His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus — a sign they were motivated by something other than science.
Member when the consensus was that smoking is perfectly safe? I member.
“But when people search Google, the best results may not always be first, but the good information is usually near the top. Often you see a pattern in the links of a consensus that’s been formed. But deeper into the process, it often gets weirder. It’s important to know when to stop.”
You see a pattern because Google manipulates search results. It's manufactured consent.
“It sounds so simple, but I think that teaching people how to check their news source by even a quick Wikipedia can have profound effects,” she said.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. They bash the prevalence of biased and untrustworthy sources, but then they recommend using Wikipedia to check if a source is biased or untrustworthy. Wikipedia is as biased as they come lol
It's also another feedback loop since not only is Wikipedia edited by leftist zealots, they only allow establishment MSM links to be used as sources in their articles.
I continuously edit English Wikipedia despite being banned (banned not just blocked), and I'm using references but never use any "establishment MSM links" (at least not ever since I stopped writing about video games and such).
At least about profound effects, she's not wrong. An entire generation of idiots are functionally unable to form an opinion that isn't what someone else generated for them.
It's a dangerous mindset. A lot of the time the shit they say is wrong, but you know the broken clock philosophy. It DOES happen, and you can't let it blind you when it does.
You have a point. A trick is to offer to bad choices and promote one of them so the opposition promotes the other. There is a better answer but it's not covered.
Pretty much. I’ve even heard professors teaching classes where they told people only to use good sources, which they defined as ones that were not right wing. The argument itself was a left-wing argument. They literally told the students to only trust the sources that agreed with them.
Had a conversation with one lefty guy one time, and any time I brought up something he said that was factually just wrong, he always asked where I got that information. If the source of the information wasn’t something like CNN, he didn’t believe it. It’s kind of sad really. A lot of this stuff you can factually still look up if you know how to not just read a headline from CNN.
A lot of media outlets are also gaslighting people openly now, like the NY Times. Jan 6 came up with one guy and I said the only person that died there that day was one of the protestors it would seem, who the cops/security shot. He disagreed and said hundreds of people died. I said they weren’t even armed. He said they all had guns. I asked him for the names of the people that died. If you looked on the NY Times, by then they’d rolled things back and had info on around 6 guys that had strokes or killed themselves the following die, but the protestors didn’t kill anybody, which they didn’t directly state. That’s not what they were telling people before.
Same with the Rittenhouse thing. I made a joke about it to one guy and he said ‘fuck that guy’. I asked why, and he said for shooting all those black people. The people he shot in self-defense weren’t even black. It’s all on camera. It’s super creepy to see what people are willing to believe.
Another guy was going to break up with his GF for not wanting the vax because his mom was sick and he didn’t want her to get Covid. I said if it makes him feel better, her getting the vax wouldn’t stop her transmitting Covid, so it wouldn’t really affect that part of it. People are willing to believe anything when they’re scared and busy. We wouldn’t even be able to know how well the shots did for like 20 years after the fact anyway since it takes that long to test and do all this stuff legitimately.
A lot of media outlets are also gaslighting people openly now, like the NY Times. Jan 6 came up with one guy and I said the only person that died there that day was one of the protestors it would seem, who the cops/security shot. He disagreed and said hundreds of people died. I said they weren’t even armed. He said they all had guns.
You coudl super easily give him NYT articles about all that. With Google dot com and archive.vn.
(It was one cop, an actual retard with a history of losing his gun without even noticing and getting away with it just because he's an LT. The name's Mike Byrd and he looks like an amateur MLK impersonator.)
They are adequately intelligent plenty of the time. It is a social strategy. From your moral framework they appear wormlike and/or extremely unintelligent but that reflects more on you. In a positive light, I should add.
I look at it like a fisherman casting out his friend/enemy distinction bait, seeing who bites so they can reel them up and then decry them as friend or enemy. It's what most social media posting is, constant signaling of what tribe of interpretation one follows and either trying to get into a verbal fight or a verbal jerk-off.
Extra bonus points if they hook a racist and then they get to re-live the civil rights era for a state sanctioned 2 minutes hate.
Genuinely curious what a leftoid ever disbelieves from the media any more. Seems like they will form a moral crusade in support of literally anything spouted from 99% of the mainstream corporate media, while telling themselves that they're free thinkers as long as they reject Tucker Carlson/dissident media/citizen journalists/'right wing tweets'/literally anyone else.
This is a monolith of cognitive dissonance which should have all sorts of weak points, if we're really a thinking species.
The good news? Russia is sending a manned mission to Mars in 2014. The bad news? Russia is sending a rocket full of corpses to Mars in 2014. The real news? Russia will be talking about their Mars mission infrequently and then just stop mentioning it altogether around 2013.
if I had to guess, they're likely talking about what they consider to be authoritative sources that they assume comes from deep assessments and is rigorously fact checked by a prestigious and honorable group of highly intelligent and wise individuals, for which there are consequences if they turn out to be lying.
The first and only required red pill is that all of the above is a lie. Nothing is fact checked, there are no consequences for printing lies almost at all, and every story that has gains traction has gained it because someone either paid for it or a political organization benefits from it. Additionally, academia is one giant circle jerk and any pursuit of the actual truth has long been abandoned.
NY Times told us what they mean by media literacy almost 2 years ago
Short version:
Don't bother investigating claims yourself. Look up the author of what you're reading to see if he is "outside the consensus"
Check Wikipedia for a quick summary if you are unfamiliar with the topic
Check if the site you're reading it on is a mainstream media source. If it is, great! If it isn't, ignore it.
Member when the consensus was that smoking is perfectly safe? I member.
You see a pattern because Google manipulates search results. It's manufactured consent.
You've got to be fucking kidding me. They bash the prevalence of biased and untrustworthy sources, but then they recommend using Wikipedia to check if a source is biased or untrustworthy. Wikipedia is as biased as they come lol
It's also another feedback loop since not only is Wikipedia edited by leftist zealots, they only allow establishment MSM links to be used as sources in their articles.
True lol
Not only, sources like books and papers too.
I continuously edit English Wikipedia despite being banned (banned not just blocked), and I'm using references but never use any "establishment MSM links" (at least not ever since I stopped writing about video games and such).
Nothing is more 'scientific' than unquestioning adherence to dogma. Soyence is the religion of the New Age.
Yeah, the whole thing is ridiculous. But, Wikipedia and Google (and other sites) are biased in their favor, so they're double-plus good!
At least about profound effects, she's not wrong. An entire generation of idiots are functionally unable to form an opinion that isn't what someone else generated for them.
Ahh wikipedia. Great for "When was the Cotton Gin invented", not so great for current events.
They are stupid but I do fear that we are moving in a phase were we take the opposite position to anything leftist without processing it properly.
Oddly enough, taking the opposite position is mostly correct but I still do not like it.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Maybe a temporary ally of convenience.
You can become friends, but you shouldn't let people you hate determine your social life.
It's a dangerous mindset. A lot of the time the shit they say is wrong, but you know the broken clock philosophy. It DOES happen, and you can't let it blind you when it does.
Agreed. You should never let your enemy determine your own position.
You have a point. A trick is to offer to bad choices and promote one of them so the opposition promotes the other. There is a better answer but it's not covered.
Grifters and subversives love brain-dead contrarianism. It makes their work so much easier.
“Media literacy” is the equivalent of saying “why even ask questions”
It's more a knowledge of who are doctrinally approved good guys and who are the evil heretics.
Pretty much. I’ve even heard professors teaching classes where they told people only to use good sources, which they defined as ones that were not right wing. The argument itself was a left-wing argument. They literally told the students to only trust the sources that agreed with them.
Had a conversation with one lefty guy one time, and any time I brought up something he said that was factually just wrong, he always asked where I got that information. If the source of the information wasn’t something like CNN, he didn’t believe it. It’s kind of sad really. A lot of this stuff you can factually still look up if you know how to not just read a headline from CNN.
A lot of media outlets are also gaslighting people openly now, like the NY Times. Jan 6 came up with one guy and I said the only person that died there that day was one of the protestors it would seem, who the cops/security shot. He disagreed and said hundreds of people died. I said they weren’t even armed. He said they all had guns. I asked him for the names of the people that died. If you looked on the NY Times, by then they’d rolled things back and had info on around 6 guys that had strokes or killed themselves the following die, but the protestors didn’t kill anybody, which they didn’t directly state. That’s not what they were telling people before.
Same with the Rittenhouse thing. I made a joke about it to one guy and he said ‘fuck that guy’. I asked why, and he said for shooting all those black people. The people he shot in self-defense weren’t even black. It’s all on camera. It’s super creepy to see what people are willing to believe.
Another guy was going to break up with his GF for not wanting the vax because his mom was sick and he didn’t want her to get Covid. I said if it makes him feel better, her getting the vax wouldn’t stop her transmitting Covid, so it wouldn’t really affect that part of it. People are willing to believe anything when they’re scared and busy. We wouldn’t even be able to know how well the shots did for like 20 years after the fact anyway since it takes that long to test and do all this stuff legitimately.
You coudl super easily give him NYT articles about all that. With Google dot com and archive.vn.
(It was one cop, an actual retard with a history of losing his gun without even noticing and getting away with it just because he's an LT. The name's Mike Byrd and he looks like an amateur MLK impersonator.)
It means only follow "trusted sources"
In other words the outlets that promote "the message" nonstop.
Your mistake was thinking leftists are intellectually honest, and have an iq above room temperature
They are adequately intelligent plenty of the time. It is a social strategy. From your moral framework they appear wormlike and/or extremely unintelligent but that reflects more on you. In a positive light, I should add.
It means you interpret everything the way your openly marxist college professor told you to.
Basically, an understanding of what is
truedebunked conspiracy and what isnotverified.Media indoctrination.
It means "don't ask questions, just consume product, and then get excited for next products."
It means you can twist the news of yesteryear to match the narrative of today.
I look at it like a fisherman casting out his friend/enemy distinction bait, seeing who bites so they can reel them up and then decry them as friend or enemy. It's what most social media posting is, constant signaling of what tribe of interpretation one follows and either trying to get into a verbal fight or a verbal jerk-off.
Extra bonus points if they hook a racist and then they get to re-live the civil rights era for a state sanctioned 2 minutes hate.
Genuinely curious what a leftoid ever disbelieves from the media any more. Seems like they will form a moral crusade in support of literally anything spouted from 99% of the mainstream corporate media, while telling themselves that they're free thinkers as long as they reject Tucker Carlson/dissident media/citizen journalists/'right wing tweets'/literally anyone else.
This is a monolith of cognitive dissonance which should have all sorts of weak points, if we're really a thinking species.
Pravda means truth. (Pravda was/is a Russian newspaper known for being a propaganda arm of the communist USSR)
Pravda is still around. From 2005 (long before Lowtax shot himself) but amusing: https://www.somethingawful.com/news/news-according-russia/
What they mean is "whatever media source leads to the furthest-left interpretation of any given scenario".
if I had to guess, they're likely talking about what they consider to be authoritative sources that they assume comes from deep assessments and is rigorously fact checked by a prestigious and honorable group of highly intelligent and wise individuals, for which there are consequences if they turn out to be lying.
The first and only required red pill is that all of the above is a lie. Nothing is fact checked, there are no consequences for printing lies almost at all, and every story that has gains traction has gained it because someone either paid for it or a political organization benefits from it. Additionally, academia is one giant circle jerk and any pursuit of the actual truth has long been abandoned.
"Media literacy" - not knowing which news outlets are cult outlets
"Common sense" - not being brainwashed into dismissing all non-cult outlets