Fake News

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

plus he did "start off with me".

he mutilated this thread because he was offended that i called murder murder.

[EnglishPete]

I call them alt-Nazi because I have too much respect for actual ideological rightists to call the white nationalist movement alt-right. I could call them alt-KKK or alt-John Birch Society if you wish.

I wouldn't consider such labels accurate to describe the ideological position of Breitbart. No matter my point was not one about what label is given to Breitbart's ideological position. The point is if holding such a position impacted its objectivity. If a news publication has an ideology that is populist nationalist (or alt Nazi or alt KKK or whatever you want to call it) then it cannot be expected to objective and neutral in its coverage of that ideology.

That is a fair point. However my point is that the same point could be made about any news outlet with an ideological point of view. For example the Washington Post is establishment liberal in its ideology. By itself that's not a criticism of the WaPo, any news outlet cannot avoid having some perspective or other. That just means that it cannot be seen as unbiased and objective in its coverage of that ideology and its politics.

So Breitbart is not ideologically neutral but neither is any other news outlet.

[Cassius]

EnglishPete, There's no way Breitbart, the favorite platform of the alt-Nazi movement, can be considered objective about those who point out the fallacies of the alt-Nazi movement.

hey y'know if you actually did your damn job you wouldn't have to argue with this guy

My job is not to turn this place into an echo chamber.

your job is to enforce the terms of use, which this dude and his ilk routinely blatantly violate

Perhaps he should start off with you, given that you regularly break the terms of service by posting false ('Hillary won Michigan giys'), defamatory ('Trump is a rapist'/'poster x is a Nazi), innaccurate (see previous), abusive ('reactionary fckwits')

all of those are objectively true

You must be logged in to read this quote.

lmbo

Well, 'damn' is a very moderate curse word so it can certainly be filed under 'violations of the terms of service', since they simply make reference to 'vulgar' language.

But anyway, there you go again, posting false and defamatory information. To paraphrase Buford T. Justice what we're dealing with here is a total lack of respect for the terms of service. Simple as.

plus he did "start off with me".

he mutilated this thread because he was offended that i called murder murder.

Unfortunately the opinions of a District Attorney are more important when it comes to determining what is true and what isn't than your own. So you were still posting false and defamatory material there too.

[Virginiá]

The problem with that is a lot of Democrats as well as the Media label what ever story they don't like as "fake news". I think Pizzagate along with the Hillary e-mails are legitimate stories and not fake news.

I'm surprised that everyone just let this comment go unchallenged...

But how do you even truly challenge that? Sure, you can throw facts and logic at it, but when you're arguing with people who literally believe Podesta is running a child sex trafficking network out of a pizza shop and another who uses Breitbart as a source to challenge a fact-checking website, I mean... That's like trying to push an intact bulldozer down a sidewalk sewer drain. It doesn't work. It isn't compatible, and you're just wasting energy trying.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The problem with that is a lot of Democrats as well as the Media label what ever story they don't like as "fake news". I think Pizzagate along with the Hillary e-mails are legitimate stories and not fake news.

I'm surprised that everyone just let this comment go unchallenged...

But how do you even truly challenge that? Sure, you can throw facts and logic at it, but when you're arguing with people who literally believe Podesta is running a child sex trafficking network out of a pizza shop and another who uses Breitbart as a source to challenge a fact-checking website, I mean... That's like trying to push an intact bulldozer down a sidewalk sewer drain. It doesn't work. It isn't compatible, and you're just wasting energy trying.

I think the term is fractal stupidity:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fractal_wrongness

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you challenge it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[EnglishPete]

The problem with that is a lot of Democrats as well as the Media label what ever story they don't like as "fake news". I think Pizzagate along with the Hillary e-mails are legitimate stories and not fake news.

I'm surprised that everyone just let this comment go unchallenged...

But how do you even truly challenge that? Sure, you can throw facts and logic at it, but when you're arguing with people who literally believe Podesta is running a child sex trafficking network out of a pizza shop and another who uses Breitbart as a source to challenge a fact-checking website, I mean... That's like trying to push an intact bulldozer down a sidewalk sewer drain. It doesn't work. It isn't compatible, and you're just wasting energy trying.

Do you think that fact checking websites should themselves be immune from fact checking. After other news outlets have their ideological biases whether its the populist nationalism of breitbart or the pro establishment liberalism of the Washington post.

 This inevitable lack of objectivity can, at times, lead to inaccuracies through an interpretation of the evidence based on what can best promote the ideological agenda rather than what is the most reasonable result of a disinterested examination of the evidence. This inaccuracy can either occur as a result of examining the evidence and interpreting it in the light of wishful thinking, or it can be the result of wilful deception. The Washington Post has been guilty of both in this election. This tendency of bias leading to inaccuracies is exactly why fact checking is a valuable exercise.

However what is curious to me is exactly why you think that fact checking websites, alone of all news outlets, are immune to this kind of bias and can be 100% trusted? In other words that fact checking websites don't need to be fact checked. After all if a fact checking website has never been fact checked how are people to judge how accurate it is and what biases it might have?

[Virginiá]

Do you think that fact checking websites should themselves be immune from fact checking. After other news outlets have their ideological biases whether its the populist nationalism of breitbart or the pro establishment liberalism of the Washington post.

Of course not, but using Breitbart to debate fact-checking sites is ridiculous. They are a right-wing tabloid site that is well-known for its extreme bias and one-sided nature. They have an agenda, and they don't tell you the whole story in their efforts to achieve said agenda. They are not even close to an objective source. When people appear to look to such sites for facts and and objective news, it makes me question their credibility, whether you are using Breitbart of a silly article from Salon.

[EnglishPete]

Do you think that fact checking websites should themselves be immune from fact checking. After other news outlets have their ideological biases whether its the populist nationalism of breitbart or the pro establishment liberalism of the Washington post.

Of course not, but using Breitbart to debate fact-checking sites is ridiculous. They are a right-wing tabloid site that is well-known for its extreme bias and one-sided nature. They have an agenda, and they don't tell you the whole story in their efforts to achieve said agenda. They are not even close to an objective source. When people appear to look to such sites for facts and and objective news, it makes me question their credibility, whether you are using Breitbart of a silly article from Salon.

During the election d New York times were extremely biased and one sided in their election coverage and comment. They have an agenda and they didn't tell the whole story in their efforts to acheive said agenda. They're not even close to being objective sources.

Their political agenda is liberalism and in particular pro-US establishment liberalism. They will employ a few liberal Republicans to give the appearance of balance (e.g. George Will) but these are only employed because they don't wander too far from the liberal reservation in their thinking. The mindset was hilariously revealed in a recent WaPo Article entitled

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mainstream-media-puts-out-the-call-for-pro-trump-columnists/2016/12/09/2153fdd2-bca7-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html

This illustrates my point as most of the 'conservative' writers he mentions are liberal republicans (one obvious exception be the carnival barker of no fixed ideology, Glenn Beck) and all were hostile to Trump. Now he could have found plenty of writers to write pro Trump articles. Such articles were being written at the washington times, WSJ, American Spectator, Breitbart etc. Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter I'm sure would also have been able to write colomns for WaPo if asked. But of course non eof those are liberal Republicans. So they didn't want to publish those. WaPo's clear and hyper partisan bias in favour of liberalism has been made very clear in this election. They are far from an objective source.

[The_Doctor]

EnglishPete shouldn't be banned. The Alt-Right is an important part of our political discussion in the United States and Europe, which this forum centers around. It's asinine and illogical, to say the least, but banning these people distances us from what millions of people are thinking and seeing in their news feeds.

To ban EnglishPete is to make us into the Atlasia version of the Davos forum, where nobody hears what the mob is saying and assume that the mob is happy with what they have.

The Right certainly has a populist, even diseased strain, but they vote as well as the Left does and given that we all operate within democracies we all need to deal with that.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Also jesus can we turn down the victim complex for five seconds, lol.

  blasphemous

You actually care about that? Stop it jesus.

[EnglishPete]

EnglishPete shouldn't be banned. The Alt-Right is an important part of our political discussion in the United States and Europe, which this forum centers around. It's asinine and illogical, to say the least, but banning these people distances us from what millions of people are thinking and seeing in their news feeds.

To ban EnglishPete is to make us into the Atlasia version of the Davos forum, where nobody hears what the mob is saying and assume that the mob is happy with what they have.

The Right certainly has a populist, even diseased strain, but they vote as well as the Left does and given that we all operate within democracies we all need to deal with that.

I'm still not sure what exactly it is that I've written that is deemed ban worthy, unless it isn't anything in particular just a kind of vague 'being too right wing'

[EnglishPete]

Also jesus can we turn down the victim complex for five seconds, lol.

  blasphemous

You actually care about that? Stop it jesus.

Is that a quote from the Gospels? I don't remember that verse.

[The_Doctor]

EnglishPete shouldn't be banned. The Alt-Right is an important part of our political discussion in the United States and Europe, which this forum centers around. It's asinine and illogical, to say the least, but banning these people distances us from what millions of people are thinking and seeing in their news feeds.

To ban EnglishPete is to make us into the Atlasia version of the Davos forum, where nobody hears what the mob is saying and assume that the mob is happy with what they have.

The Right certainly has a populist, even diseased strain, but they vote as well as the Left does and given that we all operate within democracies we all need to deal with that.

I'm still not sure what exactly it is that I've written that is deemed ban worthy, unless it isn't anything in particular just a kind of vague 'being too right wing'

In general, you're not really a contributor beyond representing the alt-right viewpoint and showcasing the fact that a lot of Europeans and American (white) people rely on Breitbart News and Infowars and alternative news sources and distrust the mainstream media. The fact you're also friendly to Russia is also symptomatic of the alt-right.

So, I don't think you've done anything ban worthy, really. But you're generally just the alt-right viewpoint, not necessarily a viewpoint that shares the same premises to conduct a debate. It's just important to include and listen to these voices, but it's next to impossible to engage them. We don't agree on the same premises.

[EnglishPete]

EnglishPete shouldn't be banned. The Alt-Right is an important part of our political discussion in the United States and Europe, which this forum centers around. It's asinine and illogical, to say the least, but banning these people distances us from what millions of people are thinking and seeing in their news feeds.

To ban EnglishPete is to make us into the Atlasia version of the Davos forum, where nobody hears what the mob is saying and assume that the mob is happy with what they have.

The Right certainly has a populist, even diseased strain, but they vote as well as the Left does and given that we all operate within democracies we all need to deal with that.

I'm still not sure what exactly it is that I've written that is deemed ban worthy, unless it isn't anything in particular just a kind of vague 'being too right wing'

In general, you're not really a contributor beyond representing the alt-right viewpoint and showcasing the fact that a lot of Europeans and American (white) people rely on Breitbart News and Infowars and alternative news sources and distrust the mainstream media. The fact you're also friendly to Russia is also symptomatic of the alt-right.

So, I don't think you've done anything ban worthy, really. But you're generally just the alt-right viewpoint, not necessarily a viewpoint that shares the same premises to conduct a debate. It's just important to include and listen to these voices, but it's next to impossible to engage them. We don't agree on the same premises.

I think what you are saying here is a good illustration here of what the philosopher Quine called the 'web of belief'. Any individual's beliefs do not simply exist in isolation from one another but  form an interlinking network or 'web of belief'. Some of these beliefs are more central and some less central. The reason why different people will respond to the same new data differently is that there isn't a simple one to one correspondence between the individual point of data and the individual belief. Instead new data must be integrated into the web as a whole. It is obviously easier to do this by adjusting the more peripheral than it is to adjust a more central belief (whose adjustment would require more extensive adjustments of surrounding interlinked beliefs). This can particularly be the case when there is an emotional attachments to a particular set of beliefs that have become central to a persons 'belief web'. Because different people will hold different beliefs and hold them less centrally or more centrally than others then they will necessarily interpret the same data in quite different ways.

I would be interested to hear what basic premises (in other words what central parts of your 'web of belief') you hold that you think I reject and that you think are the necessary basis for you to conduct a debate with someone.

[BoAtlantis]

All props to conservatives if they want to move on to Breitbart, Infowars, FOX and the likes where they believe they can get genuine news. Stick to the news that make you feel home.

As a Dem, I don't go to FOX news and complain why it has a right-leaning slant. If you don't like the news, boycott it. Show your power through the free market.

[Green Line]

Fake news is good news.

[The_Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main thing is we don't agree on the basis of validity of the news articles we read. I place some faith in the NYT, CNN, CBS, ABC, news media, reporting, the Atlantic, Fox News, and the like. I have very little faith in Breitbart News or InfoWars, or Alex Jones' show. I think you place far more credence in these outlets and thus, we can't really come to terms about debating the issues of the day.

Certainly we can have credible debates about the free markets and the role of immigration in Europe and America and the appropriate restrictions ... we'd probably find more fertile ground on these areas (and I suspect we'd agree a lot more; I'm no liberal really - I'm a moderate conservative at this point aligned with the Democrats as more anti-Trump than anything but I hold hard line views on immigration and I am skeptical of the European Union).

Our problem lies in that I read the National Review and you read Breitbart. We can't debate if our sources say wildly different things.

[Beet]

I don't see why Breitbart is so controversial. I've never seen anything on there that's actually untrue. If anything, they are more objective than the Huffington Post, since there are fewer opinion pieces. Do some of the more liberal posters on here want to point out some specific, objectionable content on there? I mean stuff that's beyond the pale, not just stuff with a slant you don't agree with.

[EnglishPete]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The main thing is we don't agree on the basis of validity of the news articles we read. I place some faith in the NYT, CNN, CBS, ABC, news media, reporting, the Atlantic, Fox News, and the like. I have very little faith in Breitbart News or InfoWars, or Alex Jones' show. I think you place far more credence in these outlets and thus, we can't really come to terms about debating the issues of the day.

Our problem lies in that I read the National Review and you read Breitbart. We can't debate if our sources say wildly different things.

I don't think its a question of having too much faith in Breitbart, Infowars, Gotnews.com, NYT, CNN, CBS, ABC, the Atlantic or Fox News etc. Its a question of looking at the evidence and the arguments presented by the news source. That's true whether its NYT or NBC or Breitbart. Have a healthy skepticism of all these sources.

What I find interesting is why its so important to many educated liberal professionals, so emotionally important to them and so central to their 'web of belief' to place a high level of trust in professional liberal news sources like The New York times, the Washington Post, NBC, Politifact etc. I think it is to do with how such people gain their social status.

I'm sure many educated middle class professionals have looked at Trump over the last 18 months and thought to themselves "If I had publically said half the outrageous things he said I would have been sacked, my career would be over and I would have lost all my social standing amongst my peer group" This is no doubt true. his is because although this social group tend to have an above average income and social status in western societies this status is somewhat precarious. It is based on education, qualifications, experience, employment and professional reputation. These forms of 'qualifications' are therefore very emotionally important to this class of people (why so many were focused in the election on Hillary being more 'qualified' than Trump).

The social status is also dependent on following, within certain parameters, a broadly liberal, politically correct line. It can range from a more conservative liberalism to a more radical liberalism but it has to be within that range. Step outside that range and a persons reputation can be ruined and their career wrecked. The bureaucratic structures that rule both in within the government sector and within publically traded corporations will not tolerate stepping outside this ideological range.

Someone like Donald Trump (or like the insurance tycoon Brexit campaigner and donor Arron Banks who has a similar reputation in the UK for saying unPC provocative things) is able to defy this because they do not answer to any bureaucracy. The Trump Organisation (like Arron Bank's GoSkippy Insurance) is privately owned. Trump doesn't work for the government (until next month, of course), he's not answerable to any shareholders, there is no board of directors that can remove him. He has been to an Ivy League college but it wouldn'y really matter if he hadn't (Arron banks, like Nigel Farage, never went to University).

So trump is not restricted in the same way that middle class professionals are. Which brings to the high esteem in which many professional educated liberals hold professional liberal new publications. Such people know that they are required to tow a liberal, politically correct line o maintain their reputations. it is the job of 'high reputation' news outlets like the NYT, Politifact, WaPo etc to give people the 'party line' and the 'acceptable range of opinions' on what to think. This requires, for the self respect of the professional worker required to adhere to this 'acceptable range of opinions' the belief that he is freely gaining information from objectively good sources rather than just keeping his head down. questioning the veracity of these sources challenges that self image.

[EnglishPete]

Good article here from the Daily Caller pointing out the left wing ideological bent of Snopes,another of the 'fact checking' websites that Facebook is planning to use

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

[ApatheticAustrian]

daily caller is real news like NYP, combining a tabloid outline with solid conservative commenting.

they are lightyears beyond breitbart and the likes of IW.

[Virginiá]

Good article here from the Daily Caller pointing out the left wing ideological bent of Snopes,another of the 'fact checking' websites that Facebook is planning to use

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-checker-employs-leftists-almost-exclusively/

So what if they almost exclusively hire liberals? That DC story is one big ad hominem attack against the people at Snopes, trying to discredit them entirely based on their own personal ideological leanings. Places like Snopes posts basically all the proof they used to come up with their conclusion. Same with politifact, and they both explain their position. With that information, you can follow their reasoning and verify if it is true.

If Breitbart was that thorough and clear, I wouldn't mind their fact checking either.

[ApatheticAustrian]

imho the mainstream conservative outlets, like NYP/National Review, have helped "normalizing" fringe news through discrediting other mainstream media outlets - or through the moniker MSM itself - for decades and creating "safe spaces" for conservatives, which work as giant echo chambers, instead of just information with a soft liberal bias.

[ApatheticAustrian]

daily caller is real news like NYP, combining a tabloid outline with solid conservative commenting.

they are lightyears beyond breitbart and the likes of IW.

Daily Caller is run by right wing hack Tucker Carlson

1) fake news! Miss bow-tie is now a FN personality.

2) idd - still a "normal" source for information with a conservative bias. "normal" tabloid instead of propaganda. and people like matt k. lewis are really talented.

[EnglishPete]

daily caller is real news like NYP, combining a tabloid outline with solid conservative commenting.

they are lightyears beyond breitbart and the likes of IW.

Daily Caller is run by right wing hack Tucker Carlson

And? You think that only sites run by left wing hacks should be quoted?