ago
Do not both sides any of this. One cannot claim that both sides present misinformation and then not acknowledge that one side is doing so intentionally and the other is not. Elon tweeted that there was a lot of 150-year-old recipients. That's all he said. [1] So there was a rush to point out why, if this 150 year old number is the only information he's providing of fraud, it is not a prima facie case of fraud. That was a good faith response to a bad faith, selective release of information. [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/musk-claims-150-year-olds-receiving-social-security-benefits https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/musk-claims-150-year-ol... So then Musk provides more data, but again, not enough data to provide all the context. What he leaves out is that there have been multiple, prior good faith attempts to investigate these data entries, identify whether there's any fraud, and address any problems. This was the work of inspectors general whose job is to work in good faith to try to resolve these issues. There is one side acting only in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, they would raise these issues through legal channels (inspectors general) and then have an orderly, legal process to address them. That is how it has always been done, for a reason. They are not operating legally because they know that what they are doing is in bad faith and would be found out as such. What we are witnessing is a dismantling of the rule of law. It's important to recognize that and to not to be complicit in it.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  You're replying to a thread on an article about how someone just made up the 1875 thing to own Elon. There's definitely a "both sides" problem here. Many more commenters are making totally unfounded assertions about how these systems actually work for the same reason. You yourself are pontificating about the inspector general's report at a level of expertise beyond what you likely have. I have some familiarity with IGs, though not in the SSA. It has been eye-opening to see people crawling out of the woodwork to talk about their role, their effectiveness, their "good faith attempts", etc. They don't actually know any of this: it's just ammo they found online to "get" Musk since the controversy started. Why is it so hard to just suspend judgement about these claims, rather than attack them with little basis? Or at least go after it for solid philosophical reasons? I can't understand why the level of discourse on this subject on Hacker News, of all places, is so bad.

It's exhausting. Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not.

by geetee 2y ago

It's exhausting. Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

drawkward 2y ago

>Each side of every argument is full of misinformation, intentionally or not. This is just silly information, and is used to sow resignation and demean actual and valid arguments. There are plenty of arguments and forums where misinformation is treated disdainfully, as it should be. HN used to be one of them, but everything anti trump and musk seems to get brigaded, rather than debated. I will point out that it is predominantly one side in American politics using misinformation as a weapon. Its the side that brought us "teach the controverry" instead of accepting the scientific reality of evolution. Its the side that made it illegal for the CDC and ATF to do studies of firearms. Its the side that claims to be anti- politics in science while at the very same time politicizing science. Your statement benefits the side that doesnt have truth on its side, and is therefore harmful.

readthenotes1 2y ago
You're saying the party of "the President is fine don't trust the cheap fakes" is to be trusted?
- drawkward 2y ago
  I am making two claims: 1. Not all arguments suffer from misinformation on both sides. 2. The political right uses misinformation as a weapon at a scale that dwarfs that of the political left. Your single example does not counter that argument.
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    Do you have an objective way to measure levels of "misinformation as a weapon" that supports claim 2?
  - grandempire 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - zimpenfish 2y ago
      > The political right doesn’t have the same kind of media support. How do you figure that? From what I've seen, most US media leans right[0], if not overtly right-wing. [0] In that they'll hammer the left on every small issue whilst glossing over the more egregious actions of the right.
      - milesrout 2y ago
        [flagged]
        zimpenfish 2y ago
        > suddenly it is a new problem when Trump does it. Nope. January 29, 2021: "Biden has taken heat from critics over his early reliance on executive action, with Republicans saying it betrays his vow to work with Congress on to build a consensus on issues."[0] February 6, 2014: "Executive Order tyranny -- Obama plans to rule America with pen, phone"[1] November 2, 2011: "Obama uses executive orders as a political tool"[2] February 21, 2001: "The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives"[3] [0] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-has-signed-40-executive-orders-and-actions-since-taking-office https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-has-signed-40-executi... [1] https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/executive-order-tyranny-obama-plans-to-rule-america-with-pen-phone https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/executive-order-tyranny-obam... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/obama-executive-orders/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/01/politics/obama-executive-... [3] https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-and-abuse-executive-orders-and-other-presidential-directives https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/the-use-an...
        grandempire 2y ago
        2 Fox News and a heritage link? The cnn is positive, only including a few negative quotes from republicans.
- sanktanglia 2y ago
  One party agreed their old candidate was losing it, the other did not so your both sides argument already falls apart
  - grandempire 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - snozolli 2y ago
      Anyone who has seen an old video of Trump speaking in the 80s - 90s and compared it to today knows that his mental function is impaired by age.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant. But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with?
        snozolli 2y ago
        I think no change across 40 years of life is not what either of us meant Impaired by age is impaired by age. Don't try to move the goalposts. If you meant something more specific, you should have been more specific. But How does 2020 Biden hold up to this test you came up with? See above. I didn't come up with anything. 2020 Biden was fine. As for 2024 Biden, I don't care if he was a head in a jar, he and his cabinet were doing great.
        grandempire 2y ago
        Goalpost moving? Does this sound like 2020 Biden to you? https://youtu.be/0_v00iGJCLY?feature=shared https://youtu.be/0_v00iGJCLY?feature=shared
    - bagels 2y ago
      Confusing insane asylums and refugee asylum by way of talking about Hannibal Lecter points in a completely different direction than what you've stated.
b59831 2y ago
[dead]

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

That always was possible and always required critical thinking and further evidence to resolve. People just don't have the skills, or are being brainwashed into not using their skills.

fncypants 2y ago

Do not both sides any of this. One cannot claim that both sides present misinformation and then not acknowledge that one side is doing so intentionally and the other is not. Elon tweeted that there was a lot of 150-year-old recipients. That's all he said. [1] So there was a rush to point out why, if this 150 year old number is the only information he's providing of fraud, it is not a prima facie case of fraud. That was a good faith response to a bad faith, selective release of information. [1] https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/musk-claims-150-year-olds-receiving-social-security-benefits https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/musk-claims-150-year-ol... So then Musk provides more data, but again, not enough data to provide all the context. What he leaves out is that there have been multiple, prior good faith attempts to investigate these data entries, identify whether there's any fraud, and address any problems. This was the work of inspectors general whose job is to work in good faith to try to resolve these issues. There is one side acting only in bad faith. If they were acting in good faith, they would raise these issues through legal channels (inspectors general) and then have an orderly, legal process to address them. That is how it has always been done, for a reason. They are not operating legally because they know that what they are doing is in bad faith and would be found out as such. What we are witnessing is a dismantling of the rule of law. It's important to recognize that and to not to be complicit in it.

Amezarak 2y ago
You're replying to a thread on an article about how someone just made up the 1875 thing to own Elon. There's definitely a "both sides" problem here. Many more commenters are making totally unfounded assertions about how these systems actually work for the same reason. You yourself are pontificating about the inspector general's report at a level of expertise beyond what you likely have. I have some familiarity with IGs, though not in the SSA. It has been eye-opening to see people crawling out of the woodwork to talk about their role, their effectiveness, their "good faith attempts", etc. They don't actually know any of this: it's just ammo they found online to "get" Musk since the controversy started. Why is it so hard to just suspend judgement about these claims, rather than attack them with little basis? Or at least go after it for solid philosophical reasons? I can't understand why the level of discourse on this subject on Hacker News, of all places, is so bad.