I can’t believe we are sitting here trying to educate STUPID people about what the difference is between facts and fantasy!
This fake news thing is getting to be ridiculous! Is this the result of people being raised on fictional video games and TV?
Do they not know the difference between make believe and reality? Do they even care?
Fact…
Fiction…
Fantasy…
I think you’re imagining things.
I’m friends with a number of Trump supporters. Most of them don’t care. They are deep into truthiness. Any bogus story about Hillary is something they will grab onto and never let go, even if the source has been wrong every other time. And true things about El Cheeto will be ignored or denied to my friends’ dying days.
I’ve not only lost my country, I’ve lost reality. It’s beyond sadness, tragedy, and even nausea.
Perhaps the OP needs new friends. FYI: Facebook has an unfriend button too. It’s not a one-way process of admitting idiots into your life never to leave.
Ref Typo Knig, there’s an old saying about the stock market: “In the long term the market is rational. But be careful betting against irrationality; it can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
It applies politically too. Reality has a liberal bias. More precisely, reality has a reality bias. It will win out … eventually. And the folks who bet on the fantasy will reap the consequences of reality reasserting itself.
Your/my goal is to figure out how best to play the irrational period between now and then. While remaining politically and economically solvent during the time while crazy salesman words do seem to really affect the actual factual real world.
Let’s see now… people who read the mainstream liberal newspapers and magazine believed such howlers as
Fraternity-boys gang raped a girl at UVA.
Michael Brown was a gentle giant who was trying to surrender
Be careful when you throw around terms like “fake news.”
The trouble is that they’ll hurt a lot of the rest of us, en passant. Climate change, an upswing in the national deficit, rising unemployment, polluted waters, overt racism, and so on. Yeah, it’ll all correct itself in due course, but at such a grievous cost.
Are you trying to point out that “fake news” happens on both sides and that we should try to make an effort to fight it no matter what side it is on, or are you saying “It’s o.k. if we do it, because you do it too!”?
And yet there are positives to teaching preschool.
Stolen from something I read recently: We don’t live in a post-truth society, we live in a post-trust society. Which is to say, it’s not that people don’t understand what facts are, or believe in the usefulness of facts, but that they don’t feel that they have the tools to trust factual sources.
I would argue that this is the result of an intentional campaign by the right to discredit the conventional media, whose pesky facts were getting in the way of their agenda, and now it’s backfiring on them gloriously as I’ve heard people say you can’t trust Trump-hating Fox News anymore.
Perhaps schools should do a better job of encouraging healthy skepticism instead of unhealthy skepticism. My experience in school, especially in the realm of science, is that you’d learn something, and then you’d walk through the experiments that were conducted that convinced scientists that the something was true. Even if the something turned out not to be true some years later, if you understood the compelling evidence (at the time), you can still trust in science and the process. But if you hated school and you just glossed over all of the backstory, you might think “Science is sometimes wrong, so I just won’t trust science.”
I think Snopes is a great example of the eagerness with which people refuse to trust. When Snopes started countering right-wing myths, rather than reading thoughtfully and following the sources linked at the bottom of every article, it was cognitively much easier to just discredit the whole source as biased. This is unhealthy skepticism.
The OP seems to fall squarely in “rant” territory, and is thus better suited to the Pit. Thread relocated from IMHO.
As far as I can tell, this seems to be an extremely poor attempt at the old “your side does it too” fallacy, and it fails even at that. Those are isolated random allegations don’t define “liberal” or “conservative”, but more importantly, they don’t define major belief systems the way that fake news shapes the belief systems of today’s Republicans and self-described “conservatives”.
And that is the point that you’re avoiding in that misguided fallacy. Fake news matters when fake news gets an unqualified president elected, when it stuffs Congress full of self-serving mercenary idiots, when it appoints ideologues to the Supreme Court, and when indeed it starts to shape the whole structure of society. That’s what Republicans and their minions are doing with fake news. Your attempt at equivalence is idiotic.
What, like Star Citizen? 
IOW, those of us who were wrong, were wrong about a couple of local stories where the consequences of being wrong were limited to those involved in the stories.
And how many liberals do you see who still believe these stories? We are amenable to correction as the evidence piles up.
Meanwhile, conservatives are wrong about global fucking warming. No matter how much evidence piles up.
So two big differences:
Local v. global scale.
Will v. won’t change minds when confronted with enough contrary evidence.
Actually, this is news to me – are you saying you think most liberals have abandoned the original Michael Brown narrative now?
I agree the dramatic denouement of the Rolling Stone article has left most liberals who supported it now in agreement that perhaps they were hasty.
But perhaps the Michael Brown thing was more gradual; I don’t remember any of his vocal defenders here posting a “maybe I was wrong,” but I well may have missed it.
Unlike a deliberately fake story that might influence an election or two, the mischaracterization of the Michael Brown story probably hasn’t been talked about as much after corrections have been made because the story has been pushed aside by other more immediate concerns.
Dear Sir. As a liberal I can assure you we have much bigger fish to fry that MB. We’re busy concentrating on a 265 pound clown whale about to invade Washington with his pod of yet-to-be-housebroken clownette whales.
Yes, MB was so 2014.
Perhaps my greatest contribution ever to the SDMB, the Ferguson Grand Jury Discussion Thread, saw several posters reconsider their positions and change their minds. Myself included.
Do we have—no, is there any hope that we could have, in this day and age—a Walter Cronkite-like news source that’s trusted by a majority of Americans across the political spectrum?
Sigh.
It means “fake news” is a term liberals tend to throw around casually. They THINK it means “We’re smart people who know the real facts because we read respectable journalists like Sabrina Erdely and Jayson Blair, while you conservative rednecks watch Faux News and listen to Rush Limbaugh.”
In reality, liberals believe all kinds of things just as ridiculous as “Obama was born in Kenya.”
Liberals have their own echo chambers and their own blind spots. People who read the New York Times and the Boston Globe are misinformed on a host of issues, but pat themselves on the back for “knowing” all kinds of things that aren’t true.
Are there ignorant conservatives? Hell yeah. But those folks aren’t reading the SDMB. People like YOU are. And somebody needs to tell THEM that old adage about the motes in other people’s eyes and the planks in your own.
So it’s an excuse. Thank you.