Jump to content

Photo

Trust vs Skepticism


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 28 March 2017 - 06:31 AM

I topic worthy of healthy discussion I've been thinking about lately, with all the political noise lately, though this isn't about politics, but in general.

 

So, the question here pertains to taking things at face value versus being skeptical of everything.   Doing too much of the former classifies one as naive, and yet doing too much of the latter classifies one as unfeeling.  But why is this?  

 

The mainstream media, for example, started a witch hunt about so called "fake news," which came to bite them in the rear hilariously enough, but also addressed one of the key pivots of this situation.  How much trust should you put in any news?  Especially with skewed headlines in either direction that have no supporting evidence (i.e. CNN headline reads "Asian guy attacked by racist white guy" but there's no supporting evidence of any of those claims other than "I was told.."), not to mention, also, the rise in the number of fabrications of crimes (i.e. a report of a car being vandalized by "racists," but it later turned out the person did that to their own car).

 

What level of balance is there to be if any at all?  To take only the most egregious sounding things at face value (i.e. "I've been robbed!") or are even those being abused to the point you can no longer trust any of those at face value either?



#2 Sheik

Sheik

    Deified

  • Members

Posted 28 March 2017 - 06:53 AM

There cannot be a statisfying answer to this "in general".

Personally, I tend to be almost always sceptical but I also to try never be insensitive. So if somebody goes "studies have shown" I would tell them to tell me more about these studies and perhaps would read them myself - these usually make general claims about the world as such and deserve to be treated critically. But if somebody reports being the victim of a crime (say, somebody saying they have been sexually assaulted) I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt unless something about their story seems completely unbelieveable. The latter is a matter of the private sphere. So I guess what I go with most of the time is trust in private matters and scepticism with general claims.


Edited by Sheik, 30 April 2017 - 07:09 AM.

  • Rambly, strike and Dark Ice Dragon like this

#3 Haylee

Haylee

    ~ The Ragin' Cajun ~

  • Members
  • Real Name:Haylee
  • Pronouns:She / Her
  • Location:Italian Restaurant in Koorong

Posted 28 March 2017 - 07:09 AM

I pretty much always believe there's more to a story than meets the eye, which is generally why I'm rather selective about my beliefs. For example, if someone talks about how someone is being a jackass, but they themselves are making themselves look like a jackass, I'm going to look into things further, rather than give my judgements right then and there. Depending on the situation, that person could be entirely right, they could both be in the wrong, or the person complaining could be in the wrong. I almost always try to look at every possiblity before judging a situation is all I'm saying.



#4 Deedee

Deedee

    Bug Frog Dragon Girl

  • Moderators
  • Real Name:Deedee
  • Pronouns:She / Her, They / Them
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 March 2017 - 08:34 AM

Personally I really dislike how dishonest media is, especially in the aftermath of the Pewdiepie drama and in the middle of the Jontron drama. Media just wants to make everybody out to be a racist. If you disagree with mainstream opinions, especially if the word "race" is involved, you're a Nazi. All of this just so media can get a few extra clicks. It's disgusting. Whatever happened to unbiased journalism? Isn't journalism supposed to be inherently unbiased?


  • Nathaniel, Evan20000 and Dark Ice Dragon like this

#5 Dark Ice Dragon

Dark Ice Dragon

    Wizard

  • Members

Posted 28 March 2017 - 01:44 PM

I don't feel to trust in the media, the political have too power on it, useless say that my trust in politics is = zero

For all the other things of the life i don't think to be a sceptical, i'm just prudent 



#6 Naru

Naru

    Magus

  • Members

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:56 PM

I don't really know the american media, but I heard often that it really sucks. Like a huge focus on stuff like scandals of movie stars and even the political stuff is more about provocation than truth. Compared to that I am rather happy with the german media. And there are a lot of things I could complain about. Though here the credibility is far from being the biggest problem. Rather there are many things that are not that wrong (but rather completely subjective) but rather unimportant and pushed to provoke while a lot of things of importance are completely ignored as long they don't include anything scandalous.

An advise I could give is to read between the lines to learn about the world instead of going crazy about the information itself. Like if there is a scandal about a politician using the service of a prostitute. Many people sadly reduce their reaction to criticism of the politician as a bad person and forget about the topic afterwards. The real problem here is that prostitution is an accepted part of society (even more since it is protected by its taboo-status) and that the dedication of stopping it is weakened by many (powerful) men using this services. Compared to that it is rather unimportant if this one politican did go to a prostitute for real or not.

#7 Orithan

Orithan

    Studying Scientist - Commission from Silvixen

  • Members
  • Location:Australia

Posted 28 March 2017 - 04:17 PM

I am generally skeptical of things, rarely being able to put my full trust in things unless I know them well.

 

Unless you know for certain that a news source is independent, I would just boycott it and encourage others to do so. The media has done so much damage to our society by brainwashing people through the news it is not funny and now should only be watched for news reports (eg. the stuff that they can't taint so much). The concept that the media is a religion is not far from the truth, and religion being shoved down peoples' throats is one of the things I detest the most in human society. Rupert Murdoch's empire especially can go die in a hole.


Edited by Orithan, 28 March 2017 - 04:24 PM.


#8 Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder

Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder

    smash the bye button

  • Members
  • Real Name:Ronny Wiltersen

Posted 28 March 2017 - 05:07 PM

It's not that the media is dishonest, they don't want to lie to you. This is a topic that interests me greatly, though there are people far smarter than me who have written entire books on the subject so just to start this off I'd like to share two recommendations. I know I mentioned one of these to you (Koh) in another thread, but I'm gonna mention it again just in case someone else might be interested.

 

First off, the book "Understanding Power" by Noam Chomsky is by far one of the most revealing books on the subject. It goes far beyond just the media of course, but he has at least one entire chapter dedicated to the media, and how they have become part of an 'elite' in and of themselves. Incredibly interesting and I hesitate to say eye opening, but it truly was. Can't recommend this book enough. Everyone should read it. I know it can look a little grey and boring at first, but trust me, it will most likely change the way you see not just the media, but controlling powers in general.

 

Secondly I'd like to share a documentary that goes into a lot of the stuff about the media that is covered in the book mentioned above. This documentary is from 1992, but it is more topical than ever. Absolutely worth a watch. I am fairly certain this documentary is more or less public domain so I'm gonna add it here.

https://www.youtube....h?v=AnrBQEAM3rE

 

There's a section of this documentary where Chomsky defends a known Holocaust deniers right to free speech - which was seen by the mainstream media of the time as Chomsky supporting this person's views and values, which of course is not what he was doing - Chomsky himself is also Jewish. Despite this he was criticized by the media in what you could describe as a character assassination. This entire situation closely mirrors those of say Pewdiepie vs Wallstreet Journal and several of those riots at universities sparked by groups of students who disagree with a speaker's opinions, except this happened back in the 70's.

 

It's interesting to me, because it shows that while we're seeing a lot of these crazy scenarios play out today, none of that is new, and it has been the way of things for far longer than anyone of us have been on this earth. The media isn't evil, but we all live in our own echochambers, and people who works in mainstream media happens to be around a lot of likeminded people every single day of the week. It isn't weird to me that almost all of mainstream media sees Putin as the worst person on the planet (not saying he's a good guy), but it is weird to me that you then have people like Bill Maher claiming that Putin is somehow more guilty of war crimes than any american president. You'll notice in this video Maher makes fun of the claim that the US is guilty of war crimes by saying "That's something that Noam Chomsky says". As if the fact that Chomsky said it is enough to invalidate the entire argument. It gets worse, because Maher has actually had Chomsky on his show, and interviewed him as a serious, important voice. Why the fuck is he suddenly the butt of a joke? Well, it's because it's convenient. When Chomsky is saying something that aligns with their goals for the specific segment, he'll be talked about like a genious, but this time it was more convenient to make it a laughing matter. Which is sad, because I don't think what Chomsky said was wrong. The US is just as guilty of war crimes, but because Russia is 'the other guys', everything they do is seen through a filter of bias. And it goes both ways, you don't see Russia praising the western world left and right.

 

There is no source of news that is entirely on the outside when it comes to this. It affects every single one. From the "Gawker" network to Alex Jones, from CNN to Fox News. In that sense there really is no one outlet you can 'trust' to deliver you the truth. Delivering truth is not the business of which the press are in. They're in the business of being a platform for advertisers. This isn't evil, and it isn't new, it has always been like this. It's why you don't see small local newspapers doing hit pieces on local businesses, because it's very likely those same businesses are supporting said newspaper. It works the same way with larger media houses. It's not incredibly complicated, but you still have people who thinks this kind of talk is close to conspiracy theory bullshit. I don't know what to say to that, other than to tell them to look into how this stuff works. Or read Understanding Power. The book goes through all of this, in a much, much better way than I could ever hope to do.

 

tl;dr: Truth isn't a concept that exists within the context of 'the media'. That's okay though, as long as we're all aware of it.

 

Also just to clarify: no, I am not telling you that Russia isn't fucked up, and I am in no way saying that Alex Jones and infowars is a good source for information. :P


Edited by Migokalle, 28 March 2017 - 05:08 PM.

  • Rambly, Nathaniel and Shane like this

#9 Anthus

Anthus

    Lord of Liquids

  • Members
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 29 March 2017 - 12:21 AM

Real short answer here: No. What I mean is, when I look stuff up, or hear stuff that's pertaining to important stuff, I want facts. Doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, everyone should want the truth. I do agree that mainstream American media can be ridiculous to say the least but the truth is always out there. Not trying to say I'm some enlightened asshole either, it's just that, well, facts matter.

#10 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 06:56 AM

I myself often employ a more passive approach.  "Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence," should sound like a familiar quote.  So if you're going to claim someone is an "-ist" or a "-phobe," for example, you better have the evidence necessary to back it up, or else it amounts to libel and slander.  For things like "I've been robbed," the passive approach is to say "Well call 911," and let things handle theirself from there.  If the police later find out that it was a fabrication all along, it still sucks, but at least you also didn't waste a bunch of your own time.  Life is too short, you know?



#11 Nathaniel

Nathaniel

    Deified

  • Members

Posted 30 March 2017 - 09:20 AM

Being skeptical can be healthy for the sake of wanting to know the truth and thus not automatically believing the first thing you hear, but being skeptical for the sake of being skeptical (thus without any context of what you are reading or hearing) can be unhealthy.

A lot about the mainstream media has been mentioned here already, so I will only say a few things about that.  When it comes to what you can and can't trust, you often have to be able to follow the trail of money, and thus where the source is.  The old media, also called the legacy media, consists of media through non-internet sources, such as television, newspapers, radio, and magazines.  The problem is that about 90% of the legacy media (in the United States) is controlled by just five corporations: Comcast, Disney, News Corp, Time Warner, and National Amusements.  A few years ago it was six, when CBS and Viacom were separate parts of the latter listed.  This corporate controlled media now has a lot of competition with the internet, which is for the most part independent from large corporations, and they don't like that invasion of "their turf".  They have a lot of money, and even so, they would love to remove that competition from the board.  This is part of the story behind youtube's demonetization of vidoes, which I won't really delve into here, but it is part of the big picture.  These large corporations have their own interests for the benefit of their companies, which often runs contrary to telling the truth, thus not getting the news fully, accurately, and fairly.  This is mainly an issue with news regarding politics and foreign affairs, but can spill over into other areas too.


  • Beefster and Koh like this

#12 Sheik

Sheik

    Deified

  • Members

Posted 30 March 2017 - 11:42 AM

So if you're going to claim someone is an "-ist" or a "-phobe," for example, you better have the evidence necessary to back it up, or else it amounts to libel and slander.

These actually are two very simple examples because they can be figured out by simply applying a definition to name an observed behavior. No need to be "sceptically hesistant" to call a facist a facist or a homophobe a homophobe if their behavior and opinions qualify them as such.


  • Rambly, Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder and Adem like this

#13 Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder

Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder

    smash the bye button

  • Members
  • Real Name:Ronny Wiltersen

Posted 30 March 2017 - 12:15 PM

I think what Koh is saying is that there have been a good amount of recent high profile cases where people who in no way can be classified as a nazi, a homophobe and so on were labeled as such in an attempt to silence them. The violent protests that have been going on at some universities (in the US at least) where controversial people are set to speak are not about calling out real fascism or bigotry, it's about silencing dissenting views.

 

That said, I don't think it's especially hard to realize when this is happening, as the groups who tend to do this often makes light of their own misinformed and often highly irrational views in doing so. But sure, I can agree with the sentiment that it is a serious accusation, and it shouldn't be made haphazardly. I've got people in my facebook feed who are openly calling for physical attacks on conservatives because they've convinced themselves that they are neo-nazis. And given the way social media is used today, I don't think it's far-fetched to describe that kind of behavior as dangerous.


Edited by Migokalle, 30 March 2017 - 12:25 PM.

  • Nathaniel and Koh like this

#14 Magi_Hero

Magi_Hero

    gubgub

  • Members
  • Real Name:Tim
  • Location:NJ

Posted 30 March 2017 - 12:19 PM

I think what Koh is saying is that there have been a good amount of recent high profile cases where people who in no way can be classified as a nazi, a homophobe and so on were labeled as such in an attempt to silence them. The violent protests that have been going on at some universities where controversial people are set to speak are not about calling out real fascism or bigotry, it's about silencing dissenting views.

That said, I don't think it's especially hard to realize when this is happening, as the groups who tend to do this often makes light of their own misinformed and often highly irrational views in doing so. But sure, I can agree with the sentiment that it is a serious accusation, and it shouldn't be made haphazardly. I've got people in my facebook feed who are openly calling for physical attacks on conservatives because they've convinced themselves that they are neo-nazis. And given the way social media is used today, I don't think it's far-fetched to describe that kind of behavior as dangerous.


This is kind of like the multitudes of people that make public threats to politicians and end up going to trial for conspiracy to commit said crime. The internet is very real and these people don't understand what they do and say is real.

People just don't want to be liable for their actions anymore. Especially when you can prove what was said.

#15 Koh

Koh

    Tamer Koh

  • Members
  • Real Name:Dominic
  • Location:Monsbaiya, Virginia

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:19 PM

I think what Koh is saying is that there have been a good amount of recent high profile cases where people who in no way can be classified as a nazi, a homophobe and so on were labeled as such in an attempt to silence them. The violent protests that have been going on at some universities (in the US at least) where controversial people are set to speak are not about calling out real fascism or bigotry, it's about silencing dissenting views.

 

That said, I don't think it's especially hard to realize when this is happening, as the groups who tend to do this often makes light of their own misinformed and often highly irrational views in doing so. But sure, I can agree with the sentiment that it is a serious accusation, and it shouldn't be made haphazardly. I've got people in my facebook feed who are openly calling for physical attacks on conservatives because they've convinced themselves that they are neo-nazis. And given the way social media is used today, I don't think it's far-fetched to describe that kind of behavior as dangerous.

Correct, but because these terms have been thrown around so much haphazardly, they basically lost any meaning of importance they once had.  Nazi these days simply means "Someone who doesn't have the progressive opinions."  And it's all due to stuff like what this whole topic is about, lol.  A bunch of stories and headlines that are not only untruthful, but also unfounded.  How can we take anything seriously anymore if things degrade to this point?  But what is really atrocious about the whole thing is these types of stories have been literally ruining people's lives over nonsense like that.   Remember what Hillary Clinton said about fake news having real world consequences?  One of the few times she wasn't lying, because many people, both low profile and high profile like PewDiePie, are being affected by these slanderous and false articles/reports.


Edited by Koh, 30 March 2017 - 08:22 PM.

  • Nathaniel likes this


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users