Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
If I post evidence of my credentials as well as documented dissertations proving how correct I am how much will you pay me? Let's start taking wagers here, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you're all just a waste of time. I'll put up $1000. You guys want to attack me with your group tactics well I'm willing to put money on the line and we'll see who is right and who is wrong. Try to turn the tide with your rhetoric groupthink, well, let's see how that stands up to the test.
$1000 that I have multiple degrees and that buzzwords were developed scientifically by thinktanks. Any takers or you all talk?
And if you're wrong, completely wrong, what does that make you? What will that say about CP? Anyone willing to wager can message me.
|
Dude, it's not that you're wrong about how buzzwords were developed, nor even that you have two degrees, it's about the following:
1. Undergraduate degrees are not impressive. I have two of them too. An undergrad - particularly one which is from a field you're not working in - is pretty much the same thing as having read twenty books on a subject. It makes you someone who's opinion should be listened to, but not a source of authority.
2. You're wrong about the term fakenews. A good example of a carefully crafted 'buzzword' being used to mislead or obfuscate, particularly in the realm of politics, would be something like
School Choice or
Pro-Life.
Fakenews, on the other hand is a term which has developed organically as a response to an observed phenomenon as opposed to a term purpose-built to mislead or obscure. The meaning of 'fakenews' is plain within the term itself, it's useful, and it does nothing to prevent or shut down debate. I would even aruge that it
invites debate, discussion, and investigation. The existence of fakenews, the possibility of being accused of distributing or promoting fakenews should - I hope - encourage people to double-check sources, and do exactly the thing you're claiming the term prevents: think critically about what they're reading.
3. You're being a prat. Maybe you were shocked your previous post about your GeoScience degree was so easily found. The reason I was able to find it so easily was I remembered your issues from the Layoffs thread as I found them genuinely touching and I really hope your job issues have been resolved. I know what it's like to change career paths completely as an adult.
However, maybe it's coming from anger or shock from being called out, but I think it started earlier than my post about your other degree, but what's coming across is that one time during your first undergrad you wrote a 10,000 word term paper for your Psych 304 class on the development of buzzwords and, for whatever reason, your thesis has really stuck with you. You have paid attention to words your think are 'buzzwords' and notice when they get used - this is in no way a bad thing in itself.
But now you've run into this topic on this forum and, with obvious relish, are rehashing that Psych 304 thesis thinking there is some kind of valuable insight which is being missed or not understood by the rest of us, and your insistence on throwing the entirety of the thesaurus into your posts is actually working against the exact point you're trying to make: that buzzwords (important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen) prevent critical thinking.
We all know it's possible to use language to prevent critical thinking. We've all read
1984. We've all been to horrendous meetings discussing synergy and actionable data. Anyone commenting in this thread will have watched at least a few White House press conferences and we are all intimately familiar with how politicians (and athletes) are experts at saying nothing while seeming to say something.
You're not adding anything to the discussion in this thread about the very real existence of outlets disseminating false information, a President-Elect many consider dangerously inept, and the day-to-day events of politics in the US.