|
Discendo Vox posted:That’s an advertisement excerpt from some jackass’s magic solutions book, leading with a cite to noted charlatan Nassim Taleb. Said jackass's Wikipedia page is enlightening, and in no way self-edited. It also might be useful to effortpost on exactly how noted charlatans like Taleb manage to insert themselves into the media and the sort of rubbish they spew into it.
|
#
¿
May 4, 2021 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Sekhem posted:If you think it's unable to lead to quality information, please actually explain why! I question the qualifications of Edward Herman, a man who wrote or helped write books denying or downplaying three separate genocides (Cambodia, Bosnia, and Rwanda), to develop an accurate model of correctly interpreting propaganda in the media. I feel that this pattern of thinking makes any of his other writings at the very least intellectually questionable in the same way that I would consider a book by David Irving intellectually questionable at the very least, although not for the same reasons (Irving is a committed fascist, Herman was absolutely not this). When someone makes a factual error of such a massive proportion, their other work must be considered in that light. No more, no less. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:I've tried to make this point clear repeatedly: because the propaganda model was not applied to reach those conclusions. It's a tool of media analysis, not a method for determining the empirical facts of political events, and wasn't used by the authors in question to do so. The fact that an author conceives of a model for one purpose does not mean this is the basis for the entirety of their work! I think the issue is that people are questioning the efficacy of the propaganda model on the basis that at least one of its authors has made several grievous mistakes in their other work (if I can be forgiven for describing genocide denial as "grievous mistakes"). If, say, a architect had multiple buildings they designed collapse, their remaining buildings would and should be subject to extra scrutiny even if their designs were acclaimed and influential. Or as another example, if a researcher has multiple papers retracted, then their other word should be critically examined to determine if they need to be retracted too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Your research paper example is only valid if the papers were pulled for poor scientific rigor or something else that calls the process into question; Shouldn't repeated denial/downplaying of actual literal genocide by Herman count as an equivalent to "poor scientific rigor or something else that calls the process into question"? I mean if ignoring or minimizing genocide doesn't qualify as a serious mistake in the social sciences, what in God's name does? A Buttery Pastry posted:Regardless of how anyone might have used it, the "worthy vs. unworthy victim" distinction implicitly admits that both are victims. With that in mind, the conclusion when faced with say, an overwhelming media barrage of claims of genocide, would still be that a genocide is taking place. With the greatest possible respect, could you please clarify who the gently caress could possibly qualify as a "worthy victim" of genocide? And please let me know if I'm confused somewhere because I just got home from watching the Padres win a game of baseball so I'm probably not operating on all cylinders. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 07:50
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:It's not a normative judgement, it's a thesis from MC that describes relative media presentation of victims of violence. An example given in the book is the assassination of one Polish priest in the Socialist Poland paralleling the execution of untold numbers of dissident priests by right-wing death squads in Latin America during the same period. The former is deemed a victim "worthy" of persistent media attention, while the latter is "unworthy" of the mainstream media and relegated to a marginal concern. OK, fair enough, I just found the terminology extremely disconcerting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 08:52
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Discendo Vox saying we need to be wary of Russian influence but not American influence is, He hasn't actually said this anywhere except in your imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Saying the media is not biased by the military-industrial complex is, in fact, saying that. No, no it isn't. Like, it really isn't. Just for a start Discendo has never claimed you shouldn't ever be skeptical of American media. His whole point is that there's more to media analysis than your mantra that if we don't mouth the proper obsequies about the military-industrial complex we're obviously facile dupes or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
It's baffling that people have so much trouble with the idea that Assange's/Wikileaks's trustworthiness is orthogonal to that of the "American media" (which as noted by Discendo is a horrible and hopelessly ill-defined oversimplification of many, many individual news outlets). This is not an either/or proposition and it is perfectly valid to "believe" (again, a hopelessly broad term for the process of taking in and considering information) both or neither.
Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 17:14
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:What I saw was essentially you complaining that you specifically weren't the target audience for the article, but I will also admit to not having read the article (and not having much desire to). It's irritating to read someone demand impartiality of others though when they're obviously not showing much impartiality themselves, and I didn't really understand what possible connections your exercise you posted underneath had with your critique either. This was admittedly weeks ago, though, so apologies for essentially necromancing a topic, but it's something that's been rankling my nerves since. So you haven't actually read or understood this thread or even some of the articles being discussed, and instead are blind-firing your own opinions about what you think is being discussed?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Having a different interpretation of some facts, that Probably Magic has supported with effortful arguments, Effortful? Seriously? They've admitted they didn't read an article that was being discussed, but that didn't stop them from telling something they were wrong about it. EDIT: Having said that, I have no doubt they're posting in what they see as good faith. Others might disagree. That's the problem with trying to divine the "faith" of posts on the internet, it's isn't as if there's a unit of measurement or a formula to determine if someone is arguing in "good" or "bad" faith. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Oct 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
Criticizing Assange does not automatically make you a reactionary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
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 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: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
|
|
|
How did this thread turn into yet another litigation of the 2016 primaries?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:"Let it happen" is not the same as "planned it". Your evidence that they did either, please.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2021 20:09
|
|
|
Soviet intelligence services. Notably not proficient in mass murder.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Surely the KGB never did crimes against humanity either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
selec posted:This is whataboutism. That's not what whataboutism means. They brought up the KGB in the first place, not me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
Craig K posted:https://twitter.com/CJR/status/1450181889789251589 Not a particularly new tactic for writing articles. I've seen dozens of cases of a bunch of 20th century local papers running more or less the same story with a few words changed around, usually because the original story came from a wire service or a press release. The scale of this is alarming as gently caress, though. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Oct 21, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:CraigK's burying the lede, which is that this entire thing appears to be laundering material from different organizations principally funded by the Kochs. That's a far more alarming aspect, I agree.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2021 08:54
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Anyways, I get why the Greyzone is a bad source for a lot of stories. I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But I don't understand what makes them so uniquely bad when all of the problems being described keep being described as universal problems and can be observed in many different organizations. It's not that it's uniquely bad, it's because certain posters keep defending it as a viable, not-actually-bad source and using that argument as a springboard to attack the whole idea of analyzing sources. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Gotcha, and that makes sense. So there's nothing special about them and with any source you need to look at who's doing the reporting, their interests and biases, and this can apply to any media. So you can't just dismiss anything out of hand but you can recognize patterns to give yourself an idea of their credibility. But there is no definitive "good" sources vs "bad" sources. So I should keep reading the Greyzone, filtering their reporting through what I understand of their biases and view and also read lots of other media and continue to try to seek out non-english reporting when I can to get a larger view as well as apply those same filters to those pieces of media. Am I understanding this right? Basically, yes. Although there's definitely, absolutely sources you can safely dismiss out of hand (like Alex Jones, to pick an example I think every poster ITT can agree on). Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:However his credibility is so low that you can safely choose not to investigate his claims, you will not be losing important truth because it so rarely comes from him and if it does come from him it will also be coming from more credible sources. Yes, that's basically what I was trying to say, just not in so many words.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
selec posted:It presents me the posts from the people I follow, in chronological order. Are you sure you don’t mean Facebook? And how and why do you choose the people you follow on Twitter? How do you think most people choose who to follow on Twitter? It sure isn't random chance. You're soooooo close to getting the point being made here. So achingly close. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
selec posted:I started by following celebrities I found interesting (this was long ago) and since just find people who post interesting things. I have a few famous and non-famous people from other ideological tendencies than my own that I follow just to keep up on what the temperature is over there, but a lot of my curation is for locals and informative or interesting (usually) leftist or nerdy posters. By and large, you yourself choose what you see on Twitter, which means you pick to read things that appeal to your emotions positive or negative. This is different from reading, say, the front page of a newspaper or looking through an issue of a periodical, where someone else chooses what things appear in them. In other words, this post you tried to smugly dismiss is correct: raminasi posted:Twitter’s entire technological thesis is to present content in a way that maximizes the magnitude of its reader’s emotional reaction. That’s the furthest thing possible from “just an index.”
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
selec posted:There’s this whole section in most newspapers called “Business” and it’s a whole bunch of information relevant to the people exploiting workers, and literally nothing useful in there for those same workers Jesus Christ, really? You really think a worker could find nothing useful in the business section of a newspaper? Nothing at all? Not even from a "know your enemy" perspective? For reference this is the business section of my city newspaper and I can see a few stories that a worker might find useful. Vincent Van Goatse fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 08:08
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:It's true, only through algorithms would the average American be angry right now. Nobody said this or implied anything like it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2021 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 16:37 |
|
|
Previa_fun posted:goddamn you suck rear end lmao Good response, very helpful for stimulating discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2021 05:32
|
|