No sir, this is not a totalitarian state run by your sociology professors. You do not have the authority to decide what words are/aren't allowed to mean.
No one is telling you that you can't use words as you see fit. I get that that's a fight you'd desperately like to pick, but it's not happening here. This isn't even a good attempt.
I'm placing them in the same category because they're both news stories that are entirely make believe.
Good for you. You can categorize them however you'd like. But your accusation was that "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing". The left isn't vilifying anyone under your definition of "fake news". Whether or not CNN's reporting fits your definition is irrelevant - because your definition isn't what "the left" is using when they do the vilifying. In order to demonstrate any hypocrisy here, you'd need to show that CNN's reporting fits the definition of "fake news" used to vilify Breitbart and friends. It very clearly doesn't.
People have differences of opinion on words and phrases. Why is it so hard for the left to get that? You can redefine racism and sexism as you have and start using your own wacky definitions, you're allowed. But you don't get to tell other people how to use language. If you want to convince them to do so, you can do that. But this is still America, so you don't get to impose that on everyone.
Fake, not genuine, made up, concocted - it's what this report is and I'm fine using the phrase fake news to describe it.
So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?
It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'
Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?
The other way around - what's interesting is the left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing. Since our fact-checking organizations of the future will apparently be Snopes and Pravda, expect fake left news to take off this year.
Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...
Yes, I know it's trending.
Yes, I know you can google it.
No, we're not reporting it.
Why?
We can't independently verify it.
Real journalists have standards.
Whatdya know? Turns out that many people don't have a problem with fake news per se, but fake news that pushes a point that they don't like.
So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.
Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.
Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.
Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...
My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
Yet all the hacks from China draws the stridulating of crickets.
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
Since mid-2014, we have seen a notable decline in China-based groups’ overall intrusion
activity against entities in the U.S. and 25 other countries. We suspect that this shift
in operations reflects the influence of ongoing military reforms, widespread exposure
of Chinese cyber operations, and actions taken by the U.S. government.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
Very, very many. People are innately critically thinking, no matter whether they are very good at it.
It's really not hard to show that many people are quite bad at critically thinking, but that's not the same as not critically thinking at all.
This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.
Don't bother debating it at all then if you aren't interested in being productive about it.
I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
Because all people who think critically at all don't believe ANY stupid things? I don't believe that.
Nobody is 100% rational, everybody thinks stupid things sometimes, even if only for a time before they dismiss it.
You don't need to be totally uncritical to believe a few stupid things.
How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.
Then argue why you think it's a big issue, while others can argue why they think it is of a larger scale. Don't just dismiss it.
Personally, I think it is a real problem, but not a particularly big one.
We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.
The problem is, that's not a fact. It's wrong. There aren't masses of people who are incapable of or choosing not to use critical thinking, even if there are such masses of people being fairly limited in critical thinking, there has to be very few not using any. But you choose to portray large numbers of people as completely uncritical. That's not a fair portrayal.
That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.
You aren't really addressing the concern here, Tiax. The concern is that people are abusing the concept of/word racism. And that's a legitimate concern, because people do actually do it. Whether it's a big concern or not, and where the instances of it are, is up to debate, but you can't just brush the concern aside like this. That's exactly the kind of attitude where this issue comes from.
I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.
You all did? Who all? MTGS? A handful of debate posters who spend time pouring over the internet for data? Or literally everyone - including all white people - and all white people who rarely have to deal with race issues unless someone's in their face about it or rioting in a far away city? They all knew? Knew something more than a mob of people are busy destroying their own neighborhood and behaving terribly?
"All" is in the people who are now worried about what to tell their children. The people who have enough social consciousness to understand the threat Trump poses already understood the nature of race in America. The people who don't understand aren't the people you described as saying, "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist".
How about my original post - the one that you replied to acting like a bitter jerk, spouting about polls I never mentioned
-I believe social media, mainstream media, television and the internet do a very good job of silencing opinions they don't like
Really, you think the internet, home of everything from Stormfront to Tumblr, is good at silencing people?
-This leads people to believe that everyone (the overwhelming majority) thinks the same - that everyone is on the same page
I doubt many people are fooled. Do you really think more than a handful of crazies thought that either Trump or Clinton would win the "overwhelming majority" of votes? Everyone knows the country is divided. We see it constantly in the news.
-If you drive out everyone potentially guilty of wrongthink, you've only tricked yourself
I don't think you've tricked anyone.
-I also believe (per another thread) that hitting people with the racist or bigot stick on every topic or repeatedly demonizing white people simply shuts down the conversation.
As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.
-In this very thread alone there's many negative comments demonizing white people - that's acceptable racism.
No there aren't.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No one is telling you that you can't use words as you see fit. I get that that's a fight you'd desperately like to pick, but it's not happening here. This isn't even a good attempt.
Good for you. You can categorize them however you'd like. But your accusation was that "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing". The left isn't vilifying anyone under your definition of "fake news". Whether or not CNN's reporting fits your definition is irrelevant - because your definition isn't what "the left" is using when they do the vilifying. In order to demonstrate any hypocrisy here, you'd need to show that CNN's reporting fits the definition of "fake news" used to vilify Breitbart and friends. It very clearly doesn't.
So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?
Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?
Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...
So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.
Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-military-hackers-cyber-espionage-against-us-corporations-and-labor
They further threatened China with trade sanctions unless China stopped hacking the US private sector:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/16/obama-china-cyber-security-hacking-internet-warfare/32498869/
And it worked:
https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-china-espionage.pdf
But sure, crickets.
I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.
If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
This is just petty hair-splitting. What practical difference is there between people being so bad at critical thinking that their beliefs are entirely uncorrelated with truth, and not critically thinking at all? On question after question, Trump supporters do no better than random guessing. Once you cross that threshold, you may as well be not critically thinking at all.
I've already given a thorough explanation in the other thread. If you or Yamaha need a refresher, go back and read it.
How many stupid things do they have to believe for you to think they're uncritical? I can produce a LOT of examples backed by polling data.
We've already had that thread. I'm not rehashing the argument, and I'm going to treat the idea like the insipid nonsense that it is - by dismissing it.
That sounds very fair to me. More than half of Trump voters think Obama was born in Kenya. You cannot believe that and also be capable of applying critical thinking. That belief is solely the domain of ignoramuses.
I'm not addressing the concern because it's frivolous. It's not a real problem. It's just a cover for racists.
"All" is in the people who are now worried about what to tell their children. The people who have enough social consciousness to understand the threat Trump poses already understood the nature of race in America. The people who don't understand aren't the people you described as saying, "What am I going to tell my daughter?" and "America really is racist".
Really, you think the internet, home of everything from Stormfront to Tumblr, is good at silencing people?
I doubt many people are fooled. Do you really think more than a handful of crazies thought that either Trump or Clinton would win the "overwhelming majority" of votes? Everyone knows the country is divided. We see it constantly in the news.
I don't think you've tricked anyone.
As I said in that other thread, this is dangerous, backwards, and only serves to legitimize racism.
No there aren't.