Sure. Parties with an interest, either politically or financially, took advantage of the electorate by creating websites that leveraged their cognitive bias, and the state of epistemic closure they have placed themselves, with stories that had no basis in reality. They were publishing disinformation based on dog whistle language and narratives that would drive unsuspecting rubes to their websites and up their traffic.
Sadly, there is nothing to debate. This is factual. It happened. It is still happening. Facebook's credibility has taken a beating as a result. Try and deny it all you want, but the evidence is substantial and it had an impact.
I don't deny what you said, but explaining that in proper terms disallows you from attributing this true occurrence to other events.
Again, you're trying to silence the debate.
"There is nothing to debate" are the words of a tyrant, you don't realize that I'm not denying what you said. Get out of your ego for just one second and think more clearly as you're creating false accusations and trying to stop me from presenting well founded ideas. There is always something to debate unless it has been established as scientific law by repeated empirical measurements, this is the very nature of critical thought.
"and the state of epistemic closure they have placed themselves"
care to expand on this? Grammatically confusing sentence.
I do agree that Facebook damaged their credibility, as did CNN and Twitter. But putting a label on it then allows the label to be applied to other situations erroneously because of the power of the buzzword. These buzzwords are fabrications used to manipulate; oh it's just fakenews as some factors are kind of similar to that other instance. Don't like it; fakenews. He made a small semantic error and it disagrees with my worldview; fakenews.
I don't deny what you said, but explaining that in proper terms disallows you from attributing this true occurrence to other events.
Again, you're trying to silence the debate.
"There is nothing to debate" are the words of a tyrant, you don't realize that I'm not denying what you said. Get out of your ego for just one second and think more clearly as you're creating false accusations and trying to stop me from presenting well founded ideas.
No one is stopping you from presenting anything. No one is stopping you from debating anything. You're the guy that jumped into the thread trying to sound all authoritarian, telling people they are sheep for "falling for buzzwords." Seriously, where are you coming up this garbage? 1st year what?
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
What is real? Care to elucidate what exactly is real without the use of a buzzword? You proved my point, you tried to end the debate before it started.
I am not denying that there is false information or incorrect reporting, but creating a label in the form of a buzzword spreads through the collective consciousness and then allows people to attribute this label to anything they deem fit. An idea that was once founded in reality is purposefully mongrelized to manipulate public trends. Buzzwords are the death of critical thought. This one caught on in a matter of weeks, the older ones usually took months or years.
I'm not qualified to explain the nature of reality, but I do know that some things are real, and some things are fake, and I also know "fake" and "news" are real words that have real meaning. Putting them together to describe news that is fake isn't a buzzword, or the death of critical thought.
What would you call news that is fake?
Your problem seems to be not that there is false information and incorrect reporting, but that there is a label for it.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
I'm not qualified to explain the nature of reality, but I do know that some things are real, and some things are fake, and I also know "fake" and "news" are real words that have real meaning. Putting them together to describe news that is fake isn't a buzzword, or the death of critical thought.
What would you call news that is fake?
Your problem seems to be not that there is false information and incorrect reporting, but that there is a label for it.
Well, that's because in the world of critical thinking, objective analysis, empirical measurements and correlative relations the idea of fakenews is preposterous. It completely eliminates the credibility of an idea by putting a label on it, debate is destroyed before it begins by using this simplistic labeling tactic. If a theory is false the lessons learned are amended to the theory, by putting labels on something and restricting thought processes it effectively destroys the empirical process and objective analysis. In lamens [sic] terms buzzwords sever the links between evaluation, observation and induction.
Come on man! The link has been severed! You can never recover after severing of the link!
No one is stopping you from presenting anything. No one is stopping you from debating anything. You're the guy that jumped into the thread trying to sound all authoritarian, telling people they are sheep for "falling for buzzwords." Seriously, where are you coming up this garbage? 1st year what?
Where did I use the word sheep?
I'm not coming up with anything, not my ideas. The use of buzzwords is well analyzed, they've been evolving since the early 1900's with the use of Pavlovian/Skinnerian operant conditioning and Jungian archetypes. Nice rhetoric though, A for effort.
I'm not coming up with anything, not my ideas. The use of buzzwords is well analyzed, they've been evolving since the early 1900's with the use of Pavlovian/Skinnerian operant conditioning and Jungian archetypes. Nice rhetoric though, A for effort.
WTF are you talking about??? Pavlovian theory is based on classical conditioning and BF Skinner's work was on operant conditioning. Their work was also 50 years apart. IIRC Skinners work was an extension of Thorndike's Law of Effect, but I could be wrong there. History of Psychology was many many years ago. You're also going to have to explain your connection to Jungian theory and conditioning. You're all over the psychological road map here.
Oh, and sorry, you didn't call us sheep. You told us we were be played like fiddles. Much better.
WTF are you talking about??? Pavlovian theory is based on classical conditioning and BF Skinner's work was on operant conditioning. Their work was also 50 years apart. IIRC Skinners work was an extension of Thorndike's Law of Effect, but I could be wrong there. History of Psychology was many many years ago. You're also going to have to explain your connection to Jungian theory and conditioning. You're all over the psychological road map here.
I've got a degree in psychology and I suggest you do some more research before being so condescending, in life you rarely know all the facts and acting so staunchly absolute in your positions demonstrates an unwillingness to listen to reason. If you really want to get into it I'd be happy to if you're actually open to new ideas but from your superfluous use of rhetoric I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Your hyper reactivity suggests a contrarian point of view.
I've got a degree in psychology and I suggest you do some more research before being so condescending. If you really want to get into it I'd be happy to if you're actually open to new ideas but from your superfluous use of rhetoric I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Your hyper reactivity suggests a contrarian point of view.
Oh, well excuse me. I didn't know I was dealing with someone with a whole degree in psychology. I'll withdraw before I get run over by someone so well trained in the field.
Brutal. I can't believe this racist is going to be president.
Wait wait wait. Are you specifically saying that this statement itself racist and thus Trump is racist, or that he's generally racist?
The way this tweet reads, if anything, calls out the electorate (or a significant percentage of them) as a bunch of racists. If they agree that Obama did a poor job, and associate that perceived failure with a black POTUS, then racist voters may impose that bias on a different candidate if that candidate also happened to be black. "Oh no, last time we had a black President, [insert nonsense]."
I think history will look back on Obama as a good POTUS who was given a colossal mess to clean up, and did an admirable job despite the GOP imposing senseless obstacles on his efforts, and a small slice of the citizen pie who were completely convinced that he was a covert Muslim, not born in the US, and probably had something to do with ISIS.
What's scary is that Trump ticks all three of those boxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Oh, well excuse me. I didn't know I was dealing with someone with a whole degree in psychology. I'll withdraw before I get run over by someone so well trained in the field.
I get the sense that you're perplexed with AcGold's behavior and I'm not sure why. Did you see the "Vaccines..." thread? This is mild.
Oh, well excuse me. I didn't know I was dealing with someone with a whole degree in psychology. I'll withdraw before I get run over by someone so well trained in the field.
So you're not interested? Too bad, I'm going to share anyways as your profound arrogance is unsettling.
This use of labeling began with Brill and Bernays breaking down Skinner, Pavlov, Jung and Freud. The first successful application of buzzwords to my knowledge was "torches of freedom" effectively changing the public consciousness as it was viewed as socially unacceptable for women to smoke.
Empirical methodologies applied to changing human behavior on a mass scale, successfully in 1929. Garbage I made up though right? I'm certain my crappy degree from clown college is directly correlated to how I made this up, I'm a frikin trime traveller than can go back in time and fabricate things just to troll you. World leaders saw leading psychiatrists from government think tanks effectively manipulating the public and they thought... nah, let's never do this again, definitely not useful.
I've got a degree in psychology and I suggest you do some more research before being so condescending, in life you rarely know all the facts and acting so staunchly absolute in your positions demonstrates an unwillingness to listen to reason. If you really want to get into it I'd be happy to if you're actually open to new ideas but from your superfluous use of rhetoric I'm not sure it's worth the effort. Your hyper reactivity suggests a contrarian point of view.
I wish you the best of luck trying to debate in this thread. Once people latch onto an ideology and use it to feed their need for self worth and virtue it is almost impossible to get them to change their mind, or even try to think objectively. What makes it that much more futile is most often when confronted with contrary facts it actually causes a person to reinforce their beliefs.
What's going to happen is I will be attacked for the above and people will say it is me that is unable to cope with logic. And even if that may be true at least I recognize the above.
There is one undeniable fact, almost everyone was wrong about Donald Trump. He beat the Democrats, Republicans, the media, Hollywood, the Clinton family and Bush family to become President. That alone made me reconsider my thoughts that he is mostly a buffoon without a plan.
But the answer to everything Donald Trump is racism no other possible way he became President.
In general I agree with you AC Gold that using a label to dismiss an idea is lazy.
I think though in the case of the recount my clarification was reasonable. The reason people are funding a recount is not based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts. Where in that case I was using the buzz word fake news it was to criticize the left for being just as willing to embrace facts that suit their naritive rather than to review what is most likely.
I do think buzzwords have their place and Inthink it is to resolve the freeman on the land problem. When the bull#### is piled high and wide and the person on the other side of the debate is misinformed with no interest in reviewing that position than dismissing their arguments using buzzwords is reasonable.
Whether you use buzzwords or ten-dollar words to make yourself look intelligent, the end result is the same:
It's incredibly easy to spot a person who knows what they're talking about and one who doesn't.
The repeated use of buzzwords have no more a negative impact than the repeated use of ten-dollar words have positive. It's about the content of the argument, not what it looks like on a superficial level.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Whether you use buzzwords or ten-dollar words to make yourself look intelligent, the end result is the same:
It's incredibly easy to spot a person who knows what they're talking about and one who doesn't.
The repeated use of buzzwords have no more a negative impact than the repeated use of ten-dollar words have positive. It's about the content of the argument, not what it looks like on a superficial level.
It is not the same, there is a psychological effect that buzz words have. When you have to consider the confounding variables in each situation it forces you to see things more clearly, when you apply a catch all to situations that mildly resemble each other you effectively stop critical thought. Placing everything into a template ends things before the cyclical nature of critical thought can begin.
It has nothing to do with appearance on a superficial level, it is psychological manipulation applied on a mass scale that divides, entrenches and dumbs down the population. A method that is employed using scientific analysis.
