The ratio of misinformation due to ignorance and agenda driven disinformation has reached a level that we all should be aware of it, the difficulty is in determining truth since sometimes the way to sell a lie is to make it an outrageously big lie.
I wish that I enjoyed the comfort of trust, especially in those that I would like to suppor…
The ratio of misinformation due to ignorance and agenda driven disinformation has reached a level that we all should be aware of it, the difficulty is in determining truth since sometimes the way to sell a lie is to make it an outrageously big lie.
I wish that I enjoyed the comfort of trust, especially in those that I would like to support, but it seems quite impossible and it's getting worse.
As an afterthought, when I was in Vietnam I saw and heard communist propaganda purposed to create racial disharmony in American troops. Sadly, some of it was true. It is always most effective to mix truth and lies.
"I wish that I enjoyed the comfort of trust, especially in those that I would like to support, but it seems quite impossible and it's getting worse."
Yep, it's very hard to know who to trust nowadays. But I do think there are some incredibly obvious examples of untrustworthy people in the public sphere, people who we know, for an indisputable fact, have spent years telling the exact opposite of their true views to millions of people. Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz spring to mind.
On the other side of the political spectrum, we have people like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X Kendi, Judith Butler, Hillary Clinton, I don't think these people, with the exception of Clinton, are as flagrantly dishonest, but they make yp for it by being spectacularly intellectually dishonest which makes their arguments completely moronic.
This is the thing about speech. I'm not at all arguing to limit the kind of speech that ordinary people enjoy. I'm arguing for some checks and balances on people like these, who are enormously influential and simultaneously incredibly damaging to society. It's like the checks and balances that govern trillion dollar financial transaction vs those that affect your purchases.
And I'm not even arguing these people shouldn't be able to say what they want, I'm arguing that their audiences should be reminded that these people have said the exact opposite, or that their arguments have no basis in facts or evidence, or that sweeping generalisations about any group of people are intellectually bankrupt.
We should remind their audiences of these facts on a regular basis. And if they're still dumb enough to follow them, well, at least it's something.
The ratio of misinformation due to ignorance and agenda driven disinformation has reached a level that we all should be aware of it, the difficulty is in determining truth since sometimes the way to sell a lie is to make it an outrageously big lie.
I wish that I enjoyed the comfort of trust, especially in those that I would like to support, but it seems quite impossible and it's getting worse.
As an afterthought, when I was in Vietnam I saw and heard communist propaganda purposed to create racial disharmony in American troops. Sadly, some of it was true. It is always most effective to mix truth and lies.
"I wish that I enjoyed the comfort of trust, especially in those that I would like to support, but it seems quite impossible and it's getting worse."
Yep, it's very hard to know who to trust nowadays. But I do think there are some incredibly obvious examples of untrustworthy people in the public sphere, people who we know, for an indisputable fact, have spent years telling the exact opposite of their true views to millions of people. Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz spring to mind.
On the other side of the political spectrum, we have people like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram X Kendi, Judith Butler, Hillary Clinton, I don't think these people, with the exception of Clinton, are as flagrantly dishonest, but they make yp for it by being spectacularly intellectually dishonest which makes their arguments completely moronic.
This is the thing about speech. I'm not at all arguing to limit the kind of speech that ordinary people enjoy. I'm arguing for some checks and balances on people like these, who are enormously influential and simultaneously incredibly damaging to society. It's like the checks and balances that govern trillion dollar financial transaction vs those that affect your purchases.
And I'm not even arguing these people shouldn't be able to say what they want, I'm arguing that their audiences should be reminded that these people have said the exact opposite, or that their arguments have no basis in facts or evidence, or that sweeping generalisations about any group of people are intellectually bankrupt.
We should remind their audiences of these facts on a regular basis. And if they're still dumb enough to follow them, well, at least it's something.