misinformation is currently predominantly a pathology of the right

[RandomGuy]

Benkler, et. al 2017

https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33759251/2017-08_electionReport_0.pdf?sequence=9


Personally, I think that religiousity tends to poison reasoning abilities. If you are willingly delusional about one thing, you have what amounts to a weakened immune system to bullshit.

This puts some heft into what we all sense and see played out here time after time with debunked conservative propaganda.

[RandomGuy]

Why are conservatives so susceptible to misinformation? The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education. College-educated Republicans are actually more likely than less-educated Republicans to have believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim and that “death panels” were part of the ACA. And for political conservatives, but not for liberals, greater knowledge of science and math is associated with a greater likelihood of dismissing what almost all scientists believe about the human causation of global warming.

The right wing’s disregard for facts and reasoning is not a matter of stupidity or lack of education.

It’s also not just misinformation gained from too many hours listening to Fox News, either, because correcting the falsehoods doesn’t change their opinions. For example, nine months following the release of President Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the percentage of Republicans who believed that he was not American-born was actually higher than before the release. Similarly, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats corrected their previous overestimates of the unemployment rate after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the actual data. Republicans’ overestimated even more than before.

Part of the problem is widespread suspicion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s. The mistrust has in part, at least, been deliberately inculcated. The fossil fuel industry publicizes studies to confuse the climate change debate; Big Pharma hides unfavorable information on drug safety and efficacy; and many schools in conservative areas teach students that evolution is “just a theory.” The public is understandably confused about both the findings and methods of science. “Fake news” deliberately created for political or economic gain and Donald Trump’s claims that media sites that disagree with him are “fake news” add to the mistrust.

But, the gullibility of many on the right seems to have deeper roots even than this. That may be because at the most basic level, conservatives and liberals seem to hold different beliefs about what constitutes “truth.” Finding facts and pursuing evidence and trusting science is part of liberal ideology itself. For many conservatives, faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/11/why_conservatives_are_more_susceptible_to_believin g_in_lies.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_fb_top

[Mark Celibate]

everything is fine goy don’t believe that fake news listen to us, we are a Rockefeller owned organization we have credibility. Our board of directors have professional backgrounds such as the ford foundation, tavistock institute, Rockefeller foundation etc. it’s only real if you heard it here first!

[Chucho]

Propaganda is propaganda. To say one pile of shit smells better than another pile of shit is absurd.

[boutons_deux]

"faith and intuition and trust in revealed truth appear as equally valid sources of truth."

True, but that demands a highly purified, evolved nervous system, to "Realize" truth but such truths could and should verified empirically

the political alliance between repugs and Christian evangelicals works because both swim in bullshit, lies, fairy tales, money-grubbing, venal, bad faith propaganda

[Mark Celibate]

Something something repugs, Trash, etc

[spurraider21]

Something something repugs, Trash, etc
Something something jews, cucks, etc

[dabom]

American Christians are pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

Their reasoning:

Jesus forgives me.

He's a democrat.

The bible says.

:lol

[Chucho]

American Christians are pretty fucking disgusting if you ask me.

Their reasoning:

Jesus forgives me.

He's a democrat.

The bible says.

:lol

You'd be lost without that smiley, bruh.

[Fabbs]

Propaganda is propaganda. To say one pile of shit smells better than another pile of shit is absurd.
well put

[dabom]

You'd be lost without that smiley, bruh.

Bitter. :lmao

[hater]

Because cnn and wapo are pillars of truth :lmao

The mouthpieces of CIA/FBI/NSA are far more disinformational than any dumb ass redneck

[Mark Celibate]

Something something jews, cucks, etc
Lol saw ya doing battle with the Turk in the other thread, round 2 etc

[Pavlov]

Because cnn and wapo are pillars of truth :lmao

The mouthpieces of CIA/FBI/NSA are far more disinformational than any dumb ass redneckWhere do you get your news?

[Chucho]

Bitter. :lmao

Delusional. :lmao

Shit poster. :rollin

Patty Mills schtick. :lol

[RandomGuy]

[given evidence that conservatives tend to reason poorly when it comes to evaluating information]


[launches into a logically flawed argument- ad hominem, completely ignoring the information provided and failing to address anything]

:rollin

It's like you can't help yourself. Keep proving out the OP.

Please.

[RandomGuy]

Propaganda is propaganda. To say one pile of shit smells better than another pile of shit is absurd.

Read the slate article. Both sides have propaganda.

One side gets suckered by it more, and some peer reviewed science tends to support that.

[Chucho]

Read the slate article. Both sides have propaganda.

One side gets suckered by it more, and some peer reviewed science tends to support that.

Words like "some" and "tends" doesn't give heavy credence. I understand you, though, so I'm not downplaying this report, it's just not definitive.

[RandomGuy]

Words like "some" and "tends" doesn't give heavy credence. I understand you, though, so I'm not downplaying this report, it's just not definitive.

Science is rarely definitive.

The Slate article breaks it down into a pretty comprehensive argument, supported by peer-reviewed studies. Not a slam dunk, but pretty well done.

[dabom]

Most intelligent people vote democrat. Facts.

[Chucho]

Science is rarely definitive.

The Slate article breaks it down into a pretty comprehensive argument, supported by peer-reviewed studies. Not a slam dunk, but pretty well done.


I kind of LOL'd at the "Trump shaped the media" thing that kind of puts blame of Hillary's loss on the media when 3 of the 4 largest MSM companies are left-leaning.

[Chucho]

Most intelligent people vote democrat. Facts.


And you also voted Demo. You're not intelligent. Fact.

[Mark Celibate]

[given evidence that conservatives tend to reason poorly when it comes to evaluating information]



:rollin

It's like you can't help yourself. Keep proving out the OP.

Please.
There’s been no evidence presented, it’s all subjective generalization shit like “science is part of muh liberal doctrine while conservatives believe in muh faith.” It’s just yours and the authors opinions presented as fact, no further response is required of me here. Stupid posts get dismissive responses. You don’t have a monopoly on logic and reason and science. I could easily counter by saying liberalism is all about feels over reals. Politicized “studies” are often flawed and full of biases.

[Mark Celibate]

“This study was funded by the Open Society Foundations U.S. Programs.”

:lmao wow

[RandomGuy]

There’s been no evidence presented, it’s all subjective generalization shit like “science is part of muh liberal doctrine while conservatives believe in muh faith.” It’s just yours and the authors opinions presented as fact, no further response is required of me here. Stupid posts get dismissive responses. You don’t have a monopoly on logic and reason and science. I could easily counter by saying liberalism is all about feels over reals. Politicized “studies” are often flawed and full of biases.

The evidence is in the article. If you want a laundry list, I can easily do that.

[boutons_deux]

Science is rarely definitive.




SOCIAL/SOFT science is rarely definitive.

[Mark Celibate]

The evidence is in the article. If you want a laundry list, I can easily do that.
Go peddle your George Soros funded weaponised propaganda “studies” to someone stupid enough to
listen.

[dabom]

SOCIAL/SOFT science is rarely definitive.

I was gonna say the same thing.

[TSA]

“This study was funded by the Open Society Foundations U.S. Programs.”

:lmao wow


:lol Soros
:lol CREW
:lol Hamilton68

[Mark Celibate]

The problem with politically motivated studies is that I could easily find a Koch brothers funded study that says the exact opposite, this entire thread isn’t a waste of everyone’s time. Don’t post George Soros and expect to get a different response.

[Pavlov]

The problem with politically motivated studies is that I could easily find a Koch brothers funded study that says the exact oppositePlease do; I'd like to see that study.

[spurraider21]

Go peddle your George Soros funded weaponised propaganda “studies” to someone stupid enough to
listen.
Something something jew

[Mark Celibate]

Something something jew
Don’t make me call that Turk poster in here.

[spurraider21]

Don’t make me call that Turk poster in here.
go ahead if that floats ur boat

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So now Harvard = Soros = Koch Bros.

The conspiratorial delusions of white trash on display here are affirmation of the OP.

[RandomGuy]

Part of the problem is widespread suspicion of facts—any facts. Both mistrust of scientists and other “experts” and mistrust of the mass media that reports what scientists and experts believe have increased among conservatives (but not among liberals) since the early ’80s.



Go peddle your George Soros funded weaponised propaganda “studies” to someone stupid enough to
listen.

:lmao

Thanks again.

[RandomGuy]

There’s been no evidence presented, it’s all subjective generalization shit like “science is part of muh liberal doctrine while conservatives believe in muh faith.” It’s just yours and the authors opinions presented as fact, no further response is required of me here. Stupid posts get dismissive responses. You don’t have a monopoly on logic and reason and science. I could easily counter by saying liberalism is all about feels over reals. Politicized “studies” are often flawed and full of biases.


https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions


An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

So let's go through the slate articles' peer reviewed papers, because they form the basis of his thesis.

Feel free to actually address the studies and their flaws as you see it at any time. Let me know how the scientists got it wrong.

So the first article here says that people often dig in when presented with information that contradicts what they think is true.

[RandomGuy]

Similarly, during the 2012 presidential campaign, Democrats corrected their previous overestimates of the unemployment rate after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the actual data. Republicans’ overestimated even more than before.

Here we have conservatives doing exactly what the scientific paper predicts they would.

[RandomGuy]

One thing that one has to get over is "motivated reasoning". It is a useful concept to understand if the subject is how human beings process information.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/05/05/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers


1. To begin, motivated cognition refers to the unconscious tendency of individuals to fit their processing of information to conclusions that suit some end or goal. Consider a classic example. In the 1950s, psychologists asked experimental subjects, students from two Ivy League colleges, to watch a film that featured a set of controversial officiating calls made during a football game between teams from their respective schools. The students from each school were more likely to see the referees’ calls as correct when it favored their school than when it favored their rival. The researchers concluded that the emotional stake the students had in affirming their loyalty to their respective institutions shaped what they saw on the tape.

The end or goal motivates the cognition in the sense that it directs mental operations—in this case, sensory perceptions; in others, assessments of the weight and credibility of empirical evidence, or performance of mathematical or logical computation—that we expect to function independently of that goal or end. But the normal connotation of “motive” as a conscious goal or reason for acting is actually out of place here and can be a source of confusion. The students wanted to experience solidarity with their institutions, but they didn’t treat that as a conscious reason for seeing what they saw. They had no idea (or so we are to believe; one needs a good experimental design to be sure this is so) that their perceptions were being bent in this way.

[Mark Celibate]

Whole argument is stupid, nuh uh you’re biased these numbers say so cmon dude it’s science! Peer reviewed by GEORGE SOROS and my liberal buddies. Like, conservative bias! Yeah you bet your ass I’m going to attack a biased source. It’d be like me posting infowars as proof and then saying see, I knew these liberals would attack the source just as I said they would. You’re not very intelligent if you can’t see the game being played here. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality. Some more correct than others but none are 100%. Don’t link a study funded by a billionaire with a track record of pushing an agenda and use it as a basis to attack me when I scoff at it.

[Pavlov]

The problem with politically motivated studies is that I could easily find a Koch brothers funded study that says the exact oppositeHave you found one yet?

[Mark Celibate]

The whole idea of quantifying fake news is stupid because the very nature of fake news itself is subjective, we can’t agree on what’s fake news and what’s real news. Numbers can be massaged it’s done in polling all the time. Any attempt at quantifying the subjective is always going to be biased.

[spurraider21]

The whole idea of quantifying fake news is stupid because the very nature of fake news itself is subjective, we can’t agree on what’s fake news and what’s real news. Numbers can be massaged it’s done in polling all the time. Any attempt at quantifying the subjective is always going to be biased.
stories that are totally fabricated such as "hillary clinton indictment imminent" or "pope endorses donald trump" are pretty blatant fake news. the term was popularized to describe just that. or when people attributed that quote to trump where he said "if i ever ran for president i would run republican because their voters are stupid" or something along those lines. blatant fake news. totally fabricated with no redeeming quality. no sources, not even anonymous ones. meant purely to attract clicks and sway opinions. demonstrably false, ie crowd sizes

sometimes you have articles where the source is unreliable, or there are conflicting sources telling different stories. this is always something that will happen in washington, where various players want to use the media as a tool to their benefit. reporters know that risk, and it's also why there tends to be a little more skepticism when you have unnamed sources. i think it would be really odd to call something fake news, if a reporter is admittedly passing along what he was told by a source. good example would be the shithole thing. did he really say it? who knows. you have people in the room saying he did say it, other people in the room saying they never heard it. a reporter who gives one of those sources an outlet is passing alone the word of the source, not fabricating the quote

and other times you have people giving opinions. agree or disagree, they're not "fake news" if they're just giving some shmuck's opinion. granted, sometimes they rely on spotty evidence to base their opinions from

[rjv]

essentially, the entire MSM is guilty, and has been for decades, of what Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman called "manufacturing consent".

[FuzzyLumpkins]

One thing that one has to get over is "motivated reasoning". It is a useful concept to understand if the subject is how human beings process information.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/05/05/what-is-motivated-reasoning-how-does-it-work-dan-kahan-answers

That is where the rubber meets the road in differentiating sophistry and science.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Whole argument is stupid, nuh uh you’re biased these numbers say so cmon dude it’s science! Peer reviewed by GEORGE SOROS and my liberal buddies. Like, conservative bias! Yeah you bet your ass I’m going to attack a biased source. It’d be like me posting infowars as proof and then saying see, I knew these liberals would attack the source just as I said they would. You’re not very intelligent if you can’t see the game being played here. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality. Some more correct than others but none are 100%. Don’t link a study funded by a billionaire with a track record of pushing an agenda and use it as a basis to attack me when I scoff at it.

:lol Now he is equivalating Harvard and infowars. That actually is quite stupid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

essentially, the entire MSM is guilty, and has been for decades, of what Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman called "manufacturing consent".

And youre guilty of subscribing to the marketed groupthink categorization of MSM as opposed to the right wing outlets who peddle the notion.

Chomsky and Herman talk about "the mass media" which includes both political biases. It is interesting you regurgitate the marketing though.

[spurraider21]

Whole argument is stupid, nuh uh you’re biased these numbers say so cmon dude it’s science! Peer reviewed by GEORGE SOROS and my liberal buddies. Like, conservative bias! Yeah you bet your ass I’m going to attack a biased source. It’d be like me posting infowars as proof and then saying see, I knew these liberals would attack the source just as I said they would. You’re not very intelligent if you can’t see the game being played here. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality. Some more correct than others but none are 100%. Don’t link a study funded by a billionaire with a track record of pushing an agenda and use it as a basis to attack me when I scoff at it.
a) infowars is not peer reviewed, so no, it wouldn't be like that
b) the study is not peer reviewed by george soros or his liberal buddies. they may provide funding (and yes, that gives reason for skepticism... but not to discredit wholesale), but you know how peer review works (assuming this is BUMP. tbh i have no idea who you claim to be anymore)

[rjv]

And youre guilty of subscribing to the marketed groupthink categorization of MSM as opposed to the right wing outlets who peddle the notion.

Chomsky and Herman talk about "the mass media" which includes both political biases. It is interesting you regurgitate the marketing though.

i didn't even realize i made a premise about the right. but i guess i can't stop you from inferring whatever you care to even though i never even mentioned the right one way or the other. why should i? the right wing so called media doesn't even deserve to be considered in the conversation. it's pure lunatic fringe.

[Mark Celibate]

i didn't even realize i made a premise about the right. but i guess i can't stop you from inferring whatever you care to even though i never even mentioned the right one way or the other. why should i? the right wing so called media doesn't even deserve to be considered in the conversation. it's pure lunatic fringe.
Feeling is mutual tbh

[RandomGuy]

Whole argument is stupid, nuh uh you’re biased these numbers say so cmon dude it’s science! Peer reviewed by GEORGE SOROS and my liberal buddies. Like, conservative bias! Yeah you bet your ass I’m going to attack a biased source. It’d be like me posting infowars as proof and then saying see, I knew these liberals would attack the source just as I said they would. You’re not very intelligent if you can’t see the game being played here. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality. Some more correct than others but none are 100%. Don’t link a study funded by a billionaire with a track record of pushing an agenda and use it as a basis to attack me when I scoff at it.

Is the study invalid because of the source of its funding, or some other reason?

[AaronY]

Is the study invalid because of the source of its funding, or some other reason?

Jewnoseguyrubbinghands.jpeg

[RandomGuy]

. It’s an attempt to monopolize reality when in fact everyone has a different perspective of reality.

That may be the single stupidest fucking thing I have read here today.

Not all "realities" are created equal, or should be treated as such, anyone who wants to hold differing versions of reality as all equally valid should pray like fuck the next time they get sick or injured, and not seek any medical help, because the two "realities" of "prayer heals everything" and "medicine works" are equal.


Instead of believing something fucking moronic, read this and change your mind about "reality":
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/

[Mark Celibate]

Yes goy, learn a thing or two by checking out another link I’m shilling you written by who knows and who knows what their agenda is. You already tried to shill me on George Soros poo poo why do you keep peddling this stuff? Yes sources do matter. No I don’t trust a Soros project. Yes everyone has biases and wants to prove their perception of reality is correct. No it usually isn’t 100%. That’s the irony you people do not understand, you have a completely totalitarian mindset while running around calling others fascist. I’m sure you could also attempt to quantify why the transgender movement is great for society. Everyone has an agenda these days it seems.

[koriwhat]

Yes goy, learn a thing or two by checking out another link I’m shilling you written by who knows and who knows what their agenda is. You already tried to shill me on George Soros poo poo why do you keep peddling this stuff? Yes sources do matter. No I don’t trust a Soros project. Yes everyone has biases and wants to prove their perception of reality is correct. No it usually isn’t 100%. That’s the irony you people do not understand, you have a completely totalitarian mindset while running around calling others fascist. I’m sure you could also attempt to quantify why the transgender movement is great for society. Everyone has an agenda these days it seems.

#TRUTH

[RandomGuy]

Is the study invalid because of the source of its funding, or some other reason?


No I don’t trust a Soros project.

Ad Hominem (Abusive)
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.

Example #1:

My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea -- this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!

Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.

--------------------------------------


More fodder for the OP.

You can't form a logical argument, it makes my case for me. Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

#TRUTH

You think that a badly reasoned post is true.

You also make my case for me. Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

"misinformation is predominantly a pathology of the right"

mis·in·for·ma·tion
ˌmisinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
false or inaccurate information,

"the study is wrong because it is funded by George Soros"

This is false (ad hominem logical fallacy), provably so.

[Mark Celibate]

Copy and paste some more it’s working well for you. I think lots of people are reading your links and having an in depth discussion about them right now. The rest of us just can’t see them but you can in your reality.

ad hominem is all you’re going to get, it’s ST (known cesspool) and you haven’t even tried to make an interesting argument, or much of one at all. What do you want me to do, say I enjoyed your Soros peddled garbage? Both sides weaponised information and always have. This isn’t new contrary to pppular belief. News has always been partially fake partially real.

[TSA]

Yes goy, learn a thing or two by checking out another link I’m shilling you written by who knows and who knows what their agenda is. You already tried to shill me on George Soros poo poo why do you keep peddling this stuff? Yes sources do matter. No I don’t trust a Soros project. Yes everyone has biases and wants to prove their perception of reality is correct. No it usually isn’t 100%. That’s the irony you people do not understand, you have a completely totalitarian mindset while running around calling others fascist. I’m sure you could also attempt to quantify why the transgender movement is great for society. Everyone has an agenda these days it seems.

For shit's and giggles ask him to explain how David Brock funded CREW is non-partisan.

[spurraider21]

Copy and paste some more it’s working well for you. I think lots of people are reading your links and having an in depth discussion about them right now. The rest of us just can’t see them but you can in your reality.

ad hominem is all you’re going to get, it’s ST (known cesspool) and you haven’t even tried to make an interesting argument, or much of one at all. What do you want me to do, say I enjoyed your Soros peddled garbage? Both sides weaponised information and always have. This isn’t new contrary to pppular belief. News has always been partially fake partially real.
and if your determination of whether it is real is solely based on "who said it" rather than "what evidence are they relying on" then you have a warped view of reality, and are the whole "reality is totally subjective" bullshit is you projecting that on the rest of the world

[rjv]

this thread has taken a very unexpected postmodern turn (unwittingly, most likely)

[koriwhat]

For shit's and giggles ask him to explain how David Brock funded CREW is non-partisan.

lol david "sucks cock" brock

[koriwhat]

and if your determination of whether it is real is solely based on "who said it" rather than "what evidence are they relying on" then you have a warped view of reality, and are the whole "reality is totally subjective" bullshit is you projecting that on the rest of the world

did you clap when djt went through his bullet points in his SOTU or did you shoot the messenger?

[spurraider21]

did you clap when djt went through his bullet points in his SOTU or did you shoot the messenger?
depends if i agreed with them or not

[Chris]

962829831153991681

[koriwhat]

depends if i agreed with them or not

actual stat proved bullet points and not future endeavors is what i am talking about. it's all about the hate and only the hate with the leftists in office.

[spurraider21]

actual stat proved bullet points and not future endeavors is what i am talking about. it's all about the hate and only the hate with the leftists in office.
what bullet points are you referring to, specifically

[spurraider21]

962829831153991681
Deranged Right Wing Fringe Playbook:

1) believe any ridiculous theory that pops up in any corner of the internet
2) brand skeptics as MSM soros shills
3) drivel drivel drivel

[pgardn]

I don't know MSM is anymore. I really don't.

If you take away WSJ, NYT, WaPo, The Guardian, Der Spiegel that's not easily replaced for me. That's 4 left leaning papers and 1 right IMO. But I can't get any input back on these from our conservative leaning board members. Especially the nutty ones. Hater (who I have no idea how to categorize) has the NYT as an arm of the CIA... Can't get anything back from him after nuclear bombing his RT news. Now... The silence is deafening from the right mostly.

Other more specialized, like The Economist and Foreign Affairs, are good but don't really have their own staff on the ground in many countries. More analysis than cold hard reporting. Much heavier as well.

I also think it's good to be self critical or even joust with the other papers if they legitimately screw up.

[koriwhat]

what bullet points are you referring to, specifically

let's just take for instance lower numbers for unemployed minorities specifically blacks. did you see any stand and applaud record lows in that department? sad.

the one thing that really bummed me out was how unpatriotic those on the left were when the flag, the anthem, and this nation was mentioned. like kids in middle school/high school who think they're hot shots by sitting down during the anthem every morning.

[Chris]

Deranged Right Wing Fringe Playbook:

1) believe any ridiculous theory that pops up in any corner of the internet
2) brand skeptics as MSM soros shills
3) drivel drivel drivel

Deranged 21 Playbook:

1.) Make up imaginary enemies.
2.) Conflate them with people you don't like.
3.) Tar and feather appropriately.
4.) Ignore facts.

[spurraider21]

WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Reuters, NBC, Politico are generally reliable imo. as always with breaking stories, helps to remain guarded in case of a correction/retraction. when it comes to those bigger stories, its just best to look for corroboration all over the place rather than trusting just once outlet's reporting. that's how you avoid falling into the trap like the ABC news guy who reported that false stuff about trump instructing flynn to lie, etc.

i do find it funny that posters here like to shit on WaPo and NYT and yet often times cite to WaPo/NYT articles to make their points when there's a story they like (uranium one, most notably)

other places like CNN/MSCBC/Fox... basically cable news outlets with an online presence, just tend to be sensational more than anything, so it usually requires much more careful reading than the other places.

and then you have the complete nutterboxes like conservativetreehouse, breitbart, dailykos, motherjones, naturalnews, etc

[spurraider21]

let's just take for instance lower numbers for unemployed minorities specifically blacks. did you see any stand and applaud record lows in that department? sad.

the one thing that really bummed me out was how unpatriotic those on the left were when the flag, the anthem, and this nation was mentioned. like kids in middle school/high school who think they're hot shots by sitting down during the anthem every morning.
dont think i've ever stood or applauded at anything on TV outside of sports tbh, so no, i didnt stand or applaud.

i'm also aware of the statistics regarding black unemployment figures, and the downward trajectory they've been on for some time now. do i think the continued decrease of the unemployment rate is good? absolutely. am i going to attribute the continuation of a nearly decade-long decline to the sitting POTUS who had been there for 1 year? nah, probably not

https://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000006_2008_2018_all_period_M0 1_data.gif
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

i mean go back further. it seems really disingenuous to credit the guy for who sat there for 1 year :lol

https://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000006_1992_2018_all_period_M0 1_data.gif

[DMC]

Well the left is so busy redefining themselves even their gender that it's hard to pin down anything. Soon as you can prove they're doing it they pretend like it's not them. There are like 20 different parties on the left it seems.

[koriwhat]

dont think i've ever stood or applauded at anything on TV outside of sports tbh, so no, i didnt stand or applaud.

i'm also aware of the statistics regarding black unemployment figures, and the downward trajectory they've been on for some time now. do i think the continued decrease of the unemployment rate is good? absolutely. am i going to attribute the continuation of a nearly decade-long decline to the sitting POTUS who had been there for 1 year? nah, probably not

https://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000006_2008_2018_all_period_M0 1_data.gif
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

i'm not saying to lump the two together; lower unemployment and djt. i am just smh at those in office who dismiss such a thing because djt is the messenger.

as well, this is about those in office and not you specifically standing and applauding your tv. this is about those whose salaries our taxes are paying for.

[spurraider21]

i'm not saying to lump the two together; lower unemployment and djt. i am just smh at those in office who dismiss such a thing because djt is the messenger.

as well, this is about those in office and not you specifically standing and applauding your tv. this is about those whose salaries our taxes are paying for.
i dont care if those people stand and clap or not. that's not how i judge their job performance.

and you say we shouldn't lump to two together, but trump was touting the continued decline as a personal accomplishment of his administration

[spurraider21]

1.) Make up imaginary enemies.
luciferians

2.) Conflate them with people you don't like.
3.) Tar and feather appropriately.
liberals, ie chelsea clinton is a luciferian, hillary is a satanic pedophile, soros is literally a nazi, etc

4.) Ignore facts.
lol, says the guy who throws a fit when asked to provide a source for his claims

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i didn't even realize i made a premise about the right. but i guess i can't stop you from inferring whatever you care to even though i never even mentioned the right one way or the other. why should i? the right wing so called media doesn't even deserve to be considered in the conversation. it's pure lunatic fringe.

You used the right wing term. Chomsky said mass media and there is no reason to think he would differentiate. Fox goes through the same licensing and corporate loopholes as the rest of them.

[rjv]

You used the right wing term. Chomsky said mass media and there is no reason to think he would differentiate. Fox goes through the same licensing and corporate loopholes as the rest of them.

supposedly he updated the propaganda model in 2008 or so to include blogs, the internet and certain right wing sites but i have not been able to come across that interview.

[RandomGuy]

and if your determination of whether it is real is solely based on "who said it" rather than "what evidence are they relying on" then you have a warped view of reality, and are the whole "reality is totally subjective" bullshit is you projecting that on the rest of the world

That is my take.

People's theory of mind says that they generally perceive other people as thinking the same ways that they do. The ones that work so hard at dismissing sources then claim they have an "open mind" are only fooling themselves.

[RandomGuy]

Copy and paste some more it’s working well for you. I think lots of people are reading your links and having an in depth discussion about them right now. The rest of us just can’t see them but you can in your reality.

ad hominem is all you’re going to get, it’s ST (known cesspool) and you haven’t even tried to make an interesting argument, or much of one at all. What do you want me to do, say I enjoyed your Soros peddled garbage? Both sides weaponised information and always have. This isn’t new contrary to pppular belief. News has always been partially fake partially real.

You haven't even tried to make an interesting argument yourself. "soros blah blah blah, la la la I can't hear you..." :rollin

The irony of responding to a thread that makes the point that the right is more gullible when it comes to misinformation by parroting misinformation and provably bad reasoning is lost on you.

Both sides aren't equal. Not even close.

The right is morally and intellectually bankrupt at this point, and the fact that so many are falling all overthemselves defending Cadet Bonespurs Hushmoney McPussygrabber's ego parade says all anyone with any brains needs to about the depth of that bankruptcy.
.

[Mark Celibate]

The right is bankrupt really, last I checked that was the dnc and the male restrooms in the urban areas now that no one wants to be men anymore. More pseudo-superiority bullshit, link me a leftist funded study to disprove it while we all continue to mock and ignore you tbh.

[Mark Celibate]

Dude, if trump had said grab them by the dick you’d be hailing him as the greatest leader of all time let’s be intellectually honest here

[RandomGuy]

leftist funded study.

A study you have yet to meaningfully address, other than provably bad arguments.

Feel free to up your game and show us your chops.

If it is badly written, it should be easy to show how it is.

If you are full of shit, you will keep bitching about how bad it is, but never say anything with substance.

Your call, and your choice to be lazy or not is all on you.

[DisAsTerBot]

Dude, if trump had said grab them by the dick you’d be hailing him as the greatest leader of all time let’s be intellectually honest here

Please. By that logic you’d hate him

[TeyshaBlue]

You haven't even tried to make an interesting argument yourself. "soros blah blah blah, la la la I can't hear you..." :rollin

The irony of responding to a thread that makes the point that the right is more gullible when it comes to misinformation by parroting misinformation and provably bad reasoning is lost on you.

Both sides aren't equal. Not even close.

The right is morally and intellectually bankrupt at this point, and the fact that so many are falling all overthemselves defending Cadet Bonespurs Hushmoney McPussygrabber's ego parade says all anyone with any brains needs to about the depth of that bankruptcy.
.

I spent about 45 minutes reading through this Study last night. Aside from the fact it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say, I found the methodology fascinating. Quantifying the actual impact of far right sites like Breitbart and Fox News is pretty interesting. When you wash it all down there is a solid delineation between left and right responses to the echo chamber of the far right. It's not quite the massive slam dunk you're proclaiming here as the spreads appear to be fairly modest often in the 25+ point range between measurables. But, a fascinating read nonetheless. :tu

[Pavlov]

Dude, if trump had said grab them by the dick you’d be hailing him as the greatest leader of all time let’s be intellectually honest hereThat ended the Frank Underwood presidency tbh.

[RandomGuy]

That ended the Frank Underwood presidency tbh.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0Iy5fDRRTRglKwbS/giphy.gif

[Mark Celibate]

Lol you guys would be addicted to the electric merchant

[RandomGuy]

I spent about 45 minutes reading through this Study last night. Aside from the fact it doesn't say exactly what you want it to say, I found the methodology fascinating. Quantifying the actual impact of far right sites like Breitbart and Fox News is pretty interesting. When you wash it all down there is a solid delineation between left and right responses to the echo chamber of the far right. It's not quite the massive slam dunk you're proclaiming here as the spreads appear to be fairly modest often in the 25+ point range between measurables. But, a fascinating read nonetheless. :tu

Good to see someone else read the thing, and you are welcome.

I agree on all points.

It isn't a slam dunk, but the salon article was more compelling in that regard.
It was a fascinating look into the media landscape.

The world is complex, but can occasionally be distilled into numbers that show us some ground truth through all the clutter. Worth looking more into.

[Pavlov]

Lol you guys would be addicted to the electric merchantI don't watch House of Cards tbh. It's not like you didn't know what we were talking about -- what's your excuse?

lol

[Mark Celibate]

I had to google it, haven’t watched tv other than sports and South Park in 20 years. And South Park you can now watch online.