Alternative facts -- the far right and the far left have finally converged

pretty remarkable that the far-right and far-left have finally converged on this dangerous notion of 'alternative facts'. Nuclear holocaust just around the corner.

there is no left and right, only people being in power over other people, people wanting to be in power over other people and powerless people.

I don't like the term, but the reality is this: people are going to disagree about what actually happened, because people make mistakes and people lie. There will be conflicting accounts. Furthermore, it's potentially dangerous to shut down one account of an incident in favor of another, because corruption may cause the true account to be shut down and the fake story popularized. I'm a firm advocate of free speech on this issue; let everyone relate their account, give the audience alternative (sets of alleged) facts to choose from, and let the audience decide. Usually, the flaws in the false stories will be discovered and truth will prevail.

It's worth noting that the opposite position is inherently elitist. If you believe the general population, working together organically, lacks the capability to discern fact from fiction, but *you* do have the ability to discern fact from fiction, then you are putting yourself above everyone else.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't like the term, but the reality is this: people are going to disagree about what actually happened, because people make mistakes and people lie. There will be conflicting accounts. Furthermore, it's potentially dangerous to shut down one account of an incident in favor of another, because corruption may cause the true account to be shut down and the fake story popularized. I'm a firm advocate of free speech on this issue; let everyone relate their account, give the audience alternative (sets of alleged) facts to choose from, and let the audience decide. Usually, the flaws in the false stories will be discovered and truth will prevail.

It's worth noting that the opposite position is inherently elitist. If you believe the general population, working together organically, lacks the capability to discern fact from fiction, but *you* do have the ability to discern fact from fiction, then you are putting yourself above everyone else.

All i see is a long winded attempt to justify the notion that you believe your ignorance is as good as someone else's fact. Ergo, the post-factual era.

"

SpanishMonarch wrote:

All i see is a long winded attempt to justify the notion that you believe your ignorance is as good as someone else's fact. Ergo, the post-factual era.

Heh. All I see here is a terse one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I don't like the term, but the reality is this: people are going to disagree about what actually happened, because people make mistakes and people lie. There will be conflicting accounts. Furthermore, it's potentially dangerous to shut down one account of an incident in favor of another, because corruption may cause the true account to be shut down and the fake story popularized. I'm a firm advocate of free speech on this issue; let everyone relate their account, give the audience alternative (sets of alleged) facts to choose from, and let the audience decide. Usually, the flaws in the false stories will be discovered and truth will prevail.

It's worth noting that the opposite position is inherently elitist. If you believe the general population, working together organically, lacks the capability to discern fact from fiction, but *you* do have the ability to discern fact from fiction, then you are putting yourself above everyone else.

We are inherently elitist, but we know what we are talking about. When people are wrong, we say they are wrong. We can't be both right. That is the flawed argument. Some of us are right, some of us are wrong. Tyranny of the majority is an inherent weakness in the system of democracy. Reality will hit you in the face and let you learn from your mistakes, provided it doesn't kill you.

I'd prefer "alternative sets of alleged facts" to "alternative facts." I don't think the term "alternative facts" is technically a misnomer in the sense of "alternative pieces of information presented as having objective reality." But that's only one definition of "facts;" there is no such thing as alternate reality.

I strongly disagree with elitism in silencing voices. If one has information, or even claim to have it, it should be their choice whether to share it or not.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'd prefer "alternative sets of alleged facts" to "alternative facts." I don't think the term "alternative facts" is technically a misnomer in the sense of "alternative pieces of information presented as having objective reality." But that's only one definition of "facts;" there is no such thing as alternate reality.

I strongly disagree with elitism in silencing voices. If one has information, or even claim to have it, it should be their choice whether to share it or not.

If people care about facts, they need due diligence. If you think it is OK with people getting spoon fed with "alternative facts", that is what propaganda does.

"

deathflower wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'd prefer "alternative sets of alleged facts" to "alternative facts." I don't think the term "alternative facts" is technically a misnomer in the sense of "alternative pieces of information presented as having objective reality." But that's only one definition of "facts;" there is no such thing as alternate reality.

I strongly disagree with elitism in silencing voices. If one has information, or even claim to have it, it should be their choice whether to share it or not.

If people care about facts, they need due diligence. If you think it is OK with people getting spoon fed with "alternative facts", that is what propaganda does.

When you present real evidence, you're not telling, you're showing. When you tell someone how to discover facts on their own, that's education. When you tell someone what the facts are, that's propaganda. Truth or lie, still propaganda; either the audience believes accurate information on blind trust, or it believes falsehoods on blind trust.

There is always bias in telling just the facts (and in education, and in the presentation of evidence) because one cannot possibly provide ALL the facts in the universe, therefore there is (at a minimum) a bias in which topics are covered and which are not. 100% of news is biased propaganda. Some is less biased than others, but "unbiased reporting" is a myth. This paragraph has a bias; pretty much all paragraphs do.

To be in punditry means: you believe in the power of propaganda to be a force for good. You believe that getting people to trust you can achieve aims you consider worthwhile.

Wikileaks doesn't engage in punditry; they engage in journalism. In the information age, journalism isn't delivering punditry, it is delivering evidence.