Many ATS Members are contradictory and Hypocritical!!!

Hello one and all

I have noticed a lot of inconsistency coming from many members of ATS. Many are quick to denounce certain sources in regards to specific topics, but when it suits their own agenda, they are more than happy to utilise the very same sources. This is extremely prevalent in two current topics gripping ATS at the moment; The Presidential race and the Iran/Israel tensions.

In regards to President Barack Obama, many members are quick to denounce any source applauding his attempts at rectifying the American problems, but when something pops up denouncing Obama himself, members are quick to use the very same sites in order to criticise him. It is contradictory in every sense of the word.

Another example is the Iran/Israel tensions. While it isn't the exact same, it runs along the same veins as the previous explanation.

Many members do not trust mainstream websites, but they are quick to use such websites if it fits their agenda. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is a great example of this. The same members who do not trust the likes of Fox or CNN are more than happy to use those sites in order to demonise Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Regime, while at the same time, portraying Israel in an angelic light.

I feel that this is hypocritical and contradictory of the members to do this.

I denounce this thread! But will use it later to prove my points....

It`s not just ATS members it`s the entire younger generation.

Being contrary and arguing that the sky is purple when we all know that it is blue, doesn`t make you look intelligent it just wastes people`s time and makes you look childish and petty.

reply to post by Tardacus

It`s not just ATS members it`s the entire younger generation.

Yes, because only young people act biased regarding their own arguments

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Tardacus

 

It`s not just ATS members it`s the entire younger generation.

Yes, because only young people act biased regarding their own arguments

Yeah because thats exactly the point i was trying to make

thank you for proving my real point

reply to post by daaskapital


While I have never denounced anyone for their choice of news source, I know that there are some sources that I must take with "a grain of salt". I've never understood why some people feel the need to belittle others for their source choices, unless they just want to feel superior or something.

As far as the political "flip-floppers" I think in some cases people are torn on how they feel about Obama. They want to like him and support him as POTUS- but then he does or says something bone headed and they get mad at him. It can be confusing. Then there are others who are just going to spout off what they think will be viewed favorably in a particular thread in a bid for stars and popularity, even if what they say contradicts their previously posted standpoint. There will always be those who want to be "one of the cool kids".

It's not just the younger crowd- I've seen some of the older members do it also. I like the people who say what they think whether anyone agrees with them or not. Even if I don't agree I admire their spunk!

reply to post by Tardacus


It's the entire younger generation.

Just yesterday I was thinking about this. How every older person I've met is so thoughtful. Older people never make any type of intellectual point unless it is absolutely justified. For some reason, younger people have created this new mindset and attitude of double standards. I sometimes find myself wondering, where did young people learn to act this way? Maybe from video games? They certainly aren't regressing based on the flawless examples set by the generations before them! I mean look at the world, adults seem to have society running like a well oiled machine....

Looking at behavioral inconsistency, you can label it hypocritical or change in belief. Seeing how most seem pretty settled into a belief system, OP's probably right to choose the first.

Well, as I'm taking your OP to really be about sourcing and how people are using/looking at it as opposed to Obama or Iran as more than examples...I'll just comment there..

I think it's a great point too! Sourcing, the total lack of it or the use of outright baffling ones as 'reliable' is probably the biggest shortcoming of an otherwise great little system of news that ATS has developed into being over time. It's wonderful to so regularly see news here and flip to the MSM websites or TV coverage to see the literal first breaking reports after first knowing half the story from the ATS material.

Then again... It's something less than stellar to see the 10th story about how Obama or Bush were really Reptilian Aliens in disguise and the original 'V' series was a warning not entertainment.

I think it's all in how people use the sources. Personally, I don't outright ignore any source. Any of them. Even the National Enquirer at the supermarket gets a casual glance at checkout. (C'mon...you look too.. Admit it. ) What changes for me is just how many secondary confirmation sources I think I need to believe what I'm reading. If it's the N.E., then I'm reading at LEAST 2-3 other sources before figuring Batboy might really exist after all.

As far as the Super-Stories like Obama, Iran, Deepwater Horizon or Katrina....Umm... I don't ignore any one source because someone HAS to read damn near all of them to take it all in and sort just to get a basic sense of having the truth of the matter. In that way..and the Mega-topics, I don't think source really matters anyway. They copy EACH OTHER..and word for word....often enough to know damn well half are just reporting on what the OTHER half have stolen from the notes of the FEW whole actually talked to or saw a direct part of a story.

reply to post by daaskapital

Well the premise is that the MSM is a propaganda network.

So if they say/report something, for example, which would contradict Iran's alleged desire to build nuclear weapons, it would make sense to use them as a source.

The idea being that if the MSM (known liars) are reporting the truth, its a big deal.

But you'll notice that even in these cases, there is a lot of bias and dismissal in their "reporting".

Yeah i have noticed this too. They will discredit a source till it supports their cause. They will view something with great disgust but when that something shows up in something they support they either ignore it or they justify it.

it is pretty stupid. Although I think that to a certain extent we are all guilty of this

reply to post by daaskapital


Alright I may be a Hypocrite, not in either of those forums. But there is no way I'm contradictory. Contradiction is
is so negative and if there is anything I'm not ? It's negative. Wait what..

reply to post by daaskapital
A wee joke to illustrate my point. . . .


Obama was on a boat. The boat started sinking.

Obama walked on water to shore, safely.

The next morning headlines

MSNBC
Obama walks on water

FOX
Obama can't swim.


The same speech, the same issue, the same conflict can be seen from many different aspects. The above was neither contradictory nor hypocritical.

Yet both are accurate within their context.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by daaskapital

 

A wee joke to illustrate my point. . . .


Obama was on a boat. The boat started sinking.

Obama walked on water to shore, safely.

The next morning headlines

MSNBC
Obama walks on water

FOX
Obama can't swim.


The same speech, the same issue, the same conflict can be seen from many different aspects. The above was neither contradictory nor hypocritical.

Yet both are accurate within their context.

That is the way it often goes, CGI is used in the same way in the digital age. A digital photograph, what is it? CGI, a solely generated computer animation, what is it? CGI, a Faux picture derived from a digital photograph using parts thereof, what is it? CGI. Just saying CGI is correct without clarification.

reply to post by daaskapital


I don't watch much TV so rarely do I source networks. I do follow Associated Press and Reuters raw news feeds and tend to use those as sources. Occasionally I do what many of us do, and catch a story on the Yahoo homepage that interests me, and might post it here.

I tend to ignore most networks as they all editorialize.

Having said that, I will mention bad sources in posts that rely heavily upon blogs or agenda driven political sites. Breitbart is one of my peeves because it is like the Rush Limbaugh of Internet news sources IMO. I'll also point out bad sources when used by the left as well. My personal exceptions are "PBS" and "Mother Jones". I'm told that these are both left leaning - but I like 'em both, so I don't tend to criticize them.

As far as contradiction and hypocrisy go? Most of us are guilty of these sins, in reality, because we have personal opinions of our own... we tend to support the things that validate those opinions and to feel attacked when facts do not support them. We have visceral reactions - much of the time without even realizing it or recognizing it for what it is.

Personally, with most members, I don't like to point these things out because I realize that they're just "fighting the good fight" and aren't deliberately being obtuse or difficult. We all fall into the trap. I just get irked at the ones who set the traps on purpose - or who love to spend all of their time in them.

~Heff

we are all right and all wrong at different times

Originally posted by daaskapital
In regards to President Barack Obama, many members are quick to denounce any source applauding his attempts at rectifying the American problems, but when something pops up denouncing Obama himself, members are quick to use the very same sites in order to criticise him. It is contradictory in every sense of the word.

Another example is the Iran/Israel tensions. While it isn't the exact same, it runs along the same veins as the previous explanation.

Many members do not trust mainstream websites, but they are quick to use such websites if it fits their agenda. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is a great example of this. The same members who do not trust the likes of Fox or CNN are more than happy to use those sites in order to demonise Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Regime, while at the same time, portraying Israel in an angelic light.

Of course, you realize the reverse of these is true as well?

I'll use Fox and MSNBC since they often denounced by one side or the other. Like when the Fox story about the errors in Ryan's speech came out - or when MSNBC makes a rare criticism of Obama. People that normally don't like those sources suddenly are quoting the articles.

What most people really want to believe is "news" that fits their own personal biases, views and beliefs. Both sides of most any argument like to think they are above doing that. In reality, both sides do it frequently.

reply to post by daaskapital


if lame stream media have a speech thats relevant and proves a point its no problemo man

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by daaskapital

 

We all fall into the trap. I just get irked at the ones who set the traps on purpose ~Heff

Heff, I agree with most of what you have said, but that last paragraph in that part can have a different connotation. If somebody is not fighting the good fight, but may have an agenda and so to obfuscate, or ridicule what you have said for their purpose, and that you suspect that already, then I would do just that, set a trap. I have done it, not on innocent enquiring people, I'm not that knowledgeable myself, but to singular remarks, that are meant as a discussion killer, although that particular remark I/you know may actually not be quite true.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by daaskapital

 

A wee joke to illustrate my point. . . .


Obama was on a boat. The boat started sinking.

Obama walked on water to shore, safely.

The next morning headlines

MSNBC
Obama walks on water

FOX
Obama can't swim.


The same speech, the same issue, the same conflict can be seen from many different aspects. The above was neither contradictory nor hypocritical.

Yet both are accurate within their context.

Careful Beezzer that sounds far too logical for ats and happens to be a perfect explanation to the ops point.

the confirmation bias is a powerful thing, we each see what we want to.

Contrary to popular belief, contradictions is not a bad thing.

But often, sometimes something seems contradictory when it really isn't. Sometimes Some people just can't connect the dots very well step by step.

Others, like myself, just don't value intellectualism and logic.

All these things do is turn people into arrogant pigs who think everybody has to be like them in order to be respected, and that they're always better than anybody else who doesn't use logic.

Just because you don't use logic it doesn't mean you're stupid.

But the biggest weakness to logic is this: like the Bible, it can be used to justify any kind of deplorable behavior they want to.

So logic, in reality should be shunned. It is only for the intelligentsia to shove their ideals down other people's throat and to laugh at all the idiots who don't use it, for anybody who doesn't use logic must be stupid.

I see logical people laugh at non-logical people all the time while insulting and berating the all to hell and back.