OBJECTION! @ Objection @lemmy.ml

If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a l

---

Read more

Posts

18

Comments

1,642

Joined

1 yr. ago

I don’t know, but it definitely seems like it.

So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?

Where are you getting this, "seems like" he lies and "seems like" journalists care about truth and fact checking? Exactly the same number of "lies" have been produced for each in this conversation. I mean, I did link to a fake news story from the NYT but that doesn't count because I didn't break into their offices and find a signed confession.

You set an impossibly high standard for proof in the one case, but "seems like" is enough in the other, you're operating off pure vibes, or more accurately, your own bias and preconceptions, with zero critical thought.

But sure, I stand corrected, they didn't "lie" in those cases (since basically nobody ever lies, by your absurd standard), they just published blatant falsehoods at just the right time to advance their interests, then suddenly realized their "mistakes" as soon as what they wanted to happen happened.

Jesus loves me The media is reliable, this I know, for the Bible media tells me so. Blind faith rivaling any Bible-thumper.

Ridiculous double standard. Has Putin ever lied, once in his life? Yes or no please, and be prepared to meet your own standard of evidence.

Do you think they're so incompetent as to leave evidence laying around that they had advance knowledge? I wonder, if that's the bar you set for US media, do you also set the bar there for, say, Chinese media? If Chinese state media publishes something that's untrue, would you dispute someone calling it a lie if you didn't have access to some official document openly confessing to advance knowledge? Even if such records did exist, it's not as if I, a private citizen, could get a warrant to raid their offices for it. You're setting the standard unreasonably high, you're just trying to shut down reasonable skepticism and legitimate criticism in favor of blind trust. I mean, what kind of idiot would write down "I know this story is false but I want you to publish it anyway," and then leave it lying around where someone could find it, when there's absolutely no reason to?

Here is an Intercept article about the fake news story published by the NYT to justify Israeli aggression in Gaza.

You’re saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that?

That's not what I said at all. The US government wanted to go to war with Vietnam, the media simply wanted to win favor with the government and sell papers.

Were you aware that, in the aftermath of the Kent State Massacre, the vast majority of Americans placed more blame on the students for getting shot than on the National Guard for shooting them? Were you aware that, leading up to the shooting, there were all kinds of fake news stories on TV about how, for example, the protesters were putting LSD into the water supply? Stories that they conveniently retracted, after the moment had passed and the chance for a backlash was gone?

Anyway, the fact that they lie frequently isn't even the main point. The main currency of propaganda is not lies, it's emphasis. Biased framing and leading language are perfectly capable of shaping public opinion towards their agenda. Historical events that would justify or explain hostile actions of other countries are very rarely deemed relevant, and the same with internal politics that might show that only certain factions supported it. Our own crimes and acts of aggression are downplayed or ignored, so that when the other side retaliates, it seems to come out of nowhere.

For example, the 1953 coup in Iran, which was conducted by the CIA and successfully covered up for decades, demonstrates that even if Iran had a peaceful, democratic government, it would still likely be subject to US aggression so long as they tried to assert control over their own oil. The breakdown of relations in the 1979 revolution occurred when the revolutionaries took hostages at the US embassy, but what provoked that action was the US granting refuge to the deposed shah - the very same man who they had previously installed as a dictator in 1953. I think both of those events are very important to understanding US-Iranian relations, but you won't hear the news mention them, the hostage crisis is always presented as this unprovoked act of aggression.

This is just basic media literacy, really. You should always be skeptical and aware of bias and conflicts of interests with anything you read. Unfortunately, there's a tendency some people have to put certain sources on a pedestal as if critical thinking and skepticism isn't necessary when reading them.

Your source says a peak of 86%, Gallup got 90% but either way it was an overwhelming majority.

The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq, more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape, if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam, and in every case it takes time for the lies to be exposed and by the time they are, fewer people see the retractions and it's usually too late to do anything about it anyway. Even when they aren't lying, they're using biased language and framing to push their agenda, and their agenda is, as I said, always pro-war, because war sells papers and if they're hostile to the White House (especially with Trump in there) then they'll get press passes revoked and won't be privy to information they would otherwise receive. Never in my life have I seen widespread media condemnation of any military action (unless you count the withdrawal from Afghanistan), and I believe you'll see the same thing if you look in the past, in conflicts like Vietnam. When Trump launched an unprovoked missile strike on Syria, during his first term, these people jumped over each other to praise him, to say that "that was the moment he became presidential," even publications that had been very critical of him before.

None of the media people (just like none of the politicians) were ever held accountable in any way for lying the public into a war, which set a clear precedent that they can do so freely going forward. Worse yet, it's often the very same people in similar positions of power. If you think that they're trustworthy and not biased, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

"What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities,” she added.

Whitaker followed up, asking, “If Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?”

“I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment,” said the vice president.

60+%

It was 90%. Only 10% of Americans were capable of resisting the massive propaganda apparatus that manufactures consent at the start of every war of aggression. Vietnam was also very popular at the start.

But you are right that he's doing this without a strong justification. From what I've seen, mainstream media is still on his side, they love war, great for business. Whether enough Americans have learned anything from the disaster of the War on Terror to make any sort of lasting dent in the number capable of resisting propaganda remains to be seen, you'd think Vietnam would have but it's always "different this time," and people are frequently "anti-war, except the current one."

The US has a freebie wildcard to bomb anyone anyway.

The problem is that you see people dismissing criticism and think it's a disagreement of principle when in fact they hold the same principle and disagree on what does or does not meet the agreed upon criteria.

I haven't added any extra meaning at all, nor is there any attempt to "derail" the conversation. You're attacking something that nobody actually believes.

See, like, I see my criticism as factual and respectful, and you disagree. You don't think it's factual because you disagree with my analysis. Virtually all disagreements about what criticism is valid are like that.

Lol, no it isn't. Ever since Cold War times, the law has been that the president can not only launch missiles, but even deploy troops on the ground, without congressional approval. There's a limit on how long the troops can be deployed, iirc, but once you've started a ground invasion it's a bit late.

Obviously it's unconstitutional, but there's no legal precedent that would say so. If you think this is the first time this has happened, you really need to learn more about history. The US never formally declared war on Vietnam, for example.

I'm not adding any additional meaning. As I explained, nobody says, "My group is above criticism" but what they say is, "The criticisms against my group are nonfactual and/or disrespectful." Everyone agrees with the principle you've said, but that principle is completely meaningless because any perspective that wants to shut down criticism will just say that it's nonfactual or disrespectful.

If you just think critically about it and break down what your statement actually means, it's just "I agree with criticism I agree with." I don't really know what more I can say to explain that, it seems very straightforward to me. From your other comments, you talk about people criticizing major religions, well, suppose someone from a major religion says, "I agree, and also, I think such and such criticism is disrespectful." Maybe you don't think it's disrespectful. Maybe they make a criticism about you that they don't find disrespectful, but you do. Who determines which criticisms meet the criteria of factual and respectful? Everyone can accept your standard and carry on exactly as they were, simply saying that the criticism they agree with meet the standard and the criticisms they disagree with don't. It's pretty meaningless.

Are you often finding yourself in situations where people aren't disputing facts and norms, but just whether, in principle, legitimate criticism should be said at all? Can you give me an example?

Basically you're just saying, "I agree with criticism I agree with." Nobody would say, outright and in principle, that they think a group is above criticism, but people are going to disagree on which criticisms are factual and respectful.

A couple kilobites, minimum.

Alright, you know, if you won't use reason, then whatever your faith tells you I guess.

OK, so returning to the original point, if you agree that our senses our subjective, then the difference between a scientist reading a scale and me remembering whether I turned the oven on is just a matter of the degree of reliability, and both are evidence-based.

When you say I believe I turned off the oven, you are subjectively recalling something. You aren’t looking at the oven, you’re remembering it.

You're also relying on your subjective memory when you look away from the scale to write down the number you read.

There is an accepted protocol on how to read a meniscus in a graduated cylinder for this reason or any scale for that matter.

Oh, now this is fascinating. Tell me, does this "accepted protocol" mean that you don't have to rely on your subjective senses at all? If so, then how, exactly, does the information end up reaching your brain? I would love to know.

This is essentially just, "When someone wears a lab coat, that means it's objective." Even within "accepted protocols" there is still plenty of room for human error.

You are completely wrong about basically everything you've said, and your wrong ideas seem to be a product of the disdain you seem to have for the humanities - a common ailment of people with just enough knowledge of science to be very confidently wrong about things.

That's incredibly dumb.

My observations about turning off the oven are just as objective and evidence-based as any other observations. I saw whether I did it or not very clearly with my own two eyes. If you want to get into, "Senses are inherently subjective," fine, but that includes using your eyes to read a scale during an experiment. You're trying to draw an insane distinction between reading a scale and reading a dial on an oven, it makes absolutely zero sense, and you don't understand anything about science, epistemology, or philosophy in general. You're going full Dunning-Kruger here.

It records vernacular.

And vernacular is how people understand each other. When you say, "Science has nothing to do with belief," then most people are going to interpret that according to the common-use meaning. If I say, "I believe I turned off the oven," I'm not expressing a faith-based conviction to the idea that I turned it off, I'm saying that based on my best recollection of the evidence, I did turn it off.

If you want to communicate in a way that people will understand, then I don't think you should going around using the word "belief" to mean this nonstandard, technical definition without qualifications or explanation. And I definitely don't think that you should assume that anyone who disagrees with statements made with that nonstandard definition is simply committed to rejecting reason and evidence, as opposed to the much more obvious and reasonable interpretation that they're simply interpreting the word in the standard, common use way.

So?

Within 20 minutes of a phone call between Reagan and Begin, in which the former said the bombings were going too far and needed to stop, Begin ordered the bombings stopped.

Virtually every current US politician is to the right of Reagan on Israel.

Reagan did.