Being mindful of our specific news sources.

Post Reply New Topic

And some have a penchant for Miss Representation.
She is quite attractive but lacks integrity.

Guys & gals, I have dyslexia and bork at large posts.
Don't take it personally if I fail to read/reply.

I've never understood why people outsource their thinking to others...Or what motivates others to encourage that sort of behaviour, rather than encouraging people to do their own research and thinking for themselves...

I prefer Patriot Pigeon, who drops red, white and blue turds of justice.

But seriously, I mostly use ABC, CNN and Reuters.

Reuters is not unbiased either
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters

It is naive to believe that anyone is above influence from outside sources. You’ve linked information that likely exerted biased influences on you that I don’t think you were fully aware of; it happens to the best of us, no matter how hard we try. The real point is, of course, that you have to try.

Still, the idea that we should never take advantage of someone else’s thought process is naive, as well. Understanding what facts mean requires context, and unless you’ve lived everything and done everything and memorized every ounce of information available worldwide, you can’t possibly always have the context needed on your own.

I find the idea of being a member of a groupthink tank, embarrassing.
I used to think most autistics venerated individuality.
Sadly, I don't any longer.

Some people literally believe their political narrative to the last nut and bolt.
These people are referred to as "Useful Idiots" by the political hierarchy on either side of the political divide.

Then you have those who engage in perpetual unwanted debates, where anything goes in their game of one-upmanship, including misrepresentation and character assassination.
These people obviously lack integrity.
Damn, do I find that tedious.

Much of what happens in politics is one big peeing competition.
I'd rather stay dry, whenever possible, but the truth must be defended.

The skunk has spoken.

I am sure you don't mean to be, but you are rather condescending.

Bictoria is one of the most intelligent people here, and he puts my legalese understanding to shame.
He is my hero.

The more enlightened people amongst us realise the existence of unconscious bias and the effects of our genetic programming.
It is not a matter of elimination.
It is a matter of maintenance.



You do the best you can with what you have at the time.

As I have stated previously, I adopt "Scientific Methodology" and will incorporate new information when it becomes available.
I have to gasp when some profoundly/committedly jump to conclusions, lock their thinking, and throw away the key.
This is the hallmark of a closed mind and an indication, in this context, of mindless hyperpartisanship. Gasp!

Everyone needs to be challenged on their assumptions about themselves. It's essential to maintaining a critical eye. Bictoria will know the video I saw more bias in than he did, and my reasons why. It doesn't mean I don't respect him, but I also know he isn't always right. Nor am I.

Still, I accept that my tone isn't always as intended. I keep working on it.

What are your assumptions about yourself? I was genuinely disturbed by your posts in the Biden blackmail thread, I didn't remember you being so nakedly partisan as to turn every question about Biden back to Trump and otherwise dismiss a story you readily admitted to not following, even as people who did follow it were providing citations.

Do me a favor and go back through that thread and read your own replies to people, particularly your early deflection to Trump, your trust in the social media companies to act in a neutral manner, and your belief that it was unbelievable that an admitted drug addict (who literally wrote a book about doing all the drugs) could possibly have forgotten to pick up a laptop from a repair shop. Be honest about how it looks to someone who doesn't share your politics.

Being reliably informed is exhausting and honestly of questionable worth for most people, it's taken me years to winnow down to a handful of specific journalists at different outlets whom I trust on specific issues, and even then I check them against each other, it takes about 2 hours a day minimum, and I read and retain very quickly. Axios is pretty not bad for just having a surface view without too much bias and not taking all day, where as following individual journalists on Twitter and reading between the lines can give you a jump on the news cycle, but takes a lot of time and effort not to be lead astray.

I've really come to believe though that this is academic for most people, I actually like this stuff and have to pay attention to politics due to my hobbies, but for the average normie type, keeping up with the news cycle and having an accurate idea of what is going on in the world is a lot of effort for not much return, you can't even win arguments with it because most people just believe whatever reinforces their views regardless of what you tell them and how much proof you have.

The hell you say!
Not even Fnord is always right.

Yes, you are sounding very autistic by telling us what we already know.
I come across that way too, sometimes often.

My assumption about myself is that my level of insightfulness or lack thereof varies by mood and level of interest. I know from my professional work that when I'm "on" I can sort through complex material and tie together the most applicable concepts accurately about 99% of the time. And, like most people, I love to "win." But ... I don't come on internet boards trying to "win" or to be particularly insightful; it's a distraction. When I'm not "on," I'm highly inconsistent. I try to be honest in news discussions about exactly how on top of it - or not - I am, but I know I sometimes forget to write the extra words it takes to be so. I try to stay clear on opinion v fact, using terms like "I think" or "I recall" instead of "is." I'm trained to be precise about such word choices. But, again, actual track record is imperfect. The thing about the Biden laptop is that I DID research it extensively more than a year ago, but as I've admitted, I didn't find it necessary to hold onto the details because by my research back then there was significant proof it couldn't be his. I don't remember the proof because it wasn't that important to me and I don't consider it important enough to look for again. Whatever antics he engages in are pretty irrelevant because he holds no office and isn't an advisor to or surrogate for his father. So my participation in the debate was just casual conversation, although I DID follow out Bictoria's sources.

I did go back through the Biden thread, and unless I went to the wrong thread or missed a post, you are incorrect about my deflection to Trump. I only mentioned Trump in response to someone else mentioning him or his family first.

I'm not going to hide that after 4 years of Trump making sure the world focused on him intently, I've concluded that Trump is a horrible person and danger to our Constitution. I think a little rant from me found it's way onto these boards in a different thread. I can't deny that positive mentions of Trump push my buttons. Back in 2016 I found him fully unqualified and opposed many of the political positions he was running on, but I actually still "liked" him. In the past I've had some shared business connections, and I thought the early seasons of The Apprentice were brilliant. I didn't WANT him to turn out to be as dangerous to our Democracy as I've since concluded he is. I wanted him to mature into the office and do for the working class red state voters what he said he would. But it doesn't take that much intense observation to gather proof that he is all slight of hand, say one thing and do another, and I was absolutely relieved when the election went against him, as was nearly everyone I know. Even my most conservative friends have said that he is not a good or trustworthy person, but some weighed the scales on issues they cared strongly about and voted for him anyway. He did deliver for them with tax cuts, deregulation and court appointments, and I won't argue that, but most have been appalled at his actions since the election. I generally like people, I really enjoy knowing people of all sorts of unique views and differences, and there are very very few people I dislike or am willing to judge negatively. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. But if someone loses me, they lose me hard, and Trump, by his actions since 2016, has more than lost me. Most of his behavior is more consistent with a mob boss than a statesman, and that is only the actions I can see first hand, discounting so much more that can't be proven. I credit him with knowing how to play the game to keep his hands clean, like most successful business men do. I've worked with people like him; I seen the game played first hand; I have no doubts about what I see with him. It isn't the news media influencing me; it's the clues in what he, himself, says and used to post on Twitter. I do believe I know the pattern.

As for social media companies, it isn't so much that I trust them to act in a neutral manner as knowing that the biases of their different founders are not one-sided. There are strongly biased conservatives in the group. So when they ALL censor a fact as false, I think the odds are good the fact IS false. I also believe its a matter of self-preservation for them: if they don't do a fair job, they will lose their independence. They are on the hot seat and a lot of eyes are on them; the fact that we have private companies acting as the arbitrators of truth is pretty bizarre. I don't believe they can risk ticking off too many lawmakers and justice officials or the landscape they operate in might be reshaped by new laws and restrictions. I've paired with some conservative friends at times to dig into the weeds of conservative statements that were censored, and we've always found evidence that the censored item was truly false. There are false items posted by liberals, as well, and I point that out to my liberal friends, as well. I know people on both sides of the political isle that I think go far down the rabbit hole and lose perspective. It is sooo easy to do on the internet. I've had my own moments.

There is a standard by which we can ascertain the reliability of information, and that is the rules of evidence for court. But not everything ends up run through the standards of a legal proceeding.

Mostly I'm frustrated at how the world has changed when it comes to news and information. It isn't practical for the average citizen to spend hours each day trying to sort fact from fiction, bias from core. It wasn't like that when I was young, and the reasons it has changed are a whole long conversation I won't launch into. I truly believe in the will of the people, but it is getting pretty scary knowing how little accurate information most people have to use when making their decisions. Still, I'm not about to get on the "quality of the vote matters" bandwagon because that is a very undemocratic concept.

So ... I rambled a bit, didn't I? It's what I do when I'm working past midnight and letting myself get distracted. Better get back to the paid project I need to finish.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 23 Aug 2021, 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

I actually took the time to read your post and agree with everything you put forward.
You really shouldn't have to defend your position if you are comfortable with your values and how you stand with your understanding of right and wrong. Most rationale people come to the same conclusion about Trump.

Why else would anyone post on news boards?