politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Not so subtle reminder that YOU are not immune to propaganda.
Also propaganda doesn't come exclusively from newspapers and magazines.
The best form of propaganda in the last couple of decades has been word of mouth.
Don't trust anyone to tell you what to think. Look at the facts and only the facts.
Those facts nobody tells you about?
Whether someone tells you or you stumble on it yourself.
Peer reviewed studies, direct statistics, etc
A poll is a primary source. That's good.
An article telling you about a poll is a secondary source. Be skeptical.
And above all, be very skeptical of anything that makes you feel intense emotion. Someone might be trying to make you feel that way so you'll be less critical.
Do yOuR owN ReSeARcH!!
Yeah but literally. Not "watch YouTube videos". Look up a primary source - a statistic or a peer reviewed study.
The insidious part about the "do your own research" people is that they've managed to convince a generation of people to NOT do any research.
What is this, the 1900's?
The best propaganda tool is obviously the internet: anonymous, spreads far and wide, can be automated
I think the biggest risk is the Internet as a propaganda tool disguised as word of mouth 'grassroots' opinions.
"Word of mouth" imo includes direct person to person interaction on social media. Your Facebook friends, a sidebar on reddit or lemmy, a DM
That's how I've always used the term.
Imagine being downvoted for telling people to seek the truth in what they’re told.
This is lemmy now.
Facts aren't facts though.
Both sides of Covid had their facts, and after a few years, both sides had to admit they were wrong about certain things.
I think the other problem with only looking at facts is that it ignores the context.
Take 9/11 for example, the fact was terrorists attacked America, end of story.
But it misses the bigger picture; why did they attack America? There are no "facts" here. We can speculate, or we could take them at their word.
What an incredibly stupid take. There were hundreds of people trying to figure out why terrorists attacked America. There were books and scientific papers written about it. Just because you never looked into it doesn't mean there's no data.
You're arguing against the concept of truth because you're too lazy to pursue it.
You're missing the point. I could explain it, but you're acting like an asshole. There is nothing I said to warrant such an abrasive response.
It offends me when people argue against the concept of knowledge.
I did no such thing. In fact, what I was doing was marking a line and making it more distinct.
Epistemology is important to me, but there isn't one epistemology, there are epistemologies. If you want to take it to the extreme, the only thing we can be certain of is that we are conscious. That is the only thing which cannot be an illusion.
Also, you claim your feelings were hurt because you thought someone had a different opinion about something.
The irony is that your actions are antithetical to gaining knowledge. Instead of being curious, you assumed you were right, got emotional, strawmanned my position and then acted like an asshole.
Your actions are also antithetical to sharing knowledge. If you were right, most people wouldn't listen to what you were saying because you've just disrespected them.
Epistemic relativism is a black hole. It's the graveyard of knowledge, and I will not abide it. It's the ultimate of all cop-outs. Those who bring it up should be immediately excommunicated from all rational discussion.
It's the parodox of tolerance for philosophy. Relativism is a thought-terminating argument that people like you use as an ICBM targeting intelligent takes on relevant issues.
It OFFENDS me.
You want to bring it up in a purely theoretical context, without any relation to previous topics, fine. But when it gets brought up in any context other than its own, the person speaking it should be run out of town.
Once again, you have missed the point and strawmanned me. I'm not doing this. Stop being a baby.
That's my point.