Thanks I wanted to point this as well but I didn’t feel I had enough grasp of the details not to mess it up.
Because in order not to look biased, news organizations have decided that they have to give the scandals of the Democrats equal time those of the Republicans , even though the scandals of the Democrats are nothing burgers and the scandals of the Republicans are a threat to democracy.
I think this is where Sam fits in as well. He sees that the board is filled with discussions about the evils of the Republicans, and as a self styled centrist he sees it as his duty to point out that the other side does stuff that is just as bad even when it isn’t.
Yeah, I guess I did miss the part where you explained what damaging info was found. No gish gallop, just answer this one question that you’ve avoided many times now. What specific damaging info was found on the laptop?
One of the supposed “gotchas” around Hunter’s tenure at Burisma was that he didn’t have energy industry experience. But the reality is that most corporate board members aren’t subject experts; most boards will have one or two experts in whatever their business does (and some foolish ones will have none); the rest will have experience in corporate governance, law and finance. Hunter Biden had a law degree from Georgetown and previous board experience (including at Amtrak, despite not being a “train expert”). Did he trade on Daddy’s name to get work? Almost definitely - but then using personal connections to get business is also common practice in corporate board members (indeed, it’s often expected).
And yet FoxNews et alia repeatedly pointed to all of this as proof of corruption. I mean, it’s a bit slimy as high-level business often is, but it’s both legal and so common worldwide that calling out Hunter Biden for it is utterly disingenuous.
Yeah, HuffPo is deeply unreliable. Anything they print that’s from another source like Reuters is probably trustworthy but then you might as well go to the original source, and anything original or unique on HuffPo is highly likely to be partially or fully bullshit.
But the Daily Mail is a full-on propaganda rag bent on promoting the interests of its wealthy right-wing owner. It’s been caught several times simply making up stories out of whole cloth but for some reason people still read it.
As I explained to my wife, I was concerned about the long term effects of Chernobyl on the dairy industry, and those searches for Russian MILF were innocent typos. Yeah, that’s it, typos.
How is it that correcting false and/or misleading info posted by you, and you subsequently acting in bad faith after, is always characterized as “hatred”? Do you really believe the bulk of Dopers “hate” so easily?
Yes, the laptop turned out to be real and there’s a good chance it did belong to Hunter Biden. You want to slap the back of my hand with the Sister Mary Elephant Memorial Ruler, knock yourself out. But to dismiss any skepticism on our part is disingenuous. Somebody leaves a MacBook – a not insignificant chunk of change to a percentage of American citizens, not to mention the sensitive data therein – in a repair shop and never picks it? Maybe it’s because I’m not a globe-trotting international wheeler-dealer, but I would have someone calling that repair shop daily (assuming I was too busy to do so myself) until it was back in my hot little hands. And you wonder why we doubted the provenance of this item?
Speaking only for myself, I don’t hate Sam. I more frustrated with him than anything else. I see somebody that if he were to just stop for a second and really give strong consideration to his information sources he’d be better informed.
Serious question for you Sam, across all subjects (COVID, elections, etc.), do you think more misinformation comes from right-wing sources or left-wing sources? And I’m going to assume for the moment that you can recognize that far more misinformation comes from right-wing sources than left-wing sources, then why do you trust right-wing sources so much? I don’t frequent sources that have a routine history of misinformation (granted I don’t really follow the news* much at all). But if I have a friend that’s always lying to me, or BSing, exaggerating, then when he tells me stuff it goes into the “yeah…ooook” bucket. I just don’t get it. You claim to be a fact-centric person, but I don’t see it, and I wish you were.
The news, in my opinion, is a product made to be consumed and designed to make you think you you need it. This is done primarily by selling you anger/outrage and fear disguised as information. And those are products I just don’t like to buy.
I don’t think it’s very useful to look at things that way. I find misinformation/disinformation on all sides. On some subjects, the right is worse than the left, and others it’s the opposite. There are varying degrees of trustworthiness from different media outlets on the left and right as well.
The thing is, you can’t spot misinformation on your own side if you don’t give a fair reading to the other side’s rebuttals. If you assume information that comports with your worldview is true, and information that doesn’t must be misinformation or disinformation, then you are very susceptable to misinformation and disinformation from your side.
Let’s take Tucker Carlson as an example on the right. I don’t watch him much (only occasional Youtube clips since I don’t subscribe to Fox News), and when I do it’s generally with an eye towards seeing how he’s spinning the news. He’s good at it. He generally doesn’t straight-up lie - his disinformation is more of the form of exaggerating small things that work against the left, downplaying the failures on the right, assuming the worst motivations of anyone who disagres with him, putting straw-man arguments in people’s mouths then mocking them for what they didn’t say, cutting off guests when they have what looks like a good argument against his point, etc. I don’t believe a single thing he says unless I independently verify it. And even if he’s telling the truth I assume he’s ignoring or downplaying countervaling evidence.
Keith Olbermann is a similar figure on the left. They are both polemicists and rhetorical bomb-throwers, and nothing they say should be believed without independent verification. The same goes for any partisan outlet on the right and left. They all have an agenda, and they all have biases. Assuming one side is all lies and one side is all truth is a ridiculous way to form a worldview.
On something like climate change, I see both sides spinning their party line furiously. One side tries to downplay climate change or claim it isn’t happening at all while the other side claims that every weather event that people don’t like is proof of climate change, and they exagerrate the risks and exagerate the positive effect of their policy prescriptions.
I’m sure I will now be accused of ‘bothsidesism’, which is itself a propaganda technique to force people from even considering the merit on the other side of an argument. Partisans on both sides of the aisle do their best to drive their followers into epistemic closure. Looking at both sides fairly should be praised, not mocked.
On the Democrat side, we have an example from this week: The Biden administration has attempted to re-define ‘recession’ to NOT mean two quarters of consecutive negative GDP growth, which has been the standard my entire life. Wikipedia changed its page to remove the old definition, then locked it from editing. Now we are all supposed to know that there is NOT a recession, and I’m sure soon anyone who says the US is in one will be guilty of ‘disinformation’.
The denial of the Hunter Biden Laptop’s existence was disinformation. The letter from ‘50 former national security officials’ calling it Russian disinformation was itself disinformation. But I’m also open to the fact that some of it may be disinformation from ‘my’ side, whatever that is.
Scroll up a few messages to see what I said about it in that early thread. I admitted that whilemthe laptop itself seems real, and at least some of it’s contents had been validated, it would be a mistake to assume that therefore everything on it was true, and held out the possibility that it was ‘salted’ with disinformation by someone. Therefore, you couldn’t trust anything on it until it has been independently verified.
We live in the age of disinformation, It hits us from any direction, Everyone has a narrative, and everyone is spinning. Anyone who thinks their own side isn’t doing it is fooling themselves, And the only defense against it is the free flow of information and a determination to read and hear from both sides.
Why do you think I’m on the SDMB engaging in debates with you all? Because being pitted like this is FUN? It’s about the least pleasant thing I do. But I don’t know of a better way to engage with smart people who think differently and learn their perspective. Have you ever tried going to a right-wing message biard and seriously defend your ideas? I guarantee you won’t enjoy it, but on occasion you might gain some insight into some legitimate points the other side might have.
BTW, one of the reasons going down the character-assassination path in attacking your opponents is that it puts you in a position where it is very hard to back down from a position. It forces epistemic closure. That makes the people who do it more narrow-minded and immune to new evidence. Aside from the fact that it’s assholery, it’s just not good for your mind. The spirit of open inquiry requires you to look at arguments fairly and assume your opponents are approaching a debate in good faith, Once you’ve called someone a blithering moron, it’s really hard to admit that they might have a point, however small it may be.
If an argument is so obviously stupid that it’s not worth your time, just move on. You don’t have to engage with flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers. But resist the temptation to verbally lash the person, because that just hardens positions, closes minds, and does nobody any good.
Okay, let’s take this as a comparison. Tucker Carlson has a primetime show on Fox watched by millions of viewers. What network is Keith Olbermann on again?
It is not propaganda because Olberman has not been followed by guys like me in ages, and he has not been an influence as Tucker Carson is now; also regarding climate change, it has a big influence on how I’m seeing the dumb items you are pushing here, you are not doing both sides but doing willful ignorance when you ignore that the right wing info-sphere learned how to fool guys like you then when it misrepresented or lied about what was in the “climate gate” emails.
What does that have to do with anything? Now we have to match them by influence? Olbermann had a big show on MSNBC for a long time. We can also use Rachel Maddow if you’d like, although I think she’s much better than Olbermann.
What denial? The denial is that it matters. It doesn’t matter and never did, except as a piece of bullshit propaganda. There’s never been even a shred of evidence of an actual scandal with facts that could hurt Joe Biden. This was never anything other than a manufactured bullshit nonsense faux-scandal. Someone found a laptop that might be Hunter’s, and even though there was nothing significant on it, managed to blow it up into a right-wing conspiracy theory.
It was always bullshit. And we’ve been telling you this from the beginning… and you’re still buying this bullshit! It was never anything but nonsense. You should be more than “open” to this – it’s staring you right in the face. This is a nothing, bullshit, nonsense right-wing conspiracy story, and it always was.
Assuming that they are both equally full of shit, which is an equivalency I am only willing to grant for the sake of argument here, the fact that one has a huge following that hangs on every word, and the other can’t even keep a youtube channel together, should tell you everything you need to know about the gullibleness of he different political perspectives.
