|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t see what the source has to do with the information—if the claims are true, you have to deal with them regardless of who makes them. It’s not like an issue of framing where a news source massages a meaning into events through analysis and selective focus. Perhaps a person tries to destroy America by telling it something about itself: I don’t see how the ethical response is to ignore that information by saying, “they only want to destroy America, therefore I cannot acknowledge this.” The mechanism you are describing, framing, is not just a "news" issue. It's a mediation issue. Organizations like Wikileaks are still mediators. They do not stop being so because you find the information they are providing appealing.
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The mechanism you are describing, framing, is not just a "news" issue. It's a mediation issue. Organizations like Wikileaks are still mediators. They do not stop being so because you find the information they are providing appealing. It’s hard to discuss in the abstract, but I think the question is, “who cares how someone is massaging information or what context is missing if the information is true?” If it’s lies, just prove that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:It’s hard to discuss in the abstract, but I think the question is, “who cares how someone is massaging information or what context is missing if the information is true?” If it’s lies, just prove that. The context of information, let alone how it is "massaged", is not separable from its content, because you want to believe it. Absent critical analysis of its context, you cannot actually tell if it's true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:21
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t see what the source has to do with the information—if the claims are true, you have to deal with them regardless of who makes them. selec posted:All that may be true, but it doesn’t speak to the value of the information he published, much of which was so valuable the Washington Post and other outlets republished it. Information does not exist in a vacuum. Its value is directly proportional to its verifiability. In cases where you cannot verify it, or find other parties who are able to do so independently, you have to fall back on the trustworthiness and reliability of the source, as well as any mediators that source may have relied on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The context of information, let alone how it is "massaged", is not separable from its content, because you want to believe it. Absent critical analysis of its context, you cannot actually tell if it's true. Are you saying here that truth and falsehood don’t exist? That meaning is open to an endless chain of signification and can never be settled? Surely if someone manufactured a message and said I sent it, I could make some move toward proving it was forged. If someone tried to make me look bad by taking something I said out of context, I could contextualize it. Of course, the question of whether that context was relevant or whether I was really taken out of context would be a matter of interpretation, but there could be some ground under which we could attempt the operation, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:29
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Are you saying here that truth and falsehood don’t exist? That meaning is open to an endless chain of signification and can never be settled? Surely if someone manufactured a message and said I sent it, I could make some move toward proving it was forged. If someone tried to make me look bad by taking something I said out of context, I could contextualize it. Of course, the question of whether that context was relevant or whether I was really taken out of context would be a matter of interpretation, but there could be some ground under which we could attempt the operation, right? Yes, and you're specifically arguing against considering the sources of information, context, framing, "massaging" and their motivations in evaluating the truth value of information. Mediation affects the content of messages. You don't get to ignore it if you are evaluating media. If the context suggests that the information is likely to be compromised, then you do not continue to assume it is true because you want it to be. Read your earlier posts. You're starting with the truth of the information and then working backwards. That's the wrong way to go about it. From the OP: quote:If you agree with something, look harder
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:33
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Information does not exist in a vacuum. Its value is directly proportional to its verifiability. In cases where you cannot verify it, or find other parties who are able to do so independently, you have to fall back on the trustworthiness and reliability of the source, as well as any mediators that source may have relied on. How do you determine trustworthiness of the source though? Why is the Clinton campaign any more trustworthy than the FSB? Who is making that call? Is 'trustworthiness' a universal measure? How can I tell who has more trust? Whats the SI unit for trust?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Yes, and you're specifically arguing against considering the sources of information, context, framing, "massaging" and their motivations in evaluating the truth value of information. Mediation affects the content of messages. You don't get to ignore it if you are evaluating media. If the context suggests that the information is likely to be compromised, then you do not continue to assume it is true because you want it to be. I’m asking if it’s possible to investigate a truth claim. Like if I say something happened, isn’t it possible in theory to figure out whether or not it happened? I don’t have anything to do with whether or not the event happened: all we would be doing is investing the accuracy of my claim. How am I relevant to investigation of my truth claim? It exists independently of me, even if I’m making it because it serves some interest of mine. Of course it might not be possible to determine the truth, in which case it seems like nobody takes the claim seriously most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:41
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I’m asking if it’s possible to investigate a truth claim. Like if I say something happened, isn’t it possible in theory to figure out whether or not it happened? I don’t have anything to do with whether or not the event happened: all we would be doing is investing the accuracy of my claim. How am I relevant to investigation of my truth claim? It exists independently of me, even if I’m making it because it serves some interest of mine. Of course it might not be possible to determine the truth, in which case it seems like nobody takes the claim seriously most of the time. Almost no information is meaningfully not mediated. Mediation affects the content and interpretation of messages. The "massaging", context and framing of messages also changes their content, because they all require interpretation. There is a chart of this in the OP. Please go read the OP. If this wasn't an issue we wouldn't have problems with sources in USNews and we wouldn't have this thread. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Almost no information is meaningfully not mediated. Mediation affects the content and interpretation of messages. The "massaging", context and framing of messages also changes their content, because they all require interpretation. There is a chart of this in the OP. Please go read the OP. If I claimed the North Church burned down last night, could we figure out if I was telling the truth?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If I claimed the North Church burned down last night, could we figure out if I was telling the truth? Who reported the story? Why did they report it? What is the context? Is it a hit piece on churches? Does reading the story make you feel good? Do you agree with the statement that the church burned down? Maybe you should examine your feelings on theism No, you can't just go look at it. Go read the OP. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 02:08
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Who reported the story? Why did they report it? What is the context? Is it a hit piece on churches? Does reading the story make you feel good? Do you agree with the statement that the church burned down? Maybe you should examine your feelings on theism I’m reporting the story directly to you. What would stop you from investigating my claim, and couldn’t you do so regardless of how you feel about the claim? Scientists do this every day. Are we really setting out the claim that knowledge is impossible? Edit: the op is about representation. I’m curious about epistemology. If that’s not interesting, you can tell me to get lost. I AM GRANDO fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 02:13
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If I claimed the North Church burned down last night, could we figure out if I was telling the truth? Depends on which North Church you're talking about. There's dozens. You could be saying the North Church in Appleton burnt down last night when it didn't, but the North Church in Goatsetown did burn down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I’m reporting the story directly to you. What would stop you from investigating my claim, and couldn’t you do so regardless of how you feel about the claim? Scientists do this every day. Are we really setting out the claim that knowledge is impossible? Facts are the sphere on a frictionless plane of truth - they may be a useful simplification for certain uses, but they are not what you encounter in the real world. In the real world you encounter stories. And unlike facts, stories' truth depends on the teller's intent and agenda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 02:54
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Depends on which North Church you're talking about. There's dozens. You could be saying the North Church in Appleton burnt down last night when it didn't, but the North Church in Goatsetown did burn down. I don’t think it does. The question is whether you could, in theory, figure out if I was telling the truth. Are you saying that’s too hard to do I practice, or not possible in theory? I don’t think having to take the subway downtown or fly somewhere makes the project impossible in reality or theoretically impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t think it does. The question is whether you could, in theory, figure out if I was telling the truth. Are you saying that’s too hard to do I practice, or not possible in theory? I don’t think having to take the subway downtown or fly somewhere makes the project impossible in reality or theoretically impossible. I can only determine the truth if I know for certain which specific North Church you were referring to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I don’t think it does. The question is whether you could, in theory, figure out if I was telling the truth. Are you saying that’s too hard to do I practice, or not possible in theory? I don’t think having to take the subway downtown or fly somewhere makes the project impossible in reality or theoretically impossible. A black man was killed by a police officer. A former criminal was shot by an officer during an encounter. Can both statements be true? Are both saying the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 03:10
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:I can only determine the truth if I know for certain which specific North Church you were referring to. Are you saying it’s impossible to investigate a truth claim? Of course you can find it out yourself without any semantic clarification from me. You don’t need to know which location I’m naming if there are a finite number of locations, should you want to investigate the truth value of the claim. Just begin empirical investigation of each location in whatever manner seems good enough for you. The discussion here as I understand it is moving between a kind of old-fashioned poststructuralism making claims about the nature of language and its relationship to truth (that I guess are valid as far as they go, but which people can basically cope with) and a kind of positivism that is comfortable dismissing a claim because it comes from wikileaks. A poststructuralist would probably agree that one’s embeddedness within history, culture, ideology, etc means that there is no simple act of “proving” something to be true or false, but they’d probably also say such a claim commits you to the same absolute-degree skepticism of everything, meaning that wikileaks is no more believable than the New York Times or Toynbee or Hobsbawm, and also no less. I’m asking if it’s possible to investigate the truth value of a claim that comes from wikileaks, or anyone, by doing anything other than saying “they are enemies of America and for that reason cannot be trusted.” Of course wikileaks might lie to you, or try to create an environment where truth becomes difficult to determine. I’m asking you if it’s possible to determine whether an email purported to be by Hillary Clinton is actually by Hillary Clinton, regardless of who is proffering it to you. This kind of effort seems to be undertaken pretty often, even in recognition of the fact that language is unstable and there is no outside from ideology etc etc. When a woman employed by James O’Keefe approached the Washington Post claiming that Roy Moore pressured her into getting an abortion, they were able to figure out that she was lying. They accomplished that through some manner of empirical investigation more complex than figuring out that James O’Keefe was paying her, and this was possible even though certain aspects of the claim were not investigable (the sexual assault was described as happening in private between two people only etc) and even though they were situated ideologically and aware of that in at least the naive sense taught in journalism school. Is this not typically possible? I don’t want to come off as combative here, and I’m not necessarily refusing your perspective, but I am having some trouble understanding it. An untrustworthy person can tell the truth and a trustworthy person (however you choose to construct that) can tell you something untrue. How do you cope with that if your analysis hinges on the source?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 04:28
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Are you saying it’s impossible to investigate a truth claim? How did you get that from what I said? I didn't say it's impossible, I was trying to say that the example you gave of a truth claim isn't as simple and clear cut as you implied. For example, there's the possibility that someone who says "the North Church burnt down" might be deliberately trying to run someone ragged by implying, but not stating, that they meant the local North Church, whereas in reality they were referring to a North Church three thousand miles away. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
The leaked DNC emails were either entirely legitimate OR they were not. That’s a dichotomy , where are the shades of gray here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 07:12
|
|
|
lil poopendorfer posted:The leaked DNC emails were either entirely legitimate OR they were not. That’s a dichotomy , where are the shades of gray here? Not entirely true, again, sowing bad info among a legit leak was a common Intelligence Service practice. Sometimes to attack their enemies, sometimes to find out who was the leaker, or to enhance the response.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not entirely true, again, sowing bad info among a legit leak was a common Intelligence Service practice. Sometimes to attack their enemies, sometimes to find out who was the leaker, or to enhance the response. It is true. Either all the documents leaked were accurate or not all of the documents leaked accurate. If not all of the documents leaked were accurate, then some of the documents leaked may have been accurate, but it is still a legitimate dichotomy. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It is true. Either all the documents leaked were accurate or not all of the documents leaked accurate. If not all of the documents leaked were accurate, then some of the documents leaked may have been accurate, but it is still a legitimate dichotomy. True, but I'm just saying saying its all or none ignores how leaks, especially intelligence org driven ones, work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 17:24
|
|
|
How is this line of discussion relevant? The epistemological one I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:How is this line of discussion relevant? The epistemological one I mean. I'd say the study of Jeffery Epstein is central to this whole discussion 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:How is this line of discussion relevant? The epistemological one I mean. It seemed to me that some of the posts above were saying that wikileaks could never release true information because wikileaks wants to manipulate public opinion, and that the truth or falsehood of a claim can be determined by who releases it. I don’t know if I’ve got that exactly right, but it still seemed to me that you could in theory figure out whether Hillary Clinton wrote an email or not, regardless of who released it or why.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
I think part of what Discendo Vox is saying is that the message/information is inseparable from the mediator or communicator. The mediator (WikiLeaks here) is adding some unique information or context. Let's assume there are a bunch of Clinton and DNC emails released unedited and in complete (not picking or choosing which to release or not) from the following sources: WikiLeaks The Clinton campaign The Sanders campaign The Trump campaign Mainstream US journalism outlet The GRU directly The same set of emails being released from different sources is going to be received differently. What if the Clinton campaign or DNC got wind that their hacked emails were going to be leaked and preemptively released them in the name of transparency? How would that have been perceived? It would have allowed them to try to control and frame the situation before anyone else does and it communicates that they think the emails are not that damaging etc Meanwhile WikiLeaks has a particular reputation and the emails being released from an independent outlet that's not a political campaign or mainstream US outlet means they will be viewed differently
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:I think part of what Discendo Vox is saying is that the message/information is inseparable from the mediator or communicator. The mediator (WikiLeaks here) is adding some unique information or context. Let's assume there are a bunch of Clinton and DNC emails released unedited and in complete (not picking or choosing which to release or not) from the following sources: I definitely agree with all of that—I just think there’s an additional question left over, which is how you determine the provenance of whatever evidence is served up. And if it’s real, it’s no use to dismiss it by saying the purpose of wikileaks is to make truth impossible to determine, because surely something that is damning and verifiable is much worse for the US than creating a permanent state of uncertainty because it deprives people of the freedom to say they can believe as they choose in the absence of proof.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:It seemed to me that some of the posts above were saying that wikileaks could never release true information because wikileaks wants to manipulate public opinion, and that the truth or falsehood of a claim can be determined by who releases it. I don’t know if I’ve got that exactly right, but it still seemed to me that you could in theory figure out whether Hillary Clinton wrote an email or not, regardless of who released it or why. Nobody is going to give you a straight answer to this, because it would undercut the entire point of the thread. Truth depends entirely on your personal attitudes towards the speaker relaying information. You can try to argue that your personal beliefs towards a source represent some objective measure of trustworthiness everyone should buy into if you like, although thats ultimately constrained by who the moderators decide are allowable sources. Any attempt to argue that outside evidence could definitively prove a statement one way or another is just going to lead to another argument about the reliability of evidence. If you were to go check out the charred ruins of the North Church and take a picture, you could still be spreading disinformation if someone else's worldview relies on the North Church being intact (especially if that worldview is on the list of the moderator's preferred worldviews). Its like wikipedia, you have to cite proofs off a list of 'reliable sources' and original research is frowned on. Asking why some sources are deemed reliable and others are not is an uncomfortable question that will either get you yelled at or condescended to E: This is why I asked what the SI unit for trust is. Trust has no objective measure. You can't 'measure' the reliability of information in any objective fashion that everyone else can agree on. Things that make a listener uncomfortable are always going to have their 'trustworthiness' questioned, and any attempt to 'prove' an uncomfortable truth is going to be met with a thousand objections and deflections. E2: More directly, why is 'democrat politicians aren't corrupt' taken as the base truth that requires evidence to overturn instead of 'democrat politicians are corrupt'? How much support is there for the former vs the latter? Who is deciding what the null hypothesis is here? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Nobody is going to give you a straight answer to this, because it would undercut the entire point of the thread. Truth depends entirely on your personal attitudes towards the speaker relaying information. You can try to argue that your personal beliefs towards a source represent some objective measure of trustworthiness everyone should buy into if you like, although thats ultimately constrained by who the moderators decide are allowable sources. Any attempt to argue that outside evidence could definitively prove a statement one way or another is just going to lead to another argument about the reliability of evidence. If you were to go check out the charred ruins of the North Church and take a picture, you could still be spreading disinformation if someone else's worldview relies on the North Church being intact (especially if that worldview is on the list of the moderator's preferred worldviews). This could take us outside the boundaries of the thread, but have human beings stood on the moon? I don’t see how you can say the answer depends on your ideological commitments. I understand that language is a faulty tool and that there is no “outside” of history or chains of signification, but don’t you have to agree, at least practically speaking, that there are things you treat as true and things you treat as false to get through your day or live according to an ethical position? I’m not arguing for naive empiricism here, but don’t you have to have a method in order to live, and can’t you demonstrate that your method gives you better results than a method like Donald Trump’s narcissistic fantasist position? I’m not denying that you’re choosing a method from your own criteria for what constitutes a good life, or that Donald Trump is equally satisfied with his method because his criteria differ. I guess I do flatly disagree that source evaluation, if understood as “whether I generally consider a source trustworthy or am prone to want to believe what it says,” is the only word on whether I can believe something. My ideological position is a method determined by my ethical obligations, but I could imagine a situation in which James O’Keefe could provide a claim that I would end up believing as true, even if I don’t think his method is capable of producing truth except accidentally and my confidence would come from a method of verification I have some confidence in. It’s maybe closer to 5 sigma than not in that case, but it’s also probably something well south of that. I definitely think there’s a kind of naive liberalism that sees itself as philosophically realist and founded only in recognition of “reality” as it “is” apart from ideology, but I don’t think you have to occupy that position to have a method for interrogating evidence. My general standard for believing something is peer review: are there no reasons to prefer that to anything else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Nobody is going to give you a straight answer to this, because it would undercut the entire point of the thread. Truth depends entirely on your personal attitudes towards the speaker relaying information. It sounds like you subscribe to epistemic relativism. If that's the case, we've been wasting words arguing with you because it's such a deep and fundamental disconnect. I will, however, point out that in the context of politics, "truth depends entirely on your personal attitudes" is a very convenient (and lazy) attitude because its flexibility allows you to believe what you want to believe without having to go through the difficult and messy process of critical thinking and analysis. From that perspective, a thread like this won't be very useful to you, and might even be objectionable because it will seem like an attempt to encourage and enforce (via moderation) a subjective set of standards when it comes to analyzing information reported in the media. That's what lies at the root of your disagreement, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
I think a lot of my questions might be answered if I could get a few citations for books in the field, or significant articles, or foundational texts. Discendo Vox, or anyone else, what’s something from a university press that’s been through peer review that I could read on my own time instead of making GBS threads up the thread for want of foundational knowledge? I have asked for titles before and didn’t get any that I can remember. I would very much appreciate some.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:This could take us outside the boundaries of the thread, but have human beings stood on the moon? Thats not a question this thread is equipped to answer. Landing on the moon was an obvious PR victory for the United States, so any article or evidence in favor of the moon landing has to be subjected to extra scrutiny. Why does the US want you to believe they landed on the moon? Why do you want to believe the US landed on the moon? Who is telling you these stories about moon landings, and why do you trust them? Would you be equally open to information saying the US didnt land on the moon? Would you be open to information saying Russia landed on the moon? Does the US have a history of making extraordinary claims for PR purposes that are not backed by evidence? Do you think the US did not trade arms for hostages with Iran? You have to critically examine your biases whenever confronting fantastic information, such as the moon landing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:I think a lot of my questions might be answered if I could get a few citations for books in the field, or significant articles, or foundational texts. Discendo Vox, or anyone else, what’s something from a university press that’s been through peer review that I could read on my own time instead of making GBS threads up the thread for want of foundational knowledge? I've repeatedly cited sources in the individual effortposts. That said, while setting up the OP materials, this was a list I made at one point of the books I was working from. This isn't exhaustive; I know I have some Toulmin I was reading for this too.
(That said, I also wound up deleting a ton of stuff from the OP so it would be less overwhelming and get it out on time.) Nix Panicus posted:Thats not a question this thread is equipped to answer. What you are telling us, with every post, repeatedly, is that you're actively contemptuous of the idea of discussion of a shared reality and want to wield information as a rhetorical cudgel without being called on it. fool of sound posted:This same example supposes that it is impossible to know if having higher brain functions is good or bad because they sometimes allow people to do bad things. Everything that is consistently effective to any end is a product of the availability of accurate information and it's bizarre to me that several people are unable to immediately discern the difference between ability and motivation. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Oct 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I've repeatedly cited sources in the individual effortposts. That said, while setting up the OP materials, this was a list I made at one point of the books I was working from. This isn't exhaustive. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Thats not a question this thread is equipped to answer. If you're unwilling to accept the preponderance of evidence on a topic because it clashes with your worldview, then you can't have a productive conversation on any topic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
^^^ The preponderance of the evidence is that the DNC leaks accurately represent the internal politics of the democrats. The only counter argument, from anyone in this thread or the DNC itself, has been 'Russia bad!' and the baseless assumption that 'democrats good!'Discendo Vox posted:What you are telling us, with every post, repeatedly, is that you're actively contemptuous of the idea of discussion of a shared reality and want to wield information as a rhetorical cudgel without being called on it. Now we're getting to the heart of it. Who is the arbiter of this 'shared reality' of yours? What are the assumptions *you* are making? What is the null hypothesis, and why was it selected, and who selected it? Concretely, with the wikileaks example, people are treating the null hypothesis as the DNC not being a corrupt organization. You're requesting extraordinary proof for the position 'the DNC leaks accurately showcase the DNC' while assuming 'the DNC leaks were doctored' based on no evidence. We *know* the DNC is corrupt. We have Brazile feeding Clinton the debate questions, we have Clinton bailing out the DNC in return for final say on hiring decisions during the primaries. By all rights the null hypothesis here should be that the DNC leaks are probably true, and the only real question should be 'why did the Russians choose to release them' which has the obvious answer of 'to gently caress with Clinton and to put a buffoon in charge of the US'. The resistance to accepting the basic truth of the situation and instead asserting without evidence that the leaks were doctored seems like, well, 'wielding information as a rhetorical cudgel'
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
I'm not going to adopt your reframing of the argument when you've already shown your contempt for the entire forum.Nix Panicus posted:^^^ The preponderance of the evidence is that the DNC leaks accurately represent the internal politics of the democrats. The DNC is not "the democrats". Nix Panicus posted:The only counter argument, from anyone in this thread or the DNC itself, has been 'Russia bad!' Specific attributes of the the mediating sources of the information have been provided, including a pattern of selective representation and timed distribution, as well as a past pattern of altering mediated information. "Russia bad" has never been the root argument here. Nix Panicus posted:and the baseless assumption that 'democrats good!' The "goodness" of the democrats is irrelevant. Nix Panicus posted:Now we're getting to the heart of it. Who is the arbiter of this 'shared reality' of yours? Generally speaking, on SA, it's the mods, admins and ultimately, Jeffrey. Nix Panicus posted:What are the assumptions *you* are making? What is the null hypothesis, and why was it selected, and who selected it? Media literacy generally doesn't require a formal hypothesis testing analysis. It's more a matter of applying some degree of scrutiny to mediating sources. Nix Panicus posted:Concretely, with the wikileaks example, people are treating the null hypothesis as the DNC not being a corrupt organization. No. People are identifying traits of the mediating sources of the information, which is generally a step that occurs prior to evaluating the truthfulness of the message content. quote:You're requesting extraordinary proof for the position 'the DNC leaks accurately showcase the DNC' while assuming 'the DNC leaks were doctored' based on no evidence. We *know* the DNC is corrupt. We have Brazile feeding Clinton the debate questions, we have Clinton bailing out the DNC in return for final say on hiring decisions during the primaries. By all rights the null hypothesis here should be that the DNC leaks are probably true, and the only real question should be 'why did the Russians choose to release them' which has the obvious answer of 'to gently caress with Clinton and to put a buffoon in charge of the US'. You're...doing a whole lot, here, but the main thing you're doing is starting from what you want to believe and working backwards to decide whether a message is trustworthy, without considering how it is mediated. This being a bad way to approach information, especially in tyool 2021, is why this thread exists. quote:The resistance to accepting the basic truth of the situation and instead asserting without evidence that the leaks were doctored seems like, well, 'wielding information as a rhetorical cudgel' quote:If you agree with something, look harder I am not the one asserting "basic truths" and then working backward from them to attack people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
It is nice to have the resident pedant outright admit the range of allowable discourse is entirely at the moderator's discretion. You're still asserting without evidence that the leaks were doctored and do not accurately represent the internal workings of the DNC, but you are using a whole lot of words to do it. Why is Russia's history of lying about information more relevant than the DNC's history of lying about information here? Why are *you* not examining your biases? If you agree with something, look harder. I put it to you that *you* are the one beholden to your own biases and choosing what to believe based on what feels comfortable to you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:41 |
|
|
This is maybe also outside the boundaries of the thread, but does it make any difference? Would you behave or believe any differently if one case were demonstrably true vs the other? This is why I don’t think the dnc hack was particularly meaningful for 2016 or the fate of the United States—everything that happened was inevitable anyway. Clinton might have won or lost, but we’d still basically be right here because our present predicaments are the slow work of decades and powerful inertias. I’m sorry if this is not material fit for the thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2021 22:39
|
|