Fact-Checkers........

[babe]

So we have some "Fact-Check" enthusiasts in here...… people who can throw down a link to.... oh.... say.... Snopes or Wiki.... and rest their case.

In general, anyone who believes in "facts" is, imo, reverting to some pious psychological resting place and declaring that there is nothing more to know.

The internet, today, has become more and more a "social" context and less and less a place for meaningful communication..... if you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you. Really.

But the Chinese government (Chairman Xi, more or less) today is serious about managing the webz in their nation, and everywhere else. They are investing in our mainstream Media and internet giants. Computer chips "Made in China" are being spiked with tools for management, and spying. It's a concern to our military people if they buy "Made in China" equipment. The Chinese govt has done a one-up thing on our own internal spying.... and it's all for the purpose of creating a social context that is favorable for them. And for influencing our elections.

So here goes. A closer look at who owns what.... starting with our "Fact-Checkers".... starting with Snopes.

I just have to do this because Bulletproof called me out as a liar for saying we have lying fact-check services and media.....

Jason, you're in this. OK, so in the Big Bird generation, truth has become a socially normative concept where emotion and social context rule. But that definition of "Lie" not applying to anything we pretend to believe just is not relevant in this discussion.

We have few facts, really, that cannot stand a second look. And the word "Lie" applies to political agenda hacks who will say what it takes to win for their cause.... or who will pay to run up fact-checker flags that routinely massage the message for their purposes.

And to all forms of media dedicated to managing the public on purpose.

 

[babe]

So here is what Bulletproof said, in the resistance thread about DJT and the Russians....

"You dare call other people liars in a post where you make baseless allegations, yet again? You are a liar. You have no dignity. You have no credibility. You are a shameful person." Post #3046, in response to my post #3045 at 11:18 AM. You gotta expect somebody to delete something, ya know. crappy quote tools here, too.

So aside from this being quite a direct personal attack, a privilege accorded to some apparently, and in general in the line of forcing me somehow to comply with the presumed manners of the social context of a pretty rank "Resistance" biased site, the aspect of this thread that applies is as to whether, in fact, we can believe our "fact-checkers" whom I called liars.

So let's start with Snopes. I'll be back in a while with something about Snopes.

 

[Harambe]

So we have some "Fact-Check" enthusiasts in here...… people who can throw down a link to.... oh.... say.... Snopes or Wiki.... and rest their case.

In general, anyone who believes in "facts" is, imo, reverting to some pious psychological resting place and declaring that there is nothing more to know.

This line makes me believe you've never actually read through a Snopes or Wikipedia article...you merely look at the most obvious statement and ignore everything else.

Snopes breaks down for you why it gets a 'pants on fire' rating, and Wikipedia provides other links as references.

As I'm typing this out, I know this is just dumb. I know it's not worth the 90 seconds to put in. But FFS man...

 

[Getting Traded]

I think for the most part, Snopes tries to be accurate but it can be wrong. It's only as good as the sources they consult.

 

[One Brow]

So aside from this being quite a direct personal attack, a privilege accorded to some apparently, ...

You mean like you?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

@babe I tried to text you but apparently the number I have is your angry wife who doesnt appreciate receiving random texts. Anyway, I'm heading out to CA today for the typical so if you're that way as well hit me up. I'll buy you some real fish and chips this time, maybe. That goes for any other who is Californian too.

 

[Stars Fan]

So we have some "Fact-Check" enthusiasts in here...… people who can throw down a link to.... oh.... say.... Snopes or Wiki.... and rest their case.

In general, anyone who believes in "facts" is, imo, reverting to some pious psychological resting place and declaring that there is nothing more to know.

The internet, today, has become more and more a "social" context and less and less a place for meaningful communication..... if you can't see the difference, I don't think I can help you. Really.

But the Chinese government (Chairman Xi, more or less) today is serious about managing the webz in their nation, and everywhere else. They are investing in our mainstream Media and internet giants. Computer chips "Made in China" are being spiked with tools for management, and spying. It's a concern to our military people if they buy "Made in China" equipment. The Chinese govt has done a one-up thing on our own internal spying.... and it's all for the purpose of creating a social context that is favorable for them. And for influencing our elections.

So here goes. A closer look at who owns what.... starting with our "Fact-Checkers".... starting with Snopes.

I just have to do this because Bulletproof called me out as a liar for saying we have lying fact-check services and media.....

Jason, you're in this. OK, so in the Big Bird generation, truth has become a socially normative concept where emotion and social context rule. But that definition of "Lie" not applying to anything we pretend to believe just is not relevant in this discussion.

We have few facts, really, that cannot stand a second look. And the word "Lie" applies to political agenda hacks who will say what it takes to win for their cause.... or who will pay to run up fact-checker flags that routinely massage the message for their purposes.

And to all forms of media dedicated to managing the public on purpose.

Interesting topic, thanks for starting the thread.

There is a great book by Robert Burton, I highly recommend it to all. The title is "on being certain, believing you are right, even when you are not." Burton is a neuroscientist who studies cognition. The basic summary is that humans have "feelings" of being right, that have nothing to do reason. If we took the time to reason out everything, we would lose out to faster acting people, (or animals). So we have evolved a shorthand way of making decisions that involves this feeling of certainty. Once we have that feeling, we don't revisit the issue, we act on it. Any challenge to our set of beliefs "feels" wrong, and so we resist the challenge. He urges everyone to understand what is happening in our brains, and to think skeptically about our beliefs.
Review here:
http://dangerousintersection.org/20...s-to-feel-certain-review-of-on-being-certain/

Colonel John Boyd, USAF, developed the idea of the OODA loop, a cycle of observation, orientation, decision, and action. It was used in the planning for Operation Desert Shield/Storm. The idea of the OODA loop I want to introduce, is that what we observe and how we orient to that understanding of reality has consequences. Boyd's thinking was that if you could observe and orient to what was actually happening faster than your opponent, get inside his ooda loop, you had the advantage. In war this can make the difference between living and dying.

With that background let me respond to your post.

I think it is healthy to question our beliefs and assumptions. We almost never have a completely accurate understanding of the truth. What we have are useful approximations of truth, or reality. When we find that our understanding of reality is wrong. we are best served by reorienting to the new information. When you say...

"... anyone who believes in "facts" is, imo, reverting to some pious psychological resting place and declaring that there is nothing more to know.

The internet, today, has become more and more a "social" context and less and less a place for meaningful communication..... "

You seem to suggest that there is no ultimate reality or truth and that all ideas are equally valid. (If I have that wrong, please correct my understanding.) While we should challenge our beliefs, we are ill served by not believing in facts even if they are just our best approximation of ultimately reality.

How we observe our reality and orient to it has consequences. E.g. If we believe the earth is flat, we never stray far from the shore and lose out when the damn Spanish discovery otherwise. Likewise, if we refuse to believe in global warming science, we will pay the consequences. I think we need more fact checking in today's environment not less. And if we find our sources biased or otherwise wrong, reorient to the new reality.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stoked]

@babe I tried to text you but apparently the number I have is your angry wife who doesnt appreciate receiving random texts. Anyway, I'm heading out to CA today for the typical so if you're that way as well hit me up. I'll buy you some real fish and chips this time, maybe. That goes for any other who is Californian too.

 

[babe]

@babe I tried to text you but apparently the number I have is your angry wife who doesnt appreciate receiving random texts. Anyway, I'm heading out to CA today for the typical so if you're that way as well hit me up. I'll buy you some real fish and chips this time, maybe. That goes for any other who is Californian too.

replace the final 1 with a 2. That's the true ranking here. night shift transforms angels to.... but she is my hero for all she does.

I do the Friday night fish special at the truck stop....love it as if it were Market Street.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Lol, we all get it @babe, you dont believe in facts. You think that whatever pops in your head is more accurate than any research or others ideas. Cool, thats why there is no reason to have a serious discussion with you. I dont think you are a liar. You just are ill informed and there is no reasoning with you. You listen to known liars and believe them over people with actual facts, and yes facts do exist.

Also stop complaining about a personal attack when you have done it to others. You cant call people names and not expect to get called names back.

 

[Ron Mexico]

@babe I tried to text you but apparently the number I have is your angry wife who doesnt appreciate receiving random texts. Anyway, I'm heading out to CA today for the typical so if you're that way as well hit me up. I'll buy you some real fish and chips this time, maybe. That goes for any other who is Californian too.

Hey! Ill be in California for a couple weeks as well. Mostly in San Diego but probably LA and San Fran as well for a night in each while heading to Oregon.

 

[babe]

This line makes me believe you've never actually read through a Snopes or Wikipedia article...you merely look at the most obvious statement and ignore everything else.

Snopes breaks down for you why it gets a 'pants on fire' rating, and Wikipedia provides other links as references.

As I'm typing this out, I know this is just dumb. I know it's not worth the 90 seconds to put in. But FFS man...

So the reason I chose Snopes is because I did a little investigation of it some months ago, and imo found it was not really impartial, though it does a great pretension/profession of impartiality. The bias is deliberate, and smart. They also won't answer questions about their funding sources. So it's selling a POV. Like most of us.