You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Spreading "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories"... This is a phrase I am hearing/reading more often these days.

in Informationwar3 months ago

In speech I find it difficult to not get angry at times with people I see as asshats. In a typing format it is much easier to remain calm cool and keep my thoughts together. If some one acts out against you, and you retaliate things go south very fast, if you make a calm reasoned reply, then that begins to shake the cobwebs out of the person in some cases.

In my way of thinking misinformation is any information that goes against the current narrative set by people. To a flat earther, anyone presenting information that the earth is round is spreading misinformation. The divisions have been made, and the government and other groups and organizations are making the divides even smaller, soon it will be back to that experiment with blue eyed and brown eyed people.

Sort:  

I agree. That is my concern anytime I hear someone talk about policing the "misinformation".

Who becomes the police that decides what information is true, and which is false? Why should they be considered the "arbiter of truth"?

Have their actions shown them to be consistently trust worthy?

As you hinted at there have been some notoriously bad/evil people in the past that were certain they were speaking the truth and simply trying to stomp out the "misinformation".

But there are some things that are empirically true no matter what someone thinks or are you saying empirical truth is relative to the one positing information.

If someone says, "Academics are wrong 1+1 is really 3 join me in exposing the truth" - that's empirically wrong. Am I an "arbiter of truth" for pointing out that they are spreading misinformation?

If someone says, "Academics are wrong 1+1 is really 3 join me in exposing the truth" - that's empirically wrong.

While I agree with you. Framing and perspective can change a lot of things.

1+1 could be concatenation if it is strings. Thus it would be eleven. (11).

If it were binary the first digit is worth 1, and the second is worth 2 so add them together you get 3. Yet you used a mathematical operator so anyone that tried to push that narrative would be making crap up. 1+1 in binary would be 01 or 10 depending upon whether you are using Little Endian or Big Endian but the value would still be 2. Making what you are talking about correct.

I can't think of any case where 2+2=5 is true though. :)

"empirically true" requires carefully defined constraints and rules of discussion. If those are defined then yes there are things that are certain.

If they are not true then perspectives can make things be out of alignment. It thus becomes important to set up definitions and expectations before debating/discussing something.

Also people hide behind TRUE frequently. TRUTH itself is subjective. What you consider truth will be based around YOUR knowledge, the things you have observed, etc. Since there are things all of us don't know as we learn new things our TRUTH can shift.

The things that don't shift are the things we generally refer to as FACTS. While TRUTH and FACTS are often treated as synonyms they are actually not.

Isn't philosophy a fun thing... it keeps us mentally dancing.

Damn... nice response, well done. Wish I would have lead with 2+2=5. LOL. I hate Philosophy 😁

The things that don't shift are the things we generally refer to as FACTS. While TRUTH and FACTS are often treated as synonyms they are actually not.

I think that statement is bang on and where we end up in the weeds. If I think back to many of my arguments(err discussions) they fluttered between my TRUTH and FACTS. My TRUTH is biased based on my understanding and knowledge.

Appreciate your answer. Enjoyed it a lot.

I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about this. Can you tell? I love philosophy. :)

Yes, you can tell. I was being facetious, no offence. I really do enjoy good thought-provoking discussions. I still find myself egotistically and emotionally bound to certain topics but I'm learning. Although I could be biased ;-)

I still find myself egotistically and emotionally bound to certain topics but I'm learning. Although I could be biased ;-)

Me too friend. We all make mistakes. All we can try to do is learn and improve or likelihood of keeping them in check, or noticing and reigning them in as early as possible.

I took no offense. I enjoyed it. If I took offense so what... it is part of life. A mature person wouldn't cancel or hate you for being offensive. :)

It can be easy to momentarily forget that our truth is simply that. Ours. We can lose track of the FACTS and start to apply our own bias in interpretation.

It's not completely avoidable as we are human. Yet we can become aware of it and hopefully keep it from steering us wrong too often.

You are just getting to know me. I have a real pet peeve when it comes to absolutes (most often are not true) and generalizations (really just a different category of absolute).

It makes it hard for me to think of anything that I believe should be censored for being misinformation.

There is no one that I absolutely trust. This includes myself, because I debate internally with myself frequently, and thus change my mind frequently.

There is an upside to this maybe.

I'll listen/read/watch anyone talk about ANYTHING. I can do so without fear they are going to corrupt my mind. I can listen without believing them. I can also listen and think some parts of what they are saying don't make sense to me, yet I might see some parts that do.

Instead of zoning in on something I disagree with and then tossing out the entire thing I can sometimes still find some bits of value in the whole.

Since I don't believe anyone completely EVERYTHING is potentially misinformation as far as I am concerned.

The key is whether someone is knowingly telling you something they know is false. That is what we call a lie. "knowingly" is the keyword there.

If a person believes what they are telling you is true then they are not lying. They can still be incorrect, but it isn't a lie.

Loading...
Loading...