[Tsundoku]

A reasonable short summation of the rise of disinformation and opinion over fact, and how it applies in a state political sense.

https://www.news.com...84dd5e10fe40e5b

[Macros]

And the Tories yet again stay true to themselves, being utter cunts.

Bad enough they sneak through bills allowing shite food from all over to be imported without regulation (hammering another nail in the coffin of the farming industry here) they now have finally publicly voted that the NHS is basically for sale to America.


Wankers

[Maark Abbott]

 Macros, on 21 July 2020 - 06:59 PM, said:

And the Tories yet again stay true to themselves, being utter cunts.

Bad enough they sneak through bills allowing shite food from all over to be imported without regulation (hammering another nail in the coffin of the farming industry here) they now have finally publicly voted that the NHS is basically for sale to America.


Wankers

And people wonder why my viewpoints for a while has been 'Tories bad'.

We need them out and by force if need be. Fetch the guillotine, comrade.

[Tsundoku]

Weren't they all "Save the NHS" while Boris was on the respirator?

[Tiste Simeon]

Eh. Pure tokenism.

[Maark Abbott]

 Tsundoku, on 23 July 2020 - 09:55 AM, said:

Weren't they all "Save the NHS" while Boris was on the respirator?

 Tiste Simeon, on 23 July 2020 - 11:28 AM, said:

Eh. Pure tokenism.

Basically. Conservatives are vehemently opposed to the idea of an NHS, because they cannot make personal profit from it. They want us on a US style one where you're either rich enough to pay for treatment at extortionate rates, or die.

Their party voting record at the time of the NHS being incepted in regard to the said inception is pretty damning.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Opponents of Brexit and Donald Trump not only found those victories intolerable, but many refused to believe them to be legitimate, instead supposing that lies had swayed a docile population. This idea of a gullible, pliable populace is, of course, nothing new. Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". But no, says [cognitive scientist] Mercier, Voltaire had it backwards: "It is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities".

[...] It might sound naive to say that people aren't that gullible, given what circulates on the internet: 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a hoax, Barack Obama is a Muslim. But how many people truly believe these things? In Knowledge Resistance, the sociologist Mikael Klintman argues that it is the act of publicly stating a belief – as opposed to actually holding it – that serves the crucial evolutionarily grounded function of social signalling. If someone says Obama is a Muslim, their primary reason may be to indicate that they are a member of the group of people who co-ordinate around that statement. When a social belief and a true belief are in conflict, Klintman says, people will opt for the belief that best signals their social identity – even if it means lying to themselves. You could, for example, signal your deep distrust of big government and undying loyalty to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by stating that the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook school was a hoax (while, on some level, assuming that it really did happen). Such a "belief" – being largely performative – rarely translates into action. It remains what Mercier calls a reflective belief, with no consequences on one's behaviour, as opposed to an intuitive belief, which guides decisions and actions. Sometimes a false belief can cross over, from a mere signal to a basis for real-world decision and action, and that's when we see the dangerous collateral effects of belief- signalling. While some hoaxers stopped at simply voicing their "theory" about Sandy Hook, in Florida, in June 2017, Lucy Richards was convicted of threatening the father of the six-year-old Noah Pozner, one of the twenty-seven victims (including the shooter's own mother) of the massacre. Richards said that the boy never existed and that his parents were actors who deserved death for perpetrating a lie.

[...] But in competition with the marketplace of ideas is a “market for justifications”, says Hugo Mercier. Again, the order of sequence is incorrect, he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'

https://www.the-tls....judices-review/

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 24 July 2020 - 02:38 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 24 July 2020 - 02:37 AM, said:

'Opponents of Brexit and Donald Trump not only found those victories intolerable, but many refused to believe them to be legitimate, instead supposing that lies had swayed a docile population. This idea of a gullible, pliable populace is, of course, nothing new. Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". But no, says [cognitive scientist] Mercier, Voltaire had it backwards: "It is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities".

[...] It might sound naive to say that people aren't that gullible, given what circulates on the internet: 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a hoax, Barack Obama is a Muslim. But how many people truly believe these things? In Knowledge Resistance, the sociologist Mikael Klintman argues that it is the act of publicly stating a belief – as opposed to actually holding it – that serves the crucial evolutionarily grounded function of social signalling. If someone says Obama is a Muslim, their primary reason may be to indicate that they are a member of the group of people who co-ordinate around that statement. When a social belief and a true belief are in conflict, Klintman says, people will opt for the belief that best signals their social identity – even if it means lying to themselves. You could, for example, signal your deep distrust of big government and undying loyalty to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by stating that the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook school was a hoax (while, on some level, assuming that it really did happen). Such a "belief" – being largely performative – rarely translates into action. It remains what Mercier calls a reflective belief, with no consequences on one's behaviour, as opposed to an intuitive belief, which guides decisions and actions. Sometimes a false belief can cross over, from a mere signal to a basis for real-world decision and action, and that's when we see the dangerous collateral effects of belief- signalling. While some hoaxers stopped at simply voicing their "theory" about Sandy Hook, in Florida, in June 2017, Lucy Richards was convicted of threatening the father of the six-year-old Noah Pozner, one of the twenty-seven victims (including the shooter's own mother) of the massacre. Richards said that the boy never existed and that his parents were actors who deserved death for perpetrating a lie.

[...] But in competition with the marketplace of ideas is a “market for justifications”, says Hugo Mercier. Again, the order of sequence is incorrect, he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'

https://www.the-tls....judices-review/

"...he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'"


Hasn't this been well known for a while? Selective bias, reinforcement bias, etc. Surely this isn't being trotted out as something new?

[Mentalist]

 HoosierDaddy, on 24 July 2020 - 06:13 AM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 24 July 2020 - 02:37 AM, said:

'Opponents of Brexit and Donald Trump not only found those victories intolerable, but many refused to believe them to be legitimate, instead supposing that lies had swayed a docile population. This idea of a gullible, pliable populace is, of course, nothing new. Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". But no, says [cognitive scientist] Mercier, Voltaire had it backwards: "It is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities".

[...] It might sound naive to say that people aren't that gullible, given what circulates on the internet: 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a hoax, Barack Obama is a Muslim. But how many people truly believe these things? In Knowledge Resistance, the sociologist Mikael Klintman argues that it is the act of publicly stating a belief – as opposed to actually holding it – that serves the crucial evolutionarily grounded function of social signalling. If someone says Obama is a Muslim, their primary reason may be to indicate that they are a member of the group of people who co-ordinate around that statement. When a social belief and a true belief are in conflict, Klintman says, people will opt for the belief that best signals their social identity – even if it means lying to themselves. You could, for example, signal your deep distrust of big government and undying loyalty to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by stating that the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook school was a hoax (while, on some level, assuming that it really did happen). Such a "belief" – being largely performative – rarely translates into action. It remains what Mercier calls a reflective belief, with no consequences on one's behaviour, as opposed to an intuitive belief, which guides decisions and actions. Sometimes a false belief can cross over, from a mere signal to a basis for real-world decision and action, and that's when we see the dangerous collateral effects of belief- signalling. While some hoaxers stopped at simply voicing their "theory" about Sandy Hook, in Florida, in June 2017, Lucy Richards was convicted of threatening the father of the six-year-old Noah Pozner, one of the twenty-seven victims (including the shooter's own mother) of the massacre. Richards said that the boy never existed and that his parents were actors who deserved death for perpetrating a lie.

[...] But in competition with the marketplace of ideas is a “market for justifications”, says Hugo Mercier. Again, the order of sequence is incorrect, he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'

https://www.the-tls....judices-review/

"...he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'"


Hasn't this been well known for a while? Selective bias, reinforcement bias, etc. Surely this isn't being trotted out as something new?

I'm getting the impression that a lot of basic paradigms are going to be reviewed and revised in the coming years. It feels like social media has become a major factor in both disseminating and molding social beliefs. It kind of makes sense: if before the 2000s you were (largely) limited to your immediate surrounding circle and had to absorb most ideas through face-to-face communication, now -10-15 years later anyone can make a post and have it validated (via likes) by random all over the country/globe. And due to the ability to see who likes what you write, it facilitates engaging in conversation and reinforcement of ideas. And inevitably, the more divisive ideas resonate the strongest, leading to a polarization within society.

It's interesting to see, and although the underlying principles seem to be largely the same, the sheer new scope would probably require a new model.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 HoosierDaddy, on 24 July 2020 - 06:13 AM, said:

 Azath Vitr (D, on 24 July 2020 - 02:37 AM, said:

'Opponents of Brexit and Donald Trump not only found those victories intolerable, but many refused to believe them to be legitimate, instead supposing that lies had swayed a docile population. This idea of a gullible, pliable populace is, of course, nothing new. Voltaire said, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". But no, says [cognitive scientist] Mercier, Voltaire had it backwards: "It is wanting to commit atrocities that makes you believe absurdities".

[...] It might sound naive to say that people aren't that gullible, given what circulates on the internet: 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a hoax, Barack Obama is a Muslim. But how many people truly believe these things? In Knowledge Resistance, the sociologist Mikael Klintman argues that it is the act of publicly stating a belief – as opposed to actually holding it – that serves the crucial evolutionarily grounded function of social signalling. If someone says Obama is a Muslim, their primary reason may be to indicate that they are a member of the group of people who co-ordinate around that statement. When a social belief and a true belief are in conflict, Klintman says, people will opt for the belief that best signals their social identity – even if it means lying to themselves. You could, for example, signal your deep distrust of big government and undying loyalty to the Second Amendment of the US Constitution by stating that the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook school was a hoax (while, on some level, assuming that it really did happen). Such a "belief" – being largely performative – rarely translates into action. It remains what Mercier calls a reflective belief, with no consequences on one's behaviour, as opposed to an intuitive belief, which guides decisions and actions. Sometimes a false belief can cross over, from a mere signal to a basis for real-world decision and action, and that's when we see the dangerous collateral effects of belief- signalling. While some hoaxers stopped at simply voicing their "theory" about Sandy Hook, in Florida, in June 2017, Lucy Richards was convicted of threatening the father of the six-year-old Noah Pozner, one of the twenty-seven victims (including the shooter's own mother) of the massacre. Richards said that the boy never existed and that his parents were actors who deserved death for perpetrating a lie.

[...] But in competition with the marketplace of ideas is a "market for justifications", says Hugo Mercier. Again, the order of sequence is incorrect, he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'

https://www.the-tls....judices-review/

"...he suggests: often, we are not seeking truths to help us figure out what we should believe, but rather seeking statements to justify existing beliefs.'"

Hasn't this been well known for a while? Selective bias, reinforcement bias, etc. Surely this isn't being trotted out as something new?

It's a question of extent, evidence, and context.

The research on this in the last decade has been contentious.

You can read the full article, or fuller reviews, for more details (open in new incognito window if there's a paywall issue).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 24 July 2020 - 05:08 PM

[Malankazooie]

How have we missed this headline - Kim Jong Un in coma.

It's all just more fuckery by the hermit kingdom, yeah? If it is true, does that mean his sister is in charge? And she will take over permanently if he doesn't come out of it?

BTW, I find the sister attractive. Does that make me a horrible person? I became aware of her during the last Winter Olympics. She catches the eye, imo.

[Tsundoku]

Holy fush and chups, Bitman!

At the moment it looks like Unnzudd may get a Labour majority in their own right. At one stage an hour or so ago it looked like they were tracking for fufty point sux percint of the vote and suxty-sux seats!
At the moment that has come back slightly to 49.3 percint and suxty-four seats. With a one hundred and twinty seat parliament all they need is suxty-one.

Better break out the chully buns!

This post has been edited by Tsundoku: 17 October 2020 - 08:58 AM

[Aptorian]

What language is that?

[Tsundoku]

Kiwi, bro.

[Tiste Simeon]

And it's finally some good news. Wish we had a competent and vibrant leadership over here.

[Cause]

The pope just endsored civil unions between homosexuals? What?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not religious, Ione hundred percent gay marriage or civil unions. I jam just shocked!

I mean he is the pope but can he do this? Will their be backlash? From cardinals I mean? I mean sin can be forgiven (catholic view not mine) but you have to repent?

This post has been edited by Cause: 21 October 2020 - 07:48 PM

[Macros]

I assume typos are involved there.

Big news from the center of hypocrisy, sorry I mean Catholicism.

New poper is fairly modern, but this is a huge surprise!

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Cause, on 21 October 2020 - 04:58 PM, said:

The pope just endsored civil unions between homosexuals? What?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not religious, Ione hundred percent gay marriage or civil unions. I jam just shocked!

I mean he is the pope but can he do this? Will their be backlash? From cardinals I mean? I mean sin can be forgiven (catholic view not mine) but you have to repent?

Relevant article in The Atlantic today:

'these ultraconservatives applaud the attacks on the leader of their Church. To them, Francis is the embodiment of abhorrent modernist, globalist, even secularist values.

The effective leader of this part of the Church, which is both superglued to certainty and whirring with conspiracy, is Carlo Maria Viganò. "So honored by Archbishop Viganò's incredible letter to me," Trump tweeted in early June, to little general notice. "I hope everyone, religious or not, reads it!" Later, during one of the several White House interviews he has granted to EWTN, the conservative Catholic television network, the president lauded Viganò as a "great gentleman," who'd written "a tremendous letter of support from the Catholic Church."

[...] Viganò's lovefest with Trump is telling. [...]

Marshall has long used YouTube to propagate a version of the faith that combines hard-core traditionalism with cloak-and-dagger intrigue. "From the year A.D. 33 to 2020, Catholicism has not changed one iota," he stated in a recent video, terming those who disagree "algae, bacteria, goo." In his new book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church From Within, Marshall alleges a centuries-old plot to groom recruits to rise in the Church hierarchy, pervert its teachings, and thus empower the forces of global Freemasonry. He quotes admiringly from admonitions, laid down in the early 19th century by Pope Gregory XVI, against such notions as liberty of conscience and the separation of Church and state. As for Francis, Marshall depicts him as the culmination of "organized efforts" of the "enemies of Christ" to place a "pope for Satan on the Roman Chair of Saint Peter."

[...] promoting Viganò's case against Biden—entwining it with the case against Francis. "They all want Joe Biden, who is a fake Catholic … on the so-called throne in Washington, D.C.," he says of the pope and his liberal confreres, "so they can continue their agenda, which is to create the East-West globalism." Translation: Deep-state China and deep-state America will converge with their Vatican enablers to do the devil's work on Earth.

[...] On the whole, American Catholics don't, for example, just accept the concept of birth control; they use it. A majority favors at least some degree of legal abortion—and even those who don't would probably balk at the idea of Francis as Lucifer's wingman.

[...] the Trump phenomenon has made conspiracy-based extremism the stuff of politics, and virtually everything the stuff of political polarization, including Francis himself. In 2014, the pontiff was rated equally favorably by American Catholics in both political parties, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Four years later, he was 10 points more popular among Democrats than among Republicans.'

https://www.theatlan...s-devil/616732/

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 21 October 2020 - 08:26 PM

[Primateus]

Yikes, just plain old YIKES!


The primary opposition party here in Denmark seems a bit like it's just disintegrating at the moment. Just before New Years, the chairman of the party asked the vice chairwoman to resign her position due to her having undermined the leader's authority in the press. Also, she's likely to be put on trial this year for breaking the law when she was a minister in the previous government.

And now, the former chairman and former Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has just announced that he is leaving the party. This, along with the current chairman, Jacob Ellemann, generally being viewed as weak and ineffectual and unlikely to win the next election, the party is in disarray. And as they're the largest and primary opposition party, all of this really seems to just strengthen the current governments position. And this is even though the current government has made one single and rather critical error in its corona response that killed an entire industry.

So, uh, yikes...

[Aptorian]

I think it's healthy.

Both the former Prime minister Lars Lykke Rasmussen and Inger Støjberg have been undermining the current political leader, Jakob Elleman.

There's two years till the next election. If Elleman wants to succeed and save his party he needs to disavow Støjberg. By supporting the charges of political misconduct against her, he also opens the door for a case against the current prime minister, which could save him and the party.

If he hadn't turned on Støjberg, it would also have further increased political distrust in general. The politicians need to be made accountable and Støjberg and Mette Frederiksen are using way too many tricks in Trump's playbook. It needs to stop and it needs to have consequences.

I'd love it if Elleman came out with an interview where he completely destroys the former prime minister, because God knows Rasmussen has a ton of skeletons in his closet. He was forced to step down despite having a great election which says a lot about what the internal party opinion is of Rasmussen.