America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Phoenyx]

Decided to do a bit of research of this. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term certainly sounds good:

**
aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

That certainly -sounds- good.

BullShit.

I'm certainly not saying that other definitions haven't been applied to the term. But the Merriam's dictionary definition makes it clear that the definition includes things that are quite laudible. For this reason, I tend to steer clear of using the term myself and focus on words that have less ambigous definitions.

[Phoenyx]

What you should have said is that APL is a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I have to admit that made me chuckle a bit :-). But yes, on the subject of his understanding of DKE and ideological opponents, I'd have to agree.

[Lightbringer]

I'm certainly not saying that other definitions haven't been applied to the term. But the Merriam's dictionary definition makes it clear that the definition includes things that are quite laudible. For this reason, I tend to steer clear of using the term myself and focus on words that have less ambigous definitions.

Get ready for hawkeye to call you a probable woke fuck.

[Phoenyx]

Get ready for hawkeye to call you a probable woke fuck.

2 chuckles in 2 posts, not bad :-p. I hope he doesn't turn on me for simply pointing out that the term woke is ambiguous, but if he does, I'll atleast have been warned, and gotten a chuckle out of it boot :-p.

[Hawkeye10]

I'm certainly not saying that other definitions haven't been applied to the term. But the Merriam's dictionary definition makes it clear that the definition includes things that are quite laudible. For this reason, I tend to steer clear of using the term myself and focus on words that have less ambigous definitions.

Dictionaries are now as useless for politically sensitive terms as WIKI is....as you should know.

[Lightbringer]

2 chuckles in 2 posts, not bad :-p. I hope he doesn't turn on me for simply pointing out that the term woke is ambiguous, but if he does, I'll atleast have been warned, and gotten a chuckle out of it boot :-p.

Oh, he will. Count on it.

[Phoenyx]

I did a bit more research and have realized that you're getting things mixed up. In post #49, you made a bunch of points that I then responded to in post #95. None of your points in that post substantiated the assertion you made in post #114. Here's the specific assertion you made back then:
**
Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.
**

If you look back at the nested quote tree in this post, you'll see that -that- is the assertion that I wanted you to provide evidence for in this sub thread.

This is simple shit and we have actually discussed it already.
RT only mentions leaked documents. Intercept mentions 3 ways documents were received, FOIA, lawsuit and leaked. The majority of the documents the Intercept article refers to actually came from the lawsuit.
Do you agree or disagree that RT omitted the other ways the reporters got documents?

RT omitted a fair amount of what was in the Intercept's article. It was a summary, not a dissection of the article. On a parallel note, the Intercept article's subtitle is literally "Leaked Documents Outline DHS's Plans to Police Disinformation", which could lead one to believe that leaked documents were all that was involved. That's not necessarily the fault of the authors- I've heard from more than one journalist that editors tend to edit titles to make them more alluring for readers, and at times doing so might mislead readers as to what the content will be.

You have yet to show that RT's article was in any way propagandistic.

[saltydancin]

Give an example of them "throttling" the truth.

I am aware that the concept of 'Ministry of Truth' came from 1984.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Which Party does it sound like?

For turkey day this Christian Nation SCOTUS Islamidiotocracy will be giving thanks for their national religion of Mohammed pedophilia based on their Islam medical human reproduction pseudoscience some 600 - 800 years A.D. in that flying carpet Aesop fables tradition creation of maintaining Christiananality pedophilia interpretation of "one nation under God with equal justice under law" where Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement thieving National Archives purchased US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory presented by Eisenhower to Holocaust survivors for business excellence - hand scribed old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists under color of law as law of the land ChristHitlers rivaling WW II Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations suicidal super egos sociopsychopathilogical homicidal human farming of SCOTUS supreme swastika up Uranus kangaroo court diatribe tautology to maintain cognitive dissonance for "man is God" dhimmitude servitude health care plan patriot act genocide pogrom.

[AProudLefty]

An ideological opponent is someone who disagrees with one's stance on a given subject. The Dunning-Kruger effect has to do with the competency of a given person on a given subject. They're completely different things. But hey, if you can find me a dictionary that lists the DKE as a synonym to ideological opponents, by all means link it here.

That is not what the article you linked says.

[Phoenyx]

I certainly wouldn't be surprised to learn that the RT news network has -some- propaganda in its work, but you have shown no evidence that the particular article I linked to in the opening post of this thread had propaganda in it.

I have already pointed out the ways the article left out facts and used exaggeration to paint a narrative.

As I mentioned in another post, RT's article is a summary of The Intercept's findings, not an exhaustive review. As such, it's only natural that they'd leave some things out. As to your claim that they used exaggeration, I believe you're saying this solely because of the fact that it focused on the leaks and not on other ways the Intercept got information. Considering the fact that The Intercept's subtitle only mentioned the leaks, however, I think one might consider The Intercept somewhat misleading in that respect as well, and I've seen no evidence that The Intercept receives any Russian government funding.

Certainly not. Do you want to claim that the UK's BBC or the US's NPR have nothing to do with their respective governments?

Neither are partially owned or funded by their governments. RT is funded by the Russian government.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660...radio-finances
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bri...ng-Corporation
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/upl..._update-19.pdf

Your NPR link doesn't state it's not federally funded. Wikipedia explicity states that it does receive federal funds:
**
According to CPB, in 2009 11.3% of the aggregate revenues of all public radio broadcasting stations were funded from federal sources, principally through CPB;[47] in 2012 10.9% of the revenues for Public Radio came from federal sources.[48]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding_in_the_2000s

Your BBC link also makes no mention of it not being government funded. Wikipedia also makes it quite clear that their revenues are based almost entirely on government funding via a tv licensing fee:
**
The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £154.50 per year per household since April 2019.[120] [snip] The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue

I'm going to assume that you meant if I wanted to claim that government disinformation -isn't- propaganda? Because I would certainly claim that government disinformation is propaganda and I imagine you would too.

Then why are you denying that the disinformation put out by a Russian news service that is owned by the Russian government is propaganda?

You haven't shown that they've put out any disinformation so far.

[Phoenyx]

That's not the only thing that laptop revealed. I found a good article published last month that gets into the main points. Quoting from it:

**
Just over two years ago, on October 14, 2020, the New York Post revealed to the world that it had acquired a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the son of then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden. This laptop contained documents that tied Hunter to a litany of potential criminal activity that also implicated Joe Biden. In the reporting that followed, the Post detailed how Biden’s son used his father’s influence as Vice President to help secure jobs and contracts with foreign state-backed companies. Once in these positions, Hunter allegedly acted as a liaison in securing additional lucrative business opportunities for the entire Biden family.

Normally, the facts of a story like this would send shockwaves throughout the political world. Here was apparently clear evidence of Joe Biden peddling his influence as Vice President so his family could rake in millions. Yet almost every mainstream publication refused to cover the story. Instead, they baselessly and relentlessly asserted that the laptop and all documents contained in it were one giant “Russian disinformation campaign.”

But denying the veracity of the story wasn’t enough. The authors of the Post exposé, Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge, faced relentless criticism, accusations of incompetence, and even conspiracies that they were colluding with Russian foreign agents. The Delaware computer repair shop owner who alerted the FBI to the existence of the laptop also faced anonymous death threats and harassment from the IRS and other government agencies.
**

Source:
New York Post Deserves an Apology and A Pulitzer for Hunter Biden Coverage | Association of Mature American Citizens

The original article excerpt has more links than I put in, I just included the 3 I found most relevant.

You are relying on an opinion piece by someone that doesn't even use his real name?

Phoenyx isn't my legal name, but you still converse with me. Is Poor Richard Saunders yours?

While opinion pieces can contain facts they are by their very nature opinions.

First of all, the article isn't even labelled as an opinion. Secondly, the article includes many sources which it links to. I only included 3 here, but it has many more.

People that express opinions often don't look at all the facts but instead ignore the ones that are detrimental to their opinion.

You could be doing that right now. How about we stick to the logic and evidence that the author in question presented instead of going off on platitudes?

Looking at the evidence, it appears it was more a case of -suggesting- it was false, rather than outright saying it was. The U.S. government funded NPR news outlet certainly suggested this in the following article shortly after the New York Post article came out:
Analysis: Questionable 'N.Y. Post' Scoop Driven By Ex-Hannity Producer And Giuliani | NPR

I don't know the details yet, but I suspect that, much like Russiagate, it only had the earmarks for those who were eager to believe anything bad about Russia.

I tend to avoid western mainstream news because it is filled with propaganda on the subjects I'm interested in, yes. Right now, those subjects are the Ukraine war and the Covid narrative, more on the former for now. When it comes to the Ukraine war, Russia provides a refreshing take, as it clearly isn't going to peddle on the anti Russian propaganda that nauseates me when I read almost all of the western mainstream media on the subject.

I get more than enough of it when reading their talking points from posters in forums. Scheerpost, which has includes some good journalists who used to write for the mainstream media before they came to believe that it'd become almost hopelessly corrupted, helps greatly in discerning all the propaganda in it as well.

I guess that post kind of says everything about you. You rely on propaganda you agree with [snip]

You are quick to attack a source you don't like as "propaganda", but severely lacking when it comes to providing evidence for your stance.

[Phoenyx]

I'm certainly not saying that other definitions haven't been applied to the term. But the Merriam's dictionary definition makes it clear that the definition includes things that are quite laudible. For this reason, I tend to steer clear of using the term myself and focus on words that have less ambigous definitions.

Dictionaries are now as useless for politically sensitive terms as WIKI is....as you should know.

I certainly don't always agree with Wikipedia, and I also certainly think that some mainstream definitions could use some work (for instance, the definition on what a virus is), but generally speaking, I consider dictionaries to be a lifeline to sustaining controversial discussions, at least if both sides agree that these definitions exist and should be respected. This even applies where I don't agree that a word should be defined in a certain way.

What I've done is demonstrate that the term "woke" is defined by fairly authorative source as a good thing. That doesn't mean it's the only definition, but it -does- make it clear that the definition of the term is controversial. That, in turn, leads me to avoid using the term as it clearly means different things to different people.

[Phoenyx]

2 chuckles in 2 posts, not bad :-p. I hope he doesn't turn on me for simply pointing out that the term woke is ambiguous, but if he does, I'll atleast have been warned, and gotten a chuckle out of it boot :-p.

Oh, he will. Count on it.

Lol :-). We shall see.

[Phoenyx]

I took a look at Wikipedia's definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it seems to be something very different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

No it is not different.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias (cited in that article you linked to) whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.[/I]

In the article you linked to the first time about the "ideological opponents", the arguer assumes that the other person have no clue or is being ignorant and the arguer knows better and thinks he knows something they don't or understand.

Again, the "Ideological opponent" phenomenon is just a fancy words for DKE. It's pretty similar, if not the same.

An ideological opponent is someone who disagrees with one's stance on a given subject. The Dunning-Kruger effect has to do with the competency of a given person on a given subject. They're completely different things. But hey, if you can find me a dictionary that lists the DKE as a synonym to ideological opponents, by all means link it here.

That is not what the article you linked says.

I certainly didn't quote it, but I believe I got the gist of what they meant. As you yourself quoted, the Wikipedia article starts off with the following:

**
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

How you came to believe that this could be synonymous with ideological opponents, I have no idea.

[AProudLefty]

I certainly didn't quote it, but I believe I got the gist of what they meant. As you yourself quoted, the Wikipedia article starts off with the following:

**
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

How you came to believe that this could be synonymous with ideological opponents, I have no idea.

From the article you linked:

It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not. And once they read the information you have read or experienced what you have experienced, they will change their mind.

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

Now compare and contrast with the Dunning-Kruger effect: "a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge."
or the converse: "a cognitive bias whereby highly educated people with high ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to assume the person they're talking has no knowledge or unable to understand the areas they are discusing."

Both of them are the same. It is a cognitive bias that assumes that one knows more or the others doesn't.

To repeat the quote from the article: [I]It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not."

Now do you see it?