ChatterBank16 mins ago
Are 'compulsive Believers' More Dangerous...
.. than 'compulsive liars'?
Is this piece complete nonsense and an insult to suggest that people are so easily brainwashed?
https:/
Is this piece complete nonsense and an insult to suggest that people are so easily brainwashed?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vortex. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not sure how easily we who take the time to come on sites such as this are able to judge how mass politics works. We, generally, take the time to read up and try to understand the political landscape whereas the vast majority of people don't. Their only contact with politics is reactionary and heavily influenced by their peers. It has nearly always been the proletariat's desire to overthrow the government of the day, regardless of their political standing. We are now seeing figures who realise this and are pandering to 'our' desires to revolt by promising us the world which we crave. Unfortunately, many of their promises are hollow as is beginning to be seen in the US.
The article is largely cobblers but it does have a few grains of truth.
It could be said that those of us who bother to involve ourselves in threads such as this have the wherewithal to scratch the surface of politics but we're a small minority and we don't represent how the majority of our peers interact with politics.
The article is largely cobblers but it does have a few grains of truth.
It could be said that those of us who bother to involve ourselves in threads such as this have the wherewithal to scratch the surface of politics but we're a small minority and we don't represent how the majority of our peers interact with politics.
I think that there is a real danger that with the press and politicians pushing 'facts' to their credulous readers and supporters, we're now getting to a very dangerous place.
Take for instance the mosque attack in Québec City last week.
We had Fox News claiming that the attacker was of Moroccan origin, who shouted Allah Akbar as he opened fire.
This was nonsense.
Absolutely and completely false. The alleged shooter was French-Canadian far-right sympathiser Alexandre Bissonnette.
However, this didn't stop Sean Spicer from jumping in an using the killing as a justification for Trump's Muslim ban.
Even though the shooter was not Muslim.
At all.
Take for instance the mosque attack in Québec City last week.
We had Fox News claiming that the attacker was of Moroccan origin, who shouted Allah Akbar as he opened fire.
This was nonsense.
Absolutely and completely false. The alleged shooter was French-Canadian far-right sympathiser Alexandre Bissonnette.
However, this didn't stop Sean Spicer from jumping in an using the killing as a justification for Trump's Muslim ban.
Even though the shooter was not Muslim.
At all.
Sp1814 //I think that there is a real danger that with the press and politicians pushing 'facts' to their credulous readers and supporters, we're now getting to a very dangerous place. //
But can viewers and readers discern the facts for themselves or are they so incapable they will just believe what is spoon-fed to them?
In other words, compulsive believers really are more dangerous perhaps?
But can viewers and readers discern the facts for themselves or are they so incapable they will just believe what is spoon-fed to them?
In other words, compulsive believers really are more dangerous perhaps?
vortex
Unfortunately it's not how news works now.
In the pre-Internet age, we had newspapers with large pools or reporters who would work independently, accessing a variety of sources in order to produce reports.
These reports would be verified within a 24 hour news cycle.
That has now completely changed. News as we know it now is instantaneous and often gleaned from the same sources, without due diligence on fact-checking. What we now see is the same reports from multiple news feeds, all reporting the same unchecked stories.
If, for instance, you see a story in the Independent and want to verify it against another source, you will often find that the Times, Mail, Mirror and Sun are all carrying the name story, lifted from the wire with the same errors.
And once a story is 'in the wild', the truth often gets buried in the snowstorm of opinion and confirmation bias.
Unfortunately it's not how news works now.
In the pre-Internet age, we had newspapers with large pools or reporters who would work independently, accessing a variety of sources in order to produce reports.
These reports would be verified within a 24 hour news cycle.
That has now completely changed. News as we know it now is instantaneous and often gleaned from the same sources, without due diligence on fact-checking. What we now see is the same reports from multiple news feeds, all reporting the same unchecked stories.
If, for instance, you see a story in the Independent and want to verify it against another source, you will often find that the Times, Mail, Mirror and Sun are all carrying the name story, lifted from the wire with the same errors.
And once a story is 'in the wild', the truth often gets buried in the snowstorm of opinion and confirmation bias.
Agree 100% !
his is exactly what I have been saying for a long time now. ::
“Rednecks” are also embarrassingly evident among Britain’s expensively educated conservative commentators, who cannot see how the world has changed. They say that of course they don’t support everything Trump does. Their throats cleared and backs covered, they insist that the real enemy is his “foaming” and “hysterical” critics whose opposition to the alt-right is not a legitimate protest by democratic citizens but an “elitist” denial of democracy itself."
Says it all really doesn't it !
his is exactly what I have been saying for a long time now. ::
“Rednecks” are also embarrassingly evident among Britain’s expensively educated conservative commentators, who cannot see how the world has changed. They say that of course they don’t support everything Trump does. Their throats cleared and backs covered, they insist that the real enemy is his “foaming” and “hysterical” critics whose opposition to the alt-right is not a legitimate protest by democratic citizens but an “elitist” denial of democracy itself."
Says it all really doesn't it !
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.