Anyone here listens to Joe Rogan?

[K1]

Misinformation to me Sounds like the news or some censorship/Covid/ verbiage.
Is it not the same as saying- that’s not true.
Or- you are lying. Or wrong.

If it’s the TV main stream or the government telling me it’s “misinformation” I am
Immediately concerned.

I don’t need the word news to tell
Me, I like to decide with my own thinking and inner feelings on it.

Exactly...Terms like 'misinformation', 'conspiracy theory', 'experts say' and 'fact checkers' have become terms that involve no real facts or truth, only labels and opinions.

The front two being used to discredit while the back two are used to solidify a narrative in the guise of truth.

 

[bigstick]

go back and re-read my original post.. i questioned his ignorance on his TRT dosing.

Yes that was stupid and fake af. But it’s ok for him to say and act like he is stupid and fake. And it’s ok for people to have their opinion about him being stupid and fake af.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Exactly...Terms like 'misinformation', 'conspiracy theory', 'experts say' and 'fact checkers' have become terms that involve no real facts or truth, only labels and opinions.

The front two being used to discredit while the back two are used to solidify a narrative in the guise of truth.

So when you can't prove the validity of an assertion, just discredit the validity of the first two terms entirely so they can no longer be used at all to describe any ridiculous theory (good example, "Earth is flat").

As an amateur astrophotographer, I have photos of stars in motion that can only mean Earth is spherical. Conclusively. I've observed it myself. But I can't use 'misinformation' or 'conspiracy theory' in regards to Flat Earth Theory? Although, not really conspiracy but more like a 'crackpot theory'.

Then, completely discredit the people or agencies with a greater view on the entirety of a particular situation (NASA, pro and am astronomers, etc) so there is zero pushback on said assertion.

So when all is said and done, we're left with, just come up with anything you like and for some people, it becomes their reality/truth?

It sounds like the individuals making that baseless claim (i.e. Earth is flat), rather than attempting to convince or prove that theory using hard data, thry've just decided to change the rules of proving hypotheses altogether.

How do we rule out bad theories then? Or do we just not do that anymore? I think I understand what you're saying though. Which is that these terms have been so ridiculously overused in the last few years (and they REALLY have), the terms have lost all potency. And as for the 'experts' and 'fact checkers' well... they have been so miserably wrong so often that their credibility has been strained as well.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

One other thing. I keep seeing the term "MSM" or mainstream media. Can someone please list what is mainstream and what is not mainstream? If a podcast reaches more listeners/viewers than say NBC, CBS, ABC, 24hr cable news, etc.

Doesn't the podcast or substack or whatever become the defacto mainstream news if it maintains the largest audience?

The rest might better be called 'legacy' media or 'old school'. I'd like to listen/watch more non-mainstream media, if someone could suggest a few good feeds. I've seen/heard some really awful ones (for example, TYT...awful).

 

[goback2013]

One other thing. I keep seeing the term "MSM" or mainstream media. Can someone please list what is mainstream and what is not mainstream? If a podcast reaches more listeners/viewers than say NBC, CBS, ABC, 24hr cable news, etc.

Doesn't the podcast or substack or whatever become the defacto mainstream news if it maintains the largest audience?

The rest might better be called 'legacy' media or 'old school'. I'd like to listen/watch more non-mainstream media, if someone could suggest a few good feeds. I've seen/heard some really awful ones (for example, TYT...awful).

One side of the aisle, these seem to be the most popular news aggregation sites.

Trends | People-Powered News

Dissenter Trends is a place to discover what the Internet is talking about today.

trends.gab.com

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

For the other side, I look at:

https://cnn.com

For stuff not really 'allowed' on youtube, then this is the site to look at.

BitChute is a peer-to-peer social video platform.

BitChute puts creators first and provides them with a service that they can use to flourish and express their ideas freely.

www.bitchute.com

 

[marssel]

since you're making brownies, you may want to look into using d9 distillate which is much more cost effective
Let's look at your flower.. Assuming 20% THCa that comes out to about 3g of D9 after decarb. At $100 for a halfO $33/gram of D9
You can get 28g of D9 distillate for $200(if not cheaper). $7/gram
Nearly 5 batches(3gm per batch) of brownies for $100.

Appreciate I might look but I currently don’t have to pay for my flower is D9 legal I mean where I’m at the most they do is a ticket for I think 5 ozs and under but I still like to color between the lines where I can

 

[OuchThatHurts]

One side of the aisle, these seem to be the most popular news aggregation sites.

Trends | People-Powered News

Dissenter Trends is a place to discover what the Internet is talking about today.

trends.gab.com

CITIZEN FREE PRESS

The Greatest News Site On The Internet. Home of CFP Nation.

citizenfreepress.com

For the other side, I look at:

https://cnn.com

For stuff not really 'allowed' on youtube, then this is the site to look at.

BitChute is a peer-to-peer social video platform.

BitChute puts creators first and provides them with a service that they can use to flourish and express their ideas freely.

www.bitchute.com

Ugh, isn't there one source of non-politically affiliated news? So sick of politics.

 

[goback2013]

Ugh, isn't there one source of non-politically affiliated news? So sick of politics.

Oh... Sorry. When I think news my mind automatically associates that with politics.

For ’whale rescued at local beach' type stories, that I believe would be a YouTube thing. Just set up a filter to display latest generic news stories.

But when people complain of MSM, then it's usually due to political slants being one way or another. MSM isn't an issue for 'girl does good at corner lemonade stand' news bits.

 

[cmryan]

I agree with this. I think "misinformation" is a term coined to discredit certain views. However I don't believe in aliens visiting earth or ghosts /spirits lol. But I wouldn't call them misinformation just things I don't buy. I'd need some proof.

Well, the original definition of misinformation was just "incorrect information". No harm meant by it. Just wrong about a topic. Someone is just misinformed about a topic. But it's taken on a pretty different connotation over the past couple years. It does seem to be conflated with disinformation at times. Not always but definitely sometimes. And disinformation has always been used to describe the willful spreading of incorrect info.

The really unfortunate aspect of it is that there have always been minority opinions and interpretations of many things that are eventually found to be accurate. Conversely, many are not but to entirely dismiss minority opinions just is not right.

And there are different degrees of misinformation which kind of goes along with your point about ideas not being misinformation. For example, Flat Earth, Young Earth creationism, etc. are pretty difficult to take seriously (IMO anyways). But people claiming (for example) that the CIA ran mass experiments on American citizens was dismissed as the height of conspiracy theory, misinformation, etc. And decades later MK-Ultra was proven to be true.

 

[OuchThatHurts]

And decades later MK-Ultra was proven to be true.

This was the epitome of evil. And a LOT of governments are guilty of these sorts of practices.

 

[goback2013]

This was the epitome of evil. And a LOT of governments are guilty of these sorts of practices.

Yeah. The rabbit hole continues with the whole CIA, laurel canyon, hippie, counter culture, connection.. I remember watching this a few years ago... Interesting..

 

[OuchThatHurts]

Yeah. The rabbit hole continues with the whole CIA, laurel canyon, hippie, counter culture, connection.. I remember watching this a few years ago... Interesting..

I didn't mean necessarily kooks like this drunk, I was speaking about world governments in those years, Germany, USSR, African countries, et al.

 

[totalrecomp]

Ugh, isn't there one source of non-politically affiliated news? So sick of politics.

Ground News

 

[hawkmoon]

Well, the original definition of misinformation was just "incorrect information". No harm meant by it. Just wrong about a topic. Someone is just misinformed about a topic. But it's taken on a pretty different connotation over the past couple years. It does seem to be conflated with disinformation at times. Not always but definitely sometimes. And disinformation has always been used to describe the willful spreading of incorrect info.

The really unfortunate aspect of it is that there have always been minority opinions and interpretations of many things that are eventually found to be accurate. Conversely, many are not but to entirely dismiss minority opinions just is not right.

And there are different degrees of misinformation which kind of goes along with your point about ideas not being misinformation. For example, Flat Earth, Young Earth creationism, etc. are pretty difficult to take seriously (IMO anyways). But people claiming (for example) that the CIA ran mass experiments on American citizens was dismissed as the height of conspiracy theory, misinformation, etc. And decades later MK-Ultra was proven to be true.

Governments have done bad things for sure, and always will.

However when people use specific instances to create a general premise (the government has lied before, so it's lying now) is a genetic logical fallacy.

An argument needs to be evaluated on its own and weighed against the evidence.

 

[hawkmoon]

Here is the bottom line on misinformation and frankly outright lies. They fail in the face of evidence.

This has been demonstrated a lot over the past few years. People make wild claims of fraud, etc in the media. People get excited, people believe.

Yet when these matters are brought to a court of law, where evidence and truth count, they universally collapse.

Truth and facts matter.

Opinions and facts are not the same thing.

 

[nidnoy]

The one nice thing about all the nonsense going on the last few years is stupid won’t last. All the crack pot theories and dumb junk that floods are social media feeds will be gone in a bit, who knows how long, and relegated back to the fringe of weirdo land where it should be. Eventually people realize the emporer is wearing no clothes and actually have the guts to say it. Like Hawkmoon said, eventually things are proven or at least get to a state of reason or unreasonable and it will become ok to say what we suspected or really felt all along.

One of the saddest things I read was a few years ago some poll was taken to see if people really believed what they said they did about social issues or were lying to protect themselves from being shamed, etc. I don’t remember the exact percent but it was sizable that lied about believing or supporting things that the media was pushing. Now that was just one poll, who knows how big or how well done, but I was somewhat shocked and saddened by it.

 

[stackdizzy]

Honestly I think most people are fucking dumb or just too busy to think for themselves. Most news is tried in the court of public opinion and not in the court. Even if its been proven to be true or false in a court (Like O.J. or Micheal Jackson) people will still believe what they want. I think a comic touched on this but would you really leave your kids with Micheal Jackson even if he was your friend? Would you really want O.J. around? Ultimately if you believed in the system or courts you would have nothing to worry about, but would you really risk it?

Plus if the news or government lies to you why would you trust it? (I am not going to get into examples) Like if a certain candidate was running for president or currently president and just lied all the time would you really believe that this time he/she is telling the truth? Why would you immediately trust it as it being totally valid just based on the fact that it is a new statement, I personally don't think that would be wise. If you had a friend that lied to you all the time would you really believe anything he says just because its a new statement. That in my opinion would be foolish, they have saying and this thread has reminded me of it and that is "As long as you can be fooled you deserve to be". I personally like it because it puts the ownness on the consumer of such information.

If you don't think governments are pursuing the spreading of disinformation to muddy the waters so to speak to either cast doubt or control a narrative I find that erroneous. Not saying its our own government that is doing it and I am not saying its not but you do not know what state actor from what state is using their influence to push what agenda. I find it hard to watch cnn/msncb/fox news without a heavy dose of cynicism and always confirm the validity of imformation from another source. As they seem to maybe report information in a way that would support the confirmation bias of their intended audience. I am not going to cite specific examples as that would be too polarizing and take away from the message here in the eyes of some as some people would go straight into cognitive dissonance.

SO I think the best question raised in this thread is "What is truth" as I believe Truth is highly subjective for the most part and I don't think its necessarily a new thing or one that will go away as the only thing now is its easier access to information and easier for more people to have a voice. So the narrative is harder to control, which is the way IMO it should be.

 

[cmryan]

Governments have done bad things for sure, and always will.

However when people use specific instances to create a general premise (the government has lied before, so it's lying now) is a genetic logical fallacy.

Quite true and I don't believe I wrote anything to the contrary. In that post, I think it's clear I was not trying to make any assertion of "governments always lie..." It was simply a significant example to illustrate something widely dismissed as misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theory yet actually true. It simply took a decade plus and the Church Committee to bring it to light. I also chose it because I had hoped it was sufficiently chronologically distant from recent events to avoid offending anyone. Swing and a miss I guess.

As long as it was a swing and miss, I will add that I think the number and magnitude of said "specific instances" should at least make one skeptical and open to hearing alternative ideas. Obviously not accept outright, but not dismiss outright either. Only my opinion though. That and $3.50 will get you a gallon of gasoline.

An argument needs to be evaluated on its own and weighed against the evidence.

I'm pretty certain we all agree on that, and I think we may just be talking past one another. Or at least have different topics in mind when we're typing these posts. But I probably should not attempt to speak for everyone.

Hysterical what a post about Joe Rogan's guests has brought us to lol.

 

[hawkmoon]

Quite true and I don't believe I wrote anything to the contrary. In that post, I think it's clear I was not trying to make any assertion of "governments always lie..." It was simply a significant example to illustrate something widely dismissed as misinformation/disinformation/conspiracy theory yet actually true. It simply took a decade plus and the Church Committee to bring it to light. I also chose it because I had hoped it was sufficiently chronologically distant from recent events to avoid offending anyone. Swing and a miss I guess.

As long as it was a swing and miss, I will add that I think the number and magnitude of said "specific instances" should at least make one skeptical and open to hearing alternative ideas. Obviously not accept outright, but not dismiss outright either. Only my opinion though. That and $3.50 will get you a gallon of gasoline.

I'm pretty certain we all agree on that, and I think we may just be talking past one another. Or at least have different topics in mind when we're typing these posts. But I probably should not attempt to speak for everyone.

Hysterical what a post about Joe Rogan's guests has brought us to lol.

I wasn't arguing against you per se, as I don't think you were trying to make that case. I was just pointing out that many do use that particular logical fallacy as a basis for argument.

Being skeptical is healthy and highly beneficial, but many confuse critical evaluation and simply being doubtful and contraian.

Our intuitive brains as are often wildy incorrect and it takes some training to be able to properly evaluate the world around us with any degree of appreciable accuracy. I'm not nearly good enough at it, but I'm constantly learning.

Again, not saying this is you at all, just you raise the points.

 

[hawkmoon]

Honestly I think most people are fucking dumb or just too busy to think for themselves. Most news is tried in the court of public opinion and not in the court. Even if its been proven to be true or false in a court (Like O.J. or Micheal Jackson) people will still believe what they want. I think a comic touched on this but would you really leave your kids with Micheal Jackson even if he was your friend? Would you really want O.J. around? Ultimately if you believed in the system or courts you would have nothing to worry about, but would you really risk it?

Plus if the news or government lies to you why would you trust it? (I am not going to get into examples) Like if a certain candidate was running for president or currently president and just lied all the time would you really believe that this time he/she is telling the truth? Why would you immediately trust it as it being totally valid just based on the fact that it is a new statement, I personally don't think that would be wise. If you had a friend that lied to you all the time would you really believe anything he says just because its a new statement. That in my opinion would be foolish, they have saying and this thread has reminded me of it and that is "As long as you can be fooled you deserve to be". I personally like it because it puts the ownness on the consumer of such information.

If you don't think governments are pursuing the spreading of disinformation to muddy the waters so to speak to either cast doubt or control a narrative I find that erroneous. Not saying its our own government that is doing it and I am not saying its not but you do not know what state actor from what state is using their influence to push what agenda. I find it hard to watch cnn/msncb/fox news without a heavy dose of cynicism and always confirm the validity of imformation from another source. As they seem to maybe report information in a way that would support the confirmation bias of their intended audience. I am not going to cite specific examples as that would be too polarizing and take away from the message here in the eyes of some as some people would go straight into cognitive dissonance.

SO I think the best question raised in this thread is "What is truth" as I believe Truth is highly subjective for the most part and I don't think its necessarily a new thing or one that will go away as the only thing now is its easier access to information and easier for more people to have a voice. So the narrative is harder to control, which is the way IMO it should be.

There is subjective truth in the sense of one's opinion. If you prefer blue over red, it is subjectively true that blue is your favorite color.

Personally I speak of scientific or empirical truth, which is not subjective.