Fake news and its effect on the community

[moXJO]

You could believe what the individuals recount, or you can keep making up stuff from wherever you get your fake news.
By the way, my link was to a story just after Trump won the Presidency in 2016, and when most people thought Biden would never again run.

@PZ99, the sad reality is that these sock puppets are pasting fake news in a thread about the ills of fake news. No matter how many times they are shown there content is rubbish, they return with more.
If we ignore their tripe then it gains a semblance of legitimacy - the mud thrown that sticks!

Her ex husband

 

[moXJO]

Bidens first presidential run was 1988 learn why he dropped out ya plebs

 

[dutchie]

That seems to be quite a forceful view. It's not a case of simply ignoring that which they disagree with but rather, actively silencing and using force if necessary to do so. Think in terms of academics being effectively shut down at universities simply for making factually correct albeit uncomfortable statements. Think in terms of "cancel culture" and sweeping under the rug anything that they dislike. Think in terms of the reality that science denial has become fashionable. Etc. If what's being said is uncomfortable then shut it down seems to be the response.

The left cannot tolerate different views.

You can pander and placate them now Joe, but eventually they will eat you up too.

 

[rederob]

As a general rule I've said I'll avoid political comment on this forum but, given you own it , I'll add something:

A big issue as I perceive is that many simply aren't willing to consider anything they don't agree with. If it challenges their world view then, rather than listen and carefully consider what's being said, the response is to instead silence it.

I don't agree with your statement. While some may have a hard and fast world view, nothing compels them to "silence" others who do not share it.
I find the opposite contention more valid. Social media platforms in particular have become launching pads for some weird, wacky, and worrisome ideas. Worse, they garner religious followers who are effectively responsible for the very title of this thread.
And, worst of all, they use a suite of newly minted pejorative catchphrases that suggest that those who do not believe what they preach are the ones who have got it wrong. In political threads they use labels, like left or right, in climate topics they refer to alarmists, and more generally in forums they believe they are being put down via cancel culture. The data below from a Google search shows just how recent references to cancel culture are:

"
Which brings us to the question of freedom of speech.
Keeping it brief, @Joe Blow lays out some posting rules to ASF which make it clear you don't have open slather.
He also wants his site to be a place to go where people can engage in "constructive, civil, nuanced, thoughtful discussion and debate about issues of substance."
Translating this to social media platforms generally, they can ill afford (in both literal and social senses) to foster postings which bring them disrepute or reduce their footprint.
Now back to why I disagree with @Smurf1976: the @dutchie, @moXJO or @satanopercas of the world are not being silenced at ASF unless they choose to play outside clearly laid out rules.
An implication of social media platforms curtailing postings which do not meet their standards is that they are accused of stifling free speech, or indulging in cancel culture. In reality, their options are somewhat limited.
Playing by the rules really is not that hard, is it?

 

[Smurf1976]

Now back to why I disagree with @Smurf1976: the @dutchie, @moXJO or @satanopercas of the world are not being silenced at ASF unless they choose to play outside clearly laid out rules.

We'll have to disagree there although that's really my point.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Simply having a different view isn't a bad thing indeed the opposite is true, dissent sure beats blind acceptance without question.

Using the specific example of climate change that you mention though, as someone who's had plenty of discussions on the subject, my observation is that rather a lot have no real interest in getting to the truth. Rather, they have a pre-determined position and will clutch at whatever straws support that argument.

Both sides there are prone toward nonsense. One one side there's denial of well understood science and observation, on the other there's nonsense claims about dams not filling or that using 100% renewable energy is a cinch and so on. Neither stands objective scrutiny.

To my other point though, well as an atheist I'm well aware that should I attend a church service, they'll be on about God and so on. So far as I'm concerned that's my problem not theirs since as an adult I ought to know that churches are well known for doing so and I have the option to stay away if I don't wish to hear it. Likewise if you're a conservative religious sort of person well then don't go to a strip club and complain, as an adult you ought to know what you're in for if you hand over some money and walk through that door. If you don't like Mickey Mouse then you really ought to stay well away from Disneyland. And so on but there's zero reason why consenting adults shouldn't engage in such things if they wish to do so.

As for "cancel culture" - as I see it, it's really just the modern term for those exhibiting controlling behaviour. There's always someone around with a desire to dictate what others do. If it's not churches preaching conservatism, politicians trying to regulate something that doesn't really need regulating or media moguls telling everyone what they think is wrong or right then someone else fills the gap and does it. Only real trouble is they tend to blow up serious issues in doing so which isn't helpful.

We can disagree though - that's my point really.

 

[moXJO]

And, worst of all, they use a suite of newly minted pejorative catchphrases that suggest that those who do not believe what they preach are the ones who have got it wrong. In political threads they use labels, like left or right, in climate topics they refer to alarmists, and more generally in forums they believe they are being put down via cancel culture. The data below from a Google search shows just how recent references to cancel culture are:

Like climate nazi?
From whom did that originate from on this forum?
I remember.

The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it. And it's constant dribble that then descends into outright lies or ignoring history.
Probably shouldn't point fingers.

 

[rederob]

We'll have to disagree there although that's really my point.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Simply having a different view isn't a bad thing indeed the opposite is true, dissent sure beats blind acceptance without question.

Using the specific example of climate change that you mention though, as someone who's had plenty of discussions on the subject, my observation is that rather a lot have no real interest in getting to the truth. Rather, they have a pre-determined position and will clutch at whatever straws support that argument.

Both sides there are prone toward nonsense. One one side there's denial of well understood science and observation, on the other there's nonsense claims about dams not filling or that using 100% renewable energy is a cinch and so on. Neither stands objective scrutiny.

To my other point though, well as an atheist I'm well aware that should I attend a church service, they'll be on about God and so on. So far as I'm concerned that's my problem not theirs since as an adult I ought to know that churches are well known for doing so and I have the option to stay away if I don't wish to hear it. Likewise if you're a conservative religious sort of person well then don't go to a strip club and complain, as an adult you ought to know what you're in for if you hand over some money and walk through that door. If you don't like Mickey Mouse then you really ought to stay well away from Disneyland. And so on but there's zero reason why consenting adults shouldn't engage in such things if they wish to do so.

As for "cancel culture" - as I see it, it's really just the modern term for those exhibiting controlling behaviour. There's always someone around with a desire to dictate what others do. If it's not churches preaching conservatism, politicians trying to regulate something that doesn't really need regulating or media moguls telling everyone what they think is wrong or right then someone else fills the gap and does it. Only real trouble is they tend to blow up serious issues in doing so which isn't helpful.

We can disagree though - that's my point really.

I actually responded to your points about people with a particular world view being "silenced," and said nothing about respectful disagreements, which many of us here can have.
With respect to your points on climate, you seem to be playing both uninformed sides rather than those who promote the science.
With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively. In it's intended sense it was to refer to inappropriate behaviours not getting air time. In that very sense Trump's tweets were flagged, and then his account removed. Should our culture - which nowdays includes a preponderance of social media use - be used foster fake news, anti-science and violence?
Trump consistently dismissed any dissenting views on his self-assessed remarkable achievements as "fake news," and recently Trump's legal team derided his impeachment trial as "constitutional cancel culture". Neither of those ideas warrant reasonable belief.

Changing tack a little, as we post here a separate inquiry into the power of certain media in Australia is being conducted. Viewers of Media Watch will know about the crap that gets bandied about as "news" via syndication. Then there is the spray against labor Premiers on lockdowns that doesn't spill onto liberal Premiers. For a near impartial perspective look at the New Zealand experience and contrast that with what goes down in Australia. While this inquiry relates to mainstream media, the point I am getting to is about "influence".
The nuance is that influence affects belief, and where the basis of influence is unsound, then belief may not be reliable.

 

[rederob]

Like climate nazi?
From whom did that originate from on this forum?
I remember.

The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it. And it's constant dribble that then descends into outright lies or ignoring history.
Probably shouldn't point fingers.

@Joe Blow would be able to confirm any specific reference to "climate Nazi" as I am not aware of the phrase ever being used, apart from the term "Nazi" being synonymously (and pejoratively) used for zealot.

Your next point, aside from being baseless, would cut to any choice of derogatory inference, so is not a wise sense to put into a post.

Finally, how does your post meet the intended standards that @Joe Blow has asked for?

 

[moXJO]

@Joe Blow .

Finally, how does your post meet the intended standards that @Joe Blow has asked for?

Obvious problems need to be discussed....

 

[Smurf1976]

With respect to your points on climate, you seem to be playing both uninformed sides rather than those who promote the science.

No argument there, that's exactly what I'm doing, but only because so far as I'm able to tell it's the vast majority of discussion on the subject.

The issue's been in the mainstream public domain for 33 years now and has been a prominent feature of Australian politics for well over a decade. Despite that, it's hard to find media comment that's not guilty of bias by means of outright lies, omission of important points or overemphasis of others.

There's the odd random bit that's neutral but there's an awful lot of silliness among it all on both the actual science side and when it comes to how to fix it.

With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively. In it's intended sense it was to refer to inappropriate behaviours not getting air time.

I am however referring to it's practical common usage and wrongly or rightly, I'm pretty confident that what most have in mind when they hear "Cancel Culture" is things like attempts to bury fictional works such as Fawlty Towers and to stop the accurate teaching of real history.

That sort of stuff doesn't add credibility. Any thinking adult ought to be able to understand that real history cannot be changed and that a fictional work that's almost half a century old reflects the attitudes of society at the time.

That whole context is classic intolerance and control freak stuff. Do it my way, only my way, and you will agree with everything I say. It's in the same category as micromanaging bosses, abusive partners or moral crusaders seeking to control what others do for no necessary reason. Anyone who can, steers well clear of that sort of thing.

As an adult, I'm more than capable of understanding that a movie made decades ago depicts things that were considered acceptable at the time and which are not considered acceptable today. For example there's racism in Gone With The Wind and they sprinkled real asbestos over the actors whilst filming the Wizard of Oz for visual effect. Thankfully the world has changed.

So be it, I'm not a child, I don't need someone to protect me from the reality of what used to be.

 

[Smurf1976]

Changing tack a little, as we post here a separate inquiry into the power of certain media in Australia is being conducted. Viewers of Media Watch will know about the crap that gets bandied about as "news" via syndication. Then there is the spray against labor Premiers on lockdowns that doesn't spill onto liberal Premiers. For a near impartial perspective look at the New Zealand experience and contrast that with what goes down in Australia. While this inquiry relates to mainstream media, the point I am getting to is about "influence".
The nuance is that influence affects belief, and where the basis of influence is unsound, then belief may not be reliable.

We're on the same page with that one.

I would however always argue that nobody should ever act upon "belief" and with anything important should check the facts.

 

[moXJO]

I actually responded to your points about people with a particular world view being "silenced," and said nothing about respectful disagreements, which many of us here can have.
With respect to your points on climate, you seem to be playing both uninformed sides rather than those who promote the science.
With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively. In it's intended sense it was to refer to inappropriate behaviours not getting air time. In that very sense Trump's tweets were flagged, and then his account removed. Should our culture - which nowdays includes a preponderance of social media use - be used foster fake news, anti-science and violence?
Trump consistently dismissed any dissenting views on his self-assessed remarkable achievements as "fake news," and recently Trump's legal team derided his impeachment trial as "constitutional cancel culture". Neither of those ideas warrant reasonable belief.

Cancel culture was not Trump specific. The above ignores groups set up to cancel anything they don't like through threats, intimidation, etc.
No offence but I wouldn't stick you with the 'overseer of truth' title to govern over the forums.

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it

The idea that you can publicly say anything you like, no matter how strongly others disagree with it, fits very well into "Left" thinking of the 1990's and earlier indeed they did exactly that at the time.

There was no shortage of people who'd have gladly shut them down, which would have been dead easy to do given the limited number of media platforms at the time, but they considered it their duty to allow dissenting views to be heard despite at times vehement disagreement with what was being said.

 

[rederob]

Cancel culture was not Trump specific. The above ignores groups set up to cancel anything they don't like through threats, intimidation, etc.
No offence but I wouldn't stick you with the 'overseer of truth' title to govern over the forums.

I merely gave a very recent example, and it reflected its inappropriate nature. That is, there could never have have been any reasonable attempt to cancel debate on what the Constitution allowed as it was a decision of the Republicans to not proceed with Impeachment until after Biden's inauguration. It was just another smear from the Trump machine.
With regard to groups not liking things, I cannot recall a time in my life where such people did not exist. The problem nowadays is that we have provided a range of platforms for them to visit occasionally false information upon us, and want us to swallow it. While QAnon takes the cake in the USA, here we have our anti-vaxxers out in full force, aside from fringe groups, occasional politicians and the odd chef saying covid is just like the flu.
With regard to your last point, I provide links to points I make. You are welcome to use the standards @Joe Blow seeks from us if you choose to reply.

 

[SirRumpole]

With respect to cancel culture, it's a myth when used pejoratively.

No it isn't, it definitely exists.

Like this:-

Richard Dawkins event cancelled over his 'abusive speech against Islam'

Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancels appearance by evolutionary biologist after learning of his ‘hurtful speech’ against the religion – a charge the author contests

www.theguardian.com

"Abusive speech" is a matter of opinion and could be applied to anything that a listener doesn't agree with.

Cancel culture exists and is PC gone mad.

It's abhorrent.

 

[rederob]

No it isn't, it definitely exists.

Like this:-

Richard Dawkins event cancelled over his 'abusive speech against Islam'

Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancels appearance by evolutionary biologist after learning of his ‘hurtful speech’ against the religion – a charge the author contests

www.theguardian.com

"Abusive speech" is a matter of opinion and could be applied to anything that a listener doesn't agree with.

Cancel culture exists and is PC gone mad.

It's abhorrent.

You have not understood my point. Your example agrees with my stance.
So did @Smurf1976's examples.

Some people use the phrase when its basis is proven false or when it defies logic: they use it pejoratively to distract or demean. I gave an example wrt to Trump's Impeachment.

 

[dutchie]

The problem is political left leaners are so oblivious in their righteousness that they don't even notice themselves doing it. And it's constant dribble that then descends into outright lies or ignoring history.
Probably shouldn't point fingers.

Yes, I have to agree with you moXJO, but I am not too sure they are oblivious.

The left are often hard-headed in their opinions and judgmental about others’ behaviours, hoping to control what other people think and say to cut off debate. They have tried to control what I say on numerous occasions.

It is difficult to debate these types of people, and to be honest, I have given up doing so a long time ago. If you don’t agree with them then they use intimidation tactics as shown in Post #563 or use cancel culture (which is definitely not a myth).

In extreme cases, like Antifa and BLM, they use violence to intimidate people who don’t agree with them.

I prefer to use ridicule using sites like Babylon Bee, which does a much better job than I ever could, and they hate it.

Unfortunately, things are only going to get worse as they have infiltrated too many institutions, especially educational ones.

I tip my hat to you and Smurf1976 as you try to be more liberal.

 

[rederob]

The left are often hard-headed in their opinions and judgmental about others’ behaviours, hoping to control what other people think and say to cut off debate. They have tried to control what I say on numerous occasions.

That is a blatant lie @dutchie. What you can say at ASF is arbitrated by @Joe Blow.
As for debate, you seldom ever offered anything except a pot pourri of garbled nonsense, or cut and pastes that offers no explanation, as per post #563 above. @Joe Blow has made this point to you many times. What @dutchie did not mention about post #563 was that Lauren, the woman sitting, was a regular at BLM protests, but did not know who this group was as they had no placards and were playing to a media entourage covering just 2 DC blocks. It's a classic example of uninformed people making a baseless inference.

 

[Joe Blow]

Why would anyone who is not interested in participating in discussion and debate be a part of a discussion forum? The entire purpose of ASF is discussion and debate. That was its purpose when it was first created and remains its purpose today.

For those who are just interested in posting and not discussion, sign up for your free Wordpress blog here and post all you want.

 

[SirRumpole]

The left cannot tolerate different views.

The extremes of both sides cannot tolerate different views.