The only political message I have

Menotaur said:
No one here on KF has ever done a detailed study on the moon and no one on here has been there - but to say that the moon is round and 300,000 KM away is conjecture is false. Simply because we have not done a detailed proof - and what every person on Earth is going to need to do their own study to verify the moon is round?
Click to expand...
do you really think the guy who runs this website doesn't believe in the moon, or is advocating his readers not believe in the moon? we live in the information age and he is making the true statement that said information isn't gospel.
Menotaur said:
The idea that you can get scientists over a period of 200 years to agree on general principles and many things through tireless experimentation and documentation - but that all else who read their work should "not trust it" unless "they can personally verify it" is practically and in all reasonableness, absurd.
Click to expand...
ah yes, Science, that hasn't changed for 2 centuries.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: Knight of the Rope, Dork Of Ages, dappouROCK and 4 others
Fuck! said:
I'm very curious as to what the evidence on Byuu being alive is.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter when their entire argument hinges on Byuu being dead while everybody keeps not providing proof of his unfortunate sunset. Otherwise, if we had to prove that he isn't dead, I'd be put in the uncomfortable position of having to ask you for proof of you not being a dog-fucker.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: A Traveler, Dork Of Ages, Fuck! and 1 other person
There's a reason bloody peer review exists and some journals are more respected than others. I'll trust Nature, the APA and Lancet and I'll choose to doubt any blanket statement about whom not to trust. 'cause trusting noone but yourself's just about as retarded as trusting everyone. The US mainstream media ain't the world and its retarded politics and whatever way they influence the anglo journalism doesn't matter for the journos I consider credible, so another "nope" on blanket judgement there. Nothing's as simple as black and white.

One bloody person doesn't mean shite and we're all as retarded as the next bloke. It's our ability to work together that got us places. Trust is a necessity. And being a jaded "dun trust nuthin'" edgelord is something people usually grow out of in their teens, rather than into in their twenties. Just because bias exists (and its the exact shitty schools of thought that most threaten credible academia - ie the constructivists - who most insist on acknowledging it constantly) doesn't mean noone is worth trusting. We've had this issue about what's real and an agreed upon truth (I like Karl Poppers critical realism approach) for millenia and this non-solution is retarded and overly simple.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Nano50, Gaussiana, ChromaQuack and 3 others
Andrew Neiman said:
When people talk about how much they hate and distrust journalists or “the media,” they’re usually only referring to the people and organizations that don’t pander to them. I’m certain that most of the people in this thread applaud equally inaccurate and slanted journalism when it confirms their beliefs rather than attacking them.
Click to expand...
I don't trust the right-wing media either. Checkmate, atheist.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: penny for your thots, Barry Macoqiner, AnitaSarsleezian and 38 others
Menotaur said:
On first glance the statement seems sound from Josh, but it is full of holes that I've come to expect from persons who deal with off the wall stuff and who detract generally from regular information.

The idea of total distrust - and that "they all lie" is just the same type of soundboard used by cults to let you know that their information is real, and all else is fake.

The idea that you can get scientists over a period of 200 years to agree on general principles and many things through tireless experimentation and documentation - but that all else who read their work should "not trust it" unless "they can personally verify it" is practically and in all reasonableness, absurd. I'm not going to go out and build by own CERN because Josh says I shouldn't trust it because I can not personally verify it - even if every scientists who has gone to CERN has verified the result.

There is a difference between being skeptical and then just flat out taking a position everything is a lie unless you can verify it is the route of a fool.
Click to expand...
The point behind scientific testing is that the result is able to be duplicated again and again by anyone running the test. Most people can't run the test themselves sure, but you should be able to find studies confirming the test results happening more than once.

And that's just for actual science not things like opinion pieces where the event can be spun 8 different ways none of which match what actually happen.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Barry Macoqiner, SpookyScarySkeleton, luigismanslave and 25 others
You know what the worst part of all of this is, so many people think it's conspiracy talk. Just about everyone in my family believes whatever the media tells them. Why would the media lie. Even when showing them shit where the "experts" admit to knowing nothing, they still believe the next words they say.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: luigismanslave, Chujkurwa, Dork Of Ages and 9 others
Null said:
There is still no evidence this person is dead, and there's actually some evidence he's still alive.

The only thing I want every single person to learn from using this website is to TRUST NOBODY. The government, universities, and journalists all lie - either covertly, overtly, or through omission. When you read something, you must internalize that it is written by a fleshbag just like you and they have a motivation for what they're writing. They are trying to imprint something on your playdough brain and no matter how impartial they're trying to be, they are going to process what they say through their own interpretation of reality.
Click to expand...

Not saying you're Nixon but I find it interesting that Nixon was proved right after all these decades.

HomerSimpson said:
You know what the worst part of all of this is, so many people think it's conspiracy talk. Just about everyone in my family believes whatever the media tells them. Why would the media lie. Even when showing them shit where the "experts" admit to knowing nothing, they still believe the next words they say.
Click to expand...

With some people, including Leftists I used to know, it's more about selective truth. Does your family believe everything Fox News say's or is it just CNN/MSNBC or whatever fits their narrative? Some people commit to mental gymnastics to assure that they have an understanding of this world.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: AnitaSarsleezian, luigismanslave, Don Juan El Tardo and 18 others
>When you read something, you must internalize that it is written by a fleshbag just like you and they have a motivation for what they're writing. They are trying to imprint something on your playdough brain and no matter how impartial they're trying to be, they are going to process what they say through their own interpretation of reality.


I don't know about all that, im pretty sure DSP is in fact a massive degenerate clown begging handicaps on the internet
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dork Of Ages, YarrBlueballs and Synthetic Smug
TurdFondler said:
The 24 hour news cycle broke journalism for good.

Not to mention journalists are employees and their work has to align with their company policies. Independent news outlets are all glowie gayops, enemy psyops or far left community newsletters. There isn't a single right leaning journo that isn't some token proletariat riling pundit with nothing of value to say.

The only thing journos are concerned with now is evoking some emotion to drive clicks and shares. It's insane to even think that the real world with all its nuances can be summed up in 600 words or less at a 6th grade reading level.
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly there was an interview Tucker Carlson did with Gavin McInnes ages ago where Tucker basically admitted he could not and would not say anything that Fox didn’t approve of on some level because it was his job and this extended well past his TV show. Gavin mocked him for it a little bit. This was kind of eye opening for me because prior to that Tucker was one of the very few Pundits I respected. I mean I do still watch a few Youtubers and there’s a local Radio Personality I’ll listen to from time to time. However network news is something I just avoid outright at this point.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: like_shutup_&_drive_scoob, Dork Of Ages, Merrick and 5 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back