__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
adjective
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.
Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
Unaware or uninformed; naive.
__________________
Peering from the top of Mount Stupid
This rapid about-face is more than just a change of heart; it's a textbook example of the intellectual dishonesty that plagues much of our political commentary. Riley, a conservative voice at the equally conservative Wall Street Journal, seems less interested in offering consistent, principled analysis and more concerned with stirring the pot, regardless of the direction.
[...]
The next time you read a political opinion piece, remember the Riley Reversal. Ask yourself: Is this a genuine analysis, or just the latest move in a cynical game of political chess?
I am happy to believe this guy is intellectually dishonest and engaged in a deliberate misinformation campaign because he is a) a conservative, b) writing for the WSJ, c) whose analysis in the second case is inconsistent with his analysis in the first, and c1) contrary to my own analysis.
But this makes me wonder if I would read the situation differently if a) the author was a lefty, b) writing in .. I don't know, The Nation, c) whose analysis was inconsistent with a recent position they had taken, that was c1) contrary to my own analysis.
I try to be a critical consumer of media but I think I would be much more likely to give the author in the second scenario more benefit of the doubt because of my own personal bias against conservatives and the WSJ and affinity/trust with lefties and The Nation. So I might defend such an author by arguing that he just changed his mind (as we are all wont to do), or he is looking at it from a different angle and therefore coming to a different conclusion, or whatever.
This is just me thinking aloud, not making any claims or god forbid defending this guy. As I said I'm happy to believe he's a fraud. I just think in the spirit of ensuring that we are being critical consumers of content then we should also question the implication that if an author contradicts themselves in a short period of time, they are not only inconsistent but unprincipled, and thus neither article represents a 'genuine analysis'". Maybe one point I'm making is that two separate analyses of the same situation might be both 'genuine' (as in internally consistent and earnest) and completely contradictory.
I'm not sure if it's actually fraud, but lots and lots of people, and the media, do this stupid shit where they say two things, that contridict themselves, but don't even see that they did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -FX-
Rather than sidetrack what is almost a perfect thread ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Only peacegirl could look at two diametrically opposite takes on the same subject, allegedly written by the same person, and conclude there is no contradiction, nope, nothing to see here, folks!
I found that claim about peacegirl so enormously stupid, I started a thread about it. And used examples. It happens so often, it literally happens all the time. So I found the claim, "Only peacegirl could look at two diametrically opposite takes on the same subject, allegedly written by the same person, and conclude there is no contradiction" to be hilarious, in the extreme.
It was as if somebody claimed "Only peacegirl could look at a man pretending to be a woman and conclude it must be an actual woman". Or perhaps some other example. There are so very man these days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -FX-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
It's the way the internet is going, no nuanced or researched thought, only out of context drama posts for max emotional winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -FX-
It's so common, there is an old adage about it, “it depends on whose ox is being gored.”
This simple and very old saying has all kinds of meaning, but the most basic one is easy to grasp. In fact almost any human who has lived very long understands it in a very real way.
We are FAR more likely to take offense to a dubious comment or action when that comment or action is directed against what we see as our own interests. For example, we might think that it is inappropriate to call for the death of the President of the United States if we support that president. If the same comment is directed at a president we don't support, we are more likely to overlook it or even defend it.
And the person doing it doesn't even realize there is a huge contradiction. In fact they find if offensive if it involves their own ox, but are not bothered at all when it's the ox they despise.
If you don't already know this, then the very fact I have to explain this means you are are either actually stupid, or willfully ignorant, or some sort of liar. Maybe just delusional.
This concept applies to our disgust. mistrust or just plain hatred of the media, and any other whore writing online.
The idea is that we are often complacent about things because our interests are not being affected.
Or we think they are not.
It might be intellectual laziness, and when we think a little harder we see that indeed, it is our ox that is being gored. In the sense that this bullshit actually is damaging you, and you don't know it.
Yet.
Here's a short story that illustrates it.
The Man from When
by Dannie Plachta
Mr. Smith was about to mix a moderately rationed Martini for himself when a thunderous explosion quaked through his house, upsetting the open bottle of Vermouth. After applying a steadying hand to the gin bottle, and while the ice cubes still tinkled maniacally in their shuddering bowl, he sprinted outside. An incandescent glare a hundred yards from the house destroyed the purple sunset he had been admiring not five minutes earlier. “Oh, my God!” he said, and ran back in to phone the state police.
As Smith was procuring a heady draught of gin directly from the bottle, he was further alarmed by a steadily gushing hiss from beyond his open front door. When the sound persisted for a full minute, he went cautiously to the porch to find an intense mist rising from the area of the fiery thing he had viewed moments earlier. Somewhat awed, and thoroughly scared, he watched and waited for about five minutes. Just as he was about to go inside for another belt of gin, a man walked out of the fog and said,
“Good evening.”
“Good evening,” said Mr. Smith. “Are you the police?”
“Oh, no,” answered the stranger. “I’m from that,” he said, pointing a finger into the mist. “My cooling equipment finally kicked into high.”
“You’re a spaceman,” Smith decided.
“I only came a few hundred miles,” shrugged the stranger modestly. “Mostly, I’m a time traveler.” He paused to light a dark cheroot. “The one and only time traveler,” he added, with a touch of pride in his voice.
“The real McCoy, eh? Well, come on in and have a drink. Vermouth’s all gone, but I saved the gin.”
“Be glad to,” said the stranger, as they walked in together.
“Past or future?” wondered Smith, handing the bottle to his guest.
“From the future,” replied the time traveler after a satisfying pause. “Hits the spot,” he smiled, returning the bottle.
“Well,” said Smith, sitting down and making himself comfortable, “I guess you’ll want to tell me all about it.”
“Yes, thank you, I would.”
“Feel free,” said Smith, passing the bottle.
“Well, I had my final calculations, with the usual plus or minus. . . .” He paused for another sip of gin. “And of course it was the minus that had me a little worried.”
“But you took the chance,” interjected Smith.
“Naturally. And as it happened, there was some minus. Just enough to destroy the world.”
“That is too bad,” Smith commented, reaching for the bottle.
“Yes. You see, there was such an expenditure of energy that it completely wiped out the Earth of my time. The force blasted me all the way through space to this spot. By the way, I am sorry if I disturbed you.”
“It was nothing, nothing at all. Forget it.”
“Well, in any event, I took the chance and I’m not sorry. A calculated risk, but I proved my point. In spite of everything, I still think it was worth it. What do you think?”
“Well, as you said, you took the chance; you proved your point. I suppose it was worth it.” Smith took a final drink, saving a few glimmering drops for his guest. “By the way, how far from the future did you travel?”
The time traveler grabbed the gin bottle and consulted his watch. “Eighteen minutes,” he replied.
“It wasn’t worth it,” said Smith.
Yes I know this is weighty, deep, and yes this is the internet. Most people won't even read, because they have so little time, and it's precious, and wasting it on such matters as this is not worth it.
(of course they always have time to post a hundred idiotic responses, or post some puerile insult, but that's another story)
I don't write this because I think it will matter, sway your opinion, cause some change.
That would be foolish. I do it because of the enjoyment of writing. I enjoy a brief excursion into taking the time to do some research, and try and cobble together a meaningful post.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Unless you are paying attention, you can't know that the MSM has simply ignored the biggest story of the year.
As well as the next 4 top stories.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
It also doesn't help that the Democratic party has been crying wolf about the Republican candidate bringing about the end of democracy in every election in my lifetime. I believe it this time, but unsurprisingly most people just roll their eyes.
Is it just me? I see no images here anymore. (this is not a bad thing, but still)
I can see avatars, but no other images.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
Sometimes on my phone I get a question-mark-style placeholder image, instead of some of the post icons and other small images. But it looks fine on my laptop. Maybe I have the images cached.
Same. I did a hard clean on forum related links and it sorted for a short period and came right back.
The images are still missing. I thought about trying to fix it, then realized who gives a fuck?
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
That being said, in order to make the above post, I had to click the "quote" image, which is now showing up.
I will experiment and see if that works on all of the missing images.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
Re: Why the Mainstream Media Really Sucks
Re: Why the Mainstream Media Really Sucks
Linear Mode
