You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why MIT's Orwellian "Largest-Ever Study of Fake News" Is Nonsense.
Of course the establishment powers are just trying to maintain their control, but I think people really do need to be told what to think. Most people aren't going to do their own research, and when you consider how many people believe truly ridiculous things, you begin to lose faith in democracy. The fact that the establishment itself peddles fake news, doesn't mean that a free-for-all gets the truth to everybody. I think it's a real problem. A truly free information market might not produce good results.
I strongly suggest considering your thought patterns here carefully. You are advocating for restriction of information, but based on what? There is no way to do this other than by 'someone' being the judge and jury over it. This is always doomed to failure.
The only answer is for us to collectively heal and evolve to be enlightened - rather than fighting each other, trying to control everything and wasting so much time on pointless activity.
As far as democracy goes - heavyweight researchers are well aware that representational democracy was exposed as entirely fraudulent long ago.
Do you see a way out of this dilemma? I have a hard time. I just re-steemed a post from a guy "debunking" chemtrails. Seriously. One of the trending posts on steemit is about a guy eating bugs. 500 upvotes. Yes, some people are waking up. But in my observation much more get crazier every day. BTW, I did steal your Dresden James quote, hope you don't mind :)
When we understand principles of non dependency on others and the internal mechanics of personal enlightenment, all things become much clearer. These are 'things' which have taken me years to clarify within myself, however, they are ever easier to teach others and spread since as more time passes, those within intent to heal achieve ever greater levels of balance and understanding.
Provided we have ways of communicating that are unhindered and a strong enough will to value truth over lies - we will prevail, one way or another.
Steal away!
I don't think you understand. I am not advocating anything but thinking. People ARE told what to think. They do not do all the research on everything. They do not "evolve" into super geniuses with endless time available to research everything. They believe what they are told by the sources they trust, and so do you. And the "democracy" I speak of is what you apparently advocate, and I know you don't mean that your old "heavyweights" disagree with you, so you must not understand that point, either.
you wrote:
and
I'm sure you can see how that does not fit well with:
It is possible to be evolved such that priorities, intentions and abilities are changed appropriately to ensure that important topics are researched sufficiently.
I aim to remove all beliefs as I do not value them.
I do not advocate for democracy in the form we have known it - representational democracy is one of the biggest frauds ever created and can never help us since it, by definition, takes the power of the many, gives it to the few and gives the many little way of being heard.
You seem to not understand the difference between saying something might not produce good results, and saying that I'm advocating the opposite. You are engaging in rhetoric and not discussion. Things that you deem to be "possible" may be theoretically possible, and yet very unlikely to happen. An honest person will acknowledge this when a partisan will not. Apparently, you still do not understand that I was applying "democracy" to the information market, not to a form of government. I'll have to work on my clarity there.
I am responding to points made, using logic - that is all.
I have dealt daily for over 15 years with redirecting the use of logic among 1000s of people to help them 'see the light' regarding common errors of logic and regularly have success in that. I know that we are evolving, so I do not calculate the probability of it, I just keep doing it.
I was not aware of that, since you gave no clue to it. Democracy is typically defined as a system of government, whereas 'the information market' typically isn't.
I said this, "Most people aren't going to do their own research, and when you consider how many people believe truly ridiculous things, you begin to lose faith in democracy."
My sentence links "democracy" to people "believing truly ridiculous things," which implies, I think, that I am referring to the information market and not a form of government. I shall clarify now. I meant the democratization of information, meaning, everybody gets to say and hear everything. The move in this direction of "democracy" has produced, in my view, little improvement in the people's understanding., but has simply added more noise. Most of the new information is bullshit, and so now people believe a greater variety of bullshit than they used to, but are no closer to truth. The one real effect, probably, is to increase distrust of establishment sources, which I deem to be a positive effect, but if the establishment lies are merely replaced by other lies, then people are no better informed and become more informationally isolated. They agree on less and become less politically effective. So, this "democratization" of information produces politically dubious results. Also, the establishment troubadours sabotage the information market in their own devious ways. And they have the resources to talk over the truthers, who are unable to unite because nobody agrees on anything in a free information market. The result seems to promote disintegration of any consensus. I think I'm just babbling now. Perhaps you understand my democracy reference now.
Your one-on-one efforts with logic may be successful. I can't judge that. But, one-on-one makes very slow progress in a sea of disintegrating consensus. Not saying you should stop. I'm not advocating anything but understanding.
Thanks for clarifying. In my experience, the cause of the problems is not that information is freely available, but that there is denial involved in the minds and intentions of the people. Denial has us thinking something is true when it is not and allow us to be deceived. By ending denial, we solve these problems and it can be done. This process requires us to end our own denials and then we can help others to do the same. Closing down information and judging that 'someone' has the capacity to direct people to the 'right' information is itself a form of denial, so while we all might think we are qualified to be that person, ultimately it doesn't help.
Denial may be the problem, but how does the truth win? Does a free information market empower the truth? Are people looking to "buy" truth in this market, or are they looking for something else? A free market also empowers lies. Maybe people want lies. Maybe they prefer lies. O, well. The driver really did shoot JFK, if you care to know.
We are reaching a status of 'informational Darwinism' where are internet selves are scrambling to find the spaces on the web which'll provide us the means for protection, or assist us in figuring out how to protect ourselves from those which will drag the rest of us down as they refuse to do so themselves. Less exposure to poison never works, more. We must each learn in our own way to become The Dread Pirate Roberts and develop a tolerance to Iocane Powder.
Advocates of this philosophy also include :
Stalin,
Mao,
Pol pot,
Hitler,
Castro
Chavez
Do you see a pattern...?
Yes, I have seen your pattern for years. You are using the rhetoric of capitalism. Congratulations!