Hard News: The fake news problem
440 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18 Newer→ Last
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I agree that it ought to be about empirical facts, but that appears not to be the case, and not just in politics.
Empirical facts are inadmissible in religious arguments.
And perspective frequently determines what is admitted as fact.
In regard to the popular ( but irrelevant) vote , I read somewhere that Trump narrowly won the popular vote in 44 states, and that Clinton won it , overwhelmingly in 6 states. I hope that I have that right.
All the sites that I was reading prior, and the polls that I took notice of , had Trump as a shoo- in..
My perspective was that the polls showing Clinton to win were either rigged or blatant propaganda designed to discourage Trump voters from even bothering to vote.
Addendum: and then of course there is cognitive dissonance to muddy the waters.
:-) -
Yes I get this - my question is - is it only those on the left who care about verifiable facts and if so then does that effect finding a solution to this mess.
-
Trump narrowly won the popular vote in 44 states, and that Clinton won it , overwhelmingly in 6 states.
There is no excuse for swallowing this kind of nonsense. Results are easily available and easily verifiable, regardless of our political/media preferences.
The question is simply: do we want to know, or just believe?
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
My response would be of course it is not just any persuasion who care about facts, and the fact that you ask the question is very interesting.
The solution can only lie in agreement on what is admissible as fact.
So far we all seem to agree that Trump won overwhelmingly under the system that the Founding Fathers instigated.
Edit: some may say that the election was rigged, but I have not seen that contention put forward here. -
Farmer Green, in reply to
If you show me that what I read was nonsense then I will believe you. You did not do that.
-
You read it somewhere? Its so obviously wrong to anyone who has followed the *actual* news or has a clue about how the electoral college works and the final vote there came out or paid any attention at all to how the states were voting or has any ability to tell a fake "news" site from one whose agenda includes actual reporting ... it's not worth starting on the process of getting you informed until you've shown some iniative of your own. Try Wikipedia :)
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Why don't you just call me names?
-
simon g, in reply to
FG, this is Public Address, and I'm sure nobody wants flame wars here. There are enough other places for that.
But you are commenting on the American election without even knowing - or wanting to know - the results in the American election. And I don't know how to engage with that, I'm afraid.
Take some responsibility for informing yourself. Over and out.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Thanks for that Simon. I did know that Trump won the only vote that mattered, and I have followed the process closely for many decades.
Don't pull your punches: just say what you really think. If it is too uncomfortable, then just disengage. -
Trump narrowly won the popular vote in 44 states, and that Clinton won it , overwhelmingly in 6 states.
If this is true, then if Clinton won the six most valuable states the electoral college standings would be Clinton 176, Trump 362.
But among these 6 top states we have Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania, all of which were won by Trump.
The provisional EC result at the moment is Clinton 232, Trump 306.
So on the face of it your second hand speculation is completely incorrect, easily refuted, and to repeat it here without bothering to do the most basic fact-checking yourself just exemplifies the problem Russell was posting about. -
Yeah sorry. Or worse, suggest you become a case study ;) Easy to forget how information and information skills are a luxury.
-
Neil,
I don't know what to think about why so many people believe things that are untrue. Cretainly what the untruth actually is they believe in is of crucial mportance to their perceived self-protection of what they fear. But that's nothing new.
What seems to be new is this relatively small percentage of the population is now - via the internet - capable of forming extened communities and having an effect far beyond their actual numbers.
We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men
It is to do with race as well as gender but I think there's something more significant going on with gender. Afterall it is mostly males.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I did say that it was irrelevant. I did say that I read it. That was all that I said.
-
Irrelevant to who is legally president. But very relevant to the stories that we tell about this election. Which is why it’s being peddled.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
O.K I found it.
The conclusions are quite different from yours.https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/11/13/popular-vote-reality-check/ -
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
The conclusions are quite different from yours.
Well let's apply his logic to the question. His conclusions are different to mine, but he's an asshole so his opinion doesn't count as much as mine.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Well it’s not altogether surprising that when we cut the population in half and divisively socialise each half in different ways – primarily according to their genitals – that some people then perpetuate and aggravate this division.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Yeah but were the numbers the same as yours?And go back and see what you said about it initially.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Ya reckon? :-)How have you been anyway bro? It' s been a while.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
It’s not so much that he is an arsehole, he’ s not a lefty , so he must be wrong , and he should just shut up.
Which is what a lot of the discussion has been about.
Just call him some nasty names and tell him to far cough.Don’ t waste your time talking to people with whom you disagree right.?
If they had half a brain , they would see things your way.
But seriously, were the facts being misrepresented? Was what I said that I read somewhere a blatant lie about the facts, or not? -
Trevor Nicholls, in reply to
At this point I don't know if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the difference between real facts, selective presentation of facts with biased commentary, and fake facts. So as I have better things to do with my time than use it trying to explain to somebody who doesn't want an explanation, I won't waste it.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
Despite the endless barrage of gender assumption things are going ok FG, how are you?
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
Show me the correct numbers then.
-
Farmer Green, in reply to
I think I'm O.K., but that is not a popular view in some quarters.
The season is proving to be very challenging, and I am being very careful when I talk to other dairy farmers, most of whom are hard up against the wall in several ways , with no end in sight.
I am so out of step with most of the agriculture in Godzone, that I might be better to say nothing. That seems to apply here to.
But I was interested in this idea that it might be time to start talking to each other, and I thought that it might be possible without the usual logical fallacies ad nauseum.
Too soon to say really. But I seem to be wrong on all counts so far. -
mark taslov, in reply to
I’m glad to hear you’re managing. Groupthink being one of the more dangerous and pervasive threats to humanity, I can appreciate and respect the course of action you are choosing. Obviously being labelled a troll comes with the territory.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.