MarvinTheParanoidAndroid
This will all end in tears, I just know it.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2015
Journalists are great big faggy liars who lie a lot. They don't just tell bold faced lies either, they lie in cunning and conniving ways, from simple omission of facts to weasel wording and straw men. Dumber journos will tell the most retarded, uninformed version of events with just enough eloquence to be convincing to the average normie boomer tard, while wittier journalists will lie in ways few people will even notice until the more perceptive among us point it out.
Journoscum have gone a long way in damaging KiwiFarms and its reputation, blaming multiple suicides on KF for which it had no hand in nor responsibility for, even down to getting simple facts wrong such as who founded KF in the first place. Moreover, journalists are used as trusted authoritative sources by information aggregates like Wikipedia which are accepted by most people as being a reliable repository of historical facts. The truth is that Wikipedia is just a proxy of journalists who are themselves proxies of large corporations and the government.
In an ideal world, the truth would simply come out as a matter of merit, having innate superiority to any lie. However, we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world where people are adverse to being challenged, preferring instead to group themselves among tribes based on identity from opinion. Such people don't require empirical evidence held to standards of scrutiny to form their opinions, but are instead allergic to evidence that challenges their existing opinions, like a saber tooth tiger had just wondered into the tribe's sleeping cave. These people will selectively consume evidence in support of their worldview and against opposing viewpoints. In this way, journalists are bigger grifters than any Youtuber, telling an audience of mental midgets what they want to hear over what factually happened.
That goes without mentioning that large, powerful entities like big pharma or the government will go out of their way to dispel any inconvenient truth with a far greater degree of power than any independent truth seeker can muster. Think of how Google has become increasingly useless from year to year, I personally believe that large corpos and the U.S. government are both involved in making Google's search engine shittier and shittier to hide inconvenient web results. Duck Duck Go did the same thing of their own volition to censor any pro-Russia sentiment during the opening days of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and that's presumably without their palms needing greasing by the military industrial complex, they just felt morally compelled to censor.
Another consideration is that journalism, through lies and slander, are themselves a function of censorship. If you assassinate the character of an individual or a website like KF, no one will be willing to listen to any of our pleas because their opinions have already been dictated to them. Journalists are, for all intents and purposes, ambassadors of "truth" to the masses. People don't have the time, energy or resources to do independent, original research into a subject matter to prove to themselves or others what the facts really are. Just think of whenever a new, controversial bill like the Heartbeat bill or "Don't Say Gay" bill were introduced, how many people went to the official government websites to read the document for themselves as opposed to just listening to what some talking head on a news channel said about it?
Journalists are such a detriment to the very concept of truth that they've reduced facts to matters of opinion. Would it be righteous and ethical to compel them to tell the truth as opposed to letting them lie freely?
If yes, the next question is how do we determine what a truth is and tell it apart from a lie as concretely as possible? What verbal representation of a fact is the most true to its nature yet best understood in the most unambiguous way possible to the broadest scope of people? Who do you put in charge of determining truth from lie?
If anything, I imagine that creating "compelled truth" would be something that a lying government would smile on very much, not for being a mechanism for championing facts, but for the legal status of enforced truth as they decide what truth is. This is essentially the role that existing journalists already fill, a mouthpiece for government, only now it wouldn't be done as a matter of ideological purity or simple bribery but as a matter of legal force. The U.S. government already tried this shit with their disinformation czar that had to be quickly canned for all the Soyviet Union brand recognition it sported. You can compel the government to enforce truth all you like if they get to decide what truth is.
And any standards of compelled truth would be more compelled onto you rather than on journos themselves, they are paid to lie and you are coerced to believe in the lie and call it truth by force. By no means do I believe that placing a legal burden of compelled truth on journos would restore or course-correct KF's reputation in any way shape or form.
One could argue that the simplest solution for dealing with lying journos is to simply starve them out. But that just further incentivizes them to take money from corpos and the government and continue lying even harder to the boomers who still watch CNN, but I otherwise don't see a choice in the matter than a permanent boycott. Eventually nobody who trusted mainstream news media will be around anymore and the only people remaining will be the people who learned just how untrustworthy journos are, making their part as a propaganda arm completely pointless since there is nobody left for them to reach. But as I've said before, people enjoy their preferred lie.
Journoscum have gone a long way in damaging KiwiFarms and its reputation, blaming multiple suicides on KF for which it had no hand in nor responsibility for, even down to getting simple facts wrong such as who founded KF in the first place. Moreover, journalists are used as trusted authoritative sources by information aggregates like Wikipedia which are accepted by most people as being a reliable repository of historical facts. The truth is that Wikipedia is just a proxy of journalists who are themselves proxies of large corporations and the government.
In an ideal world, the truth would simply come out as a matter of merit, having innate superiority to any lie. However, we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a world where people are adverse to being challenged, preferring instead to group themselves among tribes based on identity from opinion. Such people don't require empirical evidence held to standards of scrutiny to form their opinions, but are instead allergic to evidence that challenges their existing opinions, like a saber tooth tiger had just wondered into the tribe's sleeping cave. These people will selectively consume evidence in support of their worldview and against opposing viewpoints. In this way, journalists are bigger grifters than any Youtuber, telling an audience of mental midgets what they want to hear over what factually happened.
That goes without mentioning that large, powerful entities like big pharma or the government will go out of their way to dispel any inconvenient truth with a far greater degree of power than any independent truth seeker can muster. Think of how Google has become increasingly useless from year to year, I personally believe that large corpos and the U.S. government are both involved in making Google's search engine shittier and shittier to hide inconvenient web results. Duck Duck Go did the same thing of their own volition to censor any pro-Russia sentiment during the opening days of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and that's presumably without their palms needing greasing by the military industrial complex, they just felt morally compelled to censor.
Another consideration is that journalism, through lies and slander, are themselves a function of censorship. If you assassinate the character of an individual or a website like KF, no one will be willing to listen to any of our pleas because their opinions have already been dictated to them. Journalists are, for all intents and purposes, ambassadors of "truth" to the masses. People don't have the time, energy or resources to do independent, original research into a subject matter to prove to themselves or others what the facts really are. Just think of whenever a new, controversial bill like the Heartbeat bill or "Don't Say Gay" bill were introduced, how many people went to the official government websites to read the document for themselves as opposed to just listening to what some talking head on a news channel said about it?
Journalists are such a detriment to the very concept of truth that they've reduced facts to matters of opinion. Would it be righteous and ethical to compel them to tell the truth as opposed to letting them lie freely?
If yes, the next question is how do we determine what a truth is and tell it apart from a lie as concretely as possible? What verbal representation of a fact is the most true to its nature yet best understood in the most unambiguous way possible to the broadest scope of people? Who do you put in charge of determining truth from lie?
If anything, I imagine that creating "compelled truth" would be something that a lying government would smile on very much, not for being a mechanism for championing facts, but for the legal status of enforced truth as they decide what truth is. This is essentially the role that existing journalists already fill, a mouthpiece for government, only now it wouldn't be done as a matter of ideological purity or simple bribery but as a matter of legal force. The U.S. government already tried this shit with their disinformation czar that had to be quickly canned for all the Soyviet Union brand recognition it sported. You can compel the government to enforce truth all you like if they get to decide what truth is.
And any standards of compelled truth would be more compelled onto you rather than on journos themselves, they are paid to lie and you are coerced to believe in the lie and call it truth by force. By no means do I believe that placing a legal burden of compelled truth on journos would restore or course-correct KF's reputation in any way shape or form.
One could argue that the simplest solution for dealing with lying journos is to simply starve them out. But that just further incentivizes them to take money from corpos and the government and continue lying even harder to the boomers who still watch CNN, but I otherwise don't see a choice in the matter than a permanent boycott. Eventually nobody who trusted mainstream news media will be around anymore and the only people remaining will be the people who learned just how untrustworthy journos are, making their part as a propaganda arm completely pointless since there is nobody left for them to reach. But as I've said before, people enjoy their preferred lie.
