Should reporters report on the claims that Obama is a lizard person from space? Or that the Clintons lead a global satanist cannibal pedophile cult? What separates the similarly evidence-free Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy nonsense from these smears?
I believe that lying to people and state control of media will mostly likely cause more harm in the end.
Wait, I thought you were for allowing people to tell lies?
And how does possible future harm trump actual current violence? Because hate speech is violence.
He has principles. They’re just not your principles. He sees different things as important and acts accordingly.
The same thing that separates a works of fantasy like Lord of the Rings from works of fiction like James Bond. We don’t need to spend any time discussing the implausibility of one. We can spend a bit of time discussing the implausibility of the other. Why? Because lizard people don’t exist, but laptops do. And that is not meant to lend the laptop story legitimacy as much as it is to discourage people from thinking that since laptops exists, therefore the story is plausible.
Got it. Telling the truth isn’t actually a priority. Just cover any ol’ lie no matter how ludicrous but present both sides, and let people figure it out (i.e. pick whichever one they happen to like). Because that’s worked out well so far (anti-mask, COVID-is-fake, climate-change-is-fake, earth-is-flat, there-was-massive-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-election, Qanon, etc.).
Where you and I disagree most is with respect to the importance of truth. To me, there is no higher journalistic calling than truth (in fact, on a personal note, I think there is no greater virtue than truth, and that there cannot be any virtue without truth, but that delves more into my personal philosophy and viewpoints). Public discourse, and as a result society, is grievously harmed by lies and propaganda (in the real world). And if something falls into a grey area where maybe it is true or maybe it isn’t, then publish it. But when something is so clearly and ludicrously false, then there should be no obligation to give the lie a platform.
I can see that I will never convince you of the importance of truth (in the real world), and since I have a rule about not going in loops in conversations, I think I will bow out here. It is an interesting topic, but I just feel it isn’t going anywhere anymore. Please feel free to respond, I’m not trying to have the last word; however, I’m unlikely to reply unless there is something particular non-loopy that comes up.
This is a brilliant statement and bears repeating.
P.s. - by non-loopy, I didn’t mean not crazy (the usual connotation of loopy) I meant something that wasn’t going to simply cause a continuation of the conversational loop. No loopiness to any poster was meant.
You forgot the part about the Clintons leading a global Satanist cannibal pedophile cult. All of those things exist – should the mainstream press cover that Q-Anon CT?
His principles are about harming liberals and helping Greenwald, and whatever other fantasy nonsense his fictional worldview has created. Aiding and abetting white nationalists like Tucker Carlson isn’t just a difference in reasonable principles.
But this thread shouldn’t just be about charlatans like Greenwald. It’s clear now there is no philosophical disagreement here. It’s just about particular instances and types of speech. So what kind of speech do you think is being treated unfairly? That’s what’s at the heart of this disagreement.
So you think journalists should have spent years covering Obama’s birth certificate, since fake birth certificates exist?
The Hunter Biden laptop thing was evidence free from the beginning (just like the Obama birth certificate lie). And yet Greenwald gave it airtime, despite the total lack of evidence.
Pizza exists.
Murdered children exist, sorta.
Therefore pizza topped with chopped up murdered children must also exist.
It’s clear that the OP isn’t interested in free speech but rather is only interested in being able to disseminate convenient messages, regardless of their truthfulness.
No, I do not think that journalists should have had to spend time covering and debunking any of those things. But they did. The reason they did is for the same reason we’ve all spent endless time in threads about thrice told tales. It seems stupid to devote time and effort to debunk the above noted bullshit. But journalists thought it was worthwhile to do so. Just like it was worthwhile to debunk the 9/11 host of conspiracies. So that the next time some C.T. loon raises the birth certificate/pedo ring/laptop issue, there is documented evidence to point to that calls out the bullshit for what it is.
It seems a pointless objection to say “we never should have had to do that in the first place”. Well, yeah. Trump should not be fucking lying every time his lips move. But there has been almost 5 years of counting and fact checking his lies. Shouldn’t have had to do that. But aren’t you a little bit glad someone did?
Need I mention the irony in making these objections on a site ostensibly created to fight ignorance…
I don’t know, I have at least 30 people in my doors a day, mostly 1%'ers, and they tend to mill about while I am getting their dog, at least half of them take a look at my door. I have menus from a few local restaurants, a list of businesses that will let you bring your dog in, some posters for donating to a food pantry, some ads for some pet photographers and portrait artists, local vets I recommend, usually a flyer for the local school events or plays. People do learn about things in their community from my board.
I’m not that small a deal, if you have a dog around here, there’s probably at least a 25% chance that you’ve been in my shop.
I could really boost the awareness of either a BLM march or a KKK rally, but neither will get space in my shop. The first because it would probably hurt business, the second because I don’t support it. Am I responding to cancel culture in the first? Am I participating in cancel culture in the latter?
If not, how big do I need to be? After I drive Petsmart out of business, will I then be censoring by not allowing someone to advertise in my shops?
“Ordinary people” learn about things more through word of mouth than through Amazon promotions. They put more weight on what their neighbors think about a position than what some Washington Post columnist does.
It is ordinary people who participate in boycotts, who refuse to patronize businesses that promote ideas they disagree with. It is exactly these small actors that you are wanting to adjust their behavior.
But reputable journalists didn’t cover the birther nonsense for years - they rightly said, over and over again, that it was evidence free and already debunked. That’s not what Greenwald did about the laptop bullshit. It’s what he should have done, but he didn’t. Because he’s a nut, not a decent journalist.
Not defending Greenwald’s position. If he hadn’t said it, somebody else would have.
There is a plethora of people in the media saying stupid shit and spreading bullshit on a daily basis. It is more important/effective, IMO, to debunk their lies than to try to shut them up.
Look, it fucking kills me that guys like Limbaugh, Carlson, Hannity, Ingram, Shapiro, etc, etc. even have a platform and an audience, and that they profit from telling lies. But since nobody has offered an effective way of keeping them from telling lies, we are going to need to spend time debunking them.
The decided it was worthwhile to do so because they had become popular ideas. There were a number of people who believed them. The story itself was a story.
They did not debunk these claims to give them exposure, they only did so because of the exposure that they had already gotten.
But, you see how well that went. Do you think that anyone who actually believed any of these claims were swayed by the media debunking them? It just made them dig their heels in deeper.
It would be foolish for a reputable journalist to debunk a claim that had not already been popularized by less reputable outlets, as that would just be raising awareness of the lie.
Right, specifically because no one is shutting them up.
And they do. No one has said any differently. However, that doesn’t mean that they need to spend any more time than it takes to present the evidence. They don’t need to bring on the conspiracy promoters to give them equal time to present their case, they don’t need to respond to every conspiracy, no matter how inane.
Yes… so what are you arguing against? They have the right to spread these lies, but they shouldn’t do it. And reputable outlets ought to restrict their journalists from spreading these kinds of lies.