The Internet War.

But isn't it kind of showing how all manipulation and the media works?

What is the difference between people who do that, and a media that does it for them?

I think what it boils down to is - what is a "trusted" source. What can you trust? And what about when someone you trust is actually being as honest as they can, but they themselves have been mislead?

In the end, you can't trust anything I've found.

What you are pointing out is that people will trust a source because it shares what they already believe. But it's no different than when the media hand feeds them the same things. At least with the internet, people are starting to feed themselves.

Can you please enlighten us all and provide the best sources for RESEARCH?

Thanks,

Originally posted by intrepid

OK, he says something that isn't backed by what some obviously thought wasn't his ideology.

haha, someone had an independent thought? I didnt know that was allowed in party politics, hahaha. I find it very errie when people hide behind their party and are gung ho with everything they stand for when they personally have little to no grasp on the actual issue.

and this thing of reusing the same tired and flawed sources to back up your personal beliefs is very dangerous. if you only go to one place for your news, then you will never have a broader perspective that will add and strengthen your own beliefs.

reply to post by intrepid


I think I agree...Something like this?

Research a topic before forming an opinion rather than the other way around.

If strong research or evidence comes to your attention contradicting your pre-concieved view. Consider changing your view.

Do not fault people or politicians for changing their mind on a given topic. Assuming it a result of new knowledge rather than let's say lobbyist money, then it is a sign of intellect and objectivity, not betrayel.

Do not site twitter or opinion blogs as sources either in posts or in your internal thinking. Look for data and facts to arrive at your own conclusions.

* Unfortunately we live in a time when the news outlets have let us down. They are for profit and thus in the business of telling us what we want to hear. It isn't just three channels of news anymore, we can choose our biased news outlet...ditto the internet et al.

Selective news and facts with the your opinions all thought out for you







[edit on 14-10-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by evo190
Can you please enlighten us all and provide the best sources for RESEARCH?

Thanks,

Multiple sources. Differing points of view. The mainstream media, as Sky pointed out is biased and in the business of making money. See different perspective and then use you mind to determine the truth from the BS. I can't think of any given source that doesn't have bias. I usually use Maclean's but they have bias as well. Just not as much.

reply to post by intrepid


while I see no evidence that the guy researched anything, I'm sure the 'outrage' was from one of a few things:

1 - there are a lot of people unable to form opinions for themselves, so they follow someone else, then are thrown off when there is an inconsistency. like finding a warp in your mirror.

2 - People make a public figure the de facto spokesperson for a cause then expect him to adhere

3 - People saw the hypocrisy of an overpaid celebrity who decides to preach to the peons who watch his movies that they should follow this person and do that (when its not something that affects him) but when it's something that affects him, he's against it. It comes off as 'do as I say not as I do' and most people have a very fine sense and increasingly hair trigger about it.

4 - some other factor I didn't think of because i realized its about a celebrity and I stopped giving a damn at that point.

reply to post by intrepid


I will keep it short because i think you have the notion that everyone who finds something on google or youtube thinks is a fact, which it isn't so far from the truth, that is why you do fact checking or look for reliable sources.

before the internet it would be what someone told you, many people would take it as a fact. reminds me of the witch hunts, anyway, you are using faulty logic to make an argument and there is always the exception to the rule.

google or youtube can be used to inform or disinform, just like a gun can be used to kill or defend yourself.

(is that faulty logic aswell???? - )

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Arsenis]

Ha...yeah i do this all the time.

But you must aswell at some point to have noticed it??

reply to post by intrepid


You must remember there are other way of gaining infomation other than the internet.Remote viewing,visions,,dreams ,goverment employees talking,ex goverment employees talking,telepathy with aliens,books,breaking into goverment files and reading them,paying someone to give you infomation,spying ,goverment paying you for services rendered and taking photos.I would have to admit i have used a couple of thoses sorces.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]

reply to post by intrepid


Ok I have been keeping up but I still do not get it.

To summarize what I understand so far..Correct me where wrong.

You are against people forming an opinion then going out and finding things online that support their opinion.

You would rather they do the research first and then form an opinion based upon that research? Right?

Now I asked why does this thread belong in USPOllMad and you said that is where you see it this kind of behavior the most but you did not offer up any research for that opinion? Correct?

I look over the last two pages of this thread and I see the problem you have with ignorant ideology but I do not see how you relate it to politics. Ideology could mean religion or a way of living it is not a term restricted to politics.... and neither is the premise of this thread....

I don't mean to be a thorn in your side guy....

But I still fail to see how your OP and the responses offered relates to politics?

Except in the general sense of it all maybe?

reply to post by intrepid


Intrepid, what I find is more along the lines "there's nothing new under the sun". I rarely think of something that has not been thought before. I think it's better I look up a theory and reference anything I find related than be called out for plagiarism. The abundance of info on the Internet (right and wrong) makes the cross referencing easy. If I had to bolster my thoughts entirely through written works I'd never post anything. Furthermore, something published in hard copy has no better chance of being valid. Most of what we kick around here are opinions. Most of us go into this with that knowledge and we go from there.

Isn't theory what this forum is about? And when someone forms a theory, they go looking for info to back this theory. And the internet is full of books, op eds, new articles, etc, to extract that from.

I would say, a theory formed with one article backing that theory is worthy of discussion, especially in the CONSPIRACY forum.

But maybe some don't want healthy discussion about conspiracy. After all, until the internet they were having a hey day hiding all their secrets.

Now, their nervous the truth will come out.

90% of the information I post is from textbooks, research in libraries, etc... If I can find its counterpart online, I have no problem using it in a debate. Everything else online is junk.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Pathos]

I agree, in part. I have recently developed the opinion that there is no 'truth', anymore. Anyone with a keyboard can find 'facts' and 'figures' to support their ideologies.

This is where it simply comes down to personal responsibility. Unfortunately, that is lacking in today's world, in a big way. I've said before, most people here on ATS are very opinionated, type A personalities. Regardless of what argument you present, it is unlikely you will convert any of them to your way of thinking. At least, that's what I've witnessed.

I differ from your overall assessment in that, I believe it is human nature to observe, read or hear information and, immediately, develop some opinion. It is then natural for them to want to add credence to that, by seeking further justification.

The problem, as I see it, is when a person resorts to name calling and character assasination, because they are unable to convince another to change his/her mind. Just let it go, already! The world would be a horribly boring place if we all agreed, all the time.

reply to post by intrepid


I remember in school, when a teacher would ask us to write about a subject, make an argument, find supporting facts and then pat ourselves in the back.

We would like to think as that as "Critical thinking" and because we can put a label on it, we feel so smug and smart, we couldn't possibly be wrong.

The problem is, people are notoriously bad at understanding statistical phenomena. people are Notoriously bad at understanding systems where interactions are second order or higher. Consider trying to keep a broomstick balanced, that is a high order control process, most people overshoot their responses. Give the average man the controls of an airplane and he will crash.

When dealing with the economy, social issues, politics, we are dealing with a system so complex, and so slow in responding to inputs that only the extremely foolish could possibly be convinced that they understand it well, that they have internalized all the variables, all the delayed responses, and all the resisting factors.

What we have is an astonishing lack of humility and a tremendous amount of faith in what we believe.

The most common mistake we all make is the mistake of omitting contradictory facts and evidence. We are also very bad at judging just how far the domain of any given problem extends. This accounts for the honest mistakes made by nearly everybody when arguing an issue of a complex nature such as politics, ideology, religion, and even medicine and complex systems engineering.

Even more appalling is the reality that the people who are best at arguing a position, and also have the spotlight, are motivated by selfish agendas, or are in the pockets of those with selfish interests.

At the end of the chain is the average person whose intellectual ability is limited to repeating catchy phrases, buying stuff and watching TV and producing solid waste and carbon dioxide, and whose only goal is to get their basic needs met, but lacks the psychotic and sociopathic drive to try to convince everybody of their political opinion.

And we are all at different times of our lives in any of those places.

That's why I think it's all pointless.

-rrr

Originally posted by Pathos
90% of the information I post is from textbooks, research in libraries, etc... If I can find its counterpart online, I have no problem using it in a debate. Everything else online is junk.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Pathos]

Not only that, but a substantial of material in "sanctioned" publications is also junk.

For each side of an argument, I guarantee you can find a book in a library. Clearly, both sides cannot be true if they are contradictory. One of the books is junk. By that measure, 50% of the books in libraries are junk.

-rrr

Originally posted by Pathos
90% of the information I post is from textbooks, research in libraries, etc... If I can find its counterpart online, I have no problem using it in a debate. Everything else online is junk.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Pathos]

thank you appeal to authority! because its only right if youre "qualified" to write about it. everything else online is junk?

I know exactly what Intrepid is talking about and I think it's the "team mentality". Ashton is supposed to be a "leftie" and an Obama supporter. When he comes out saying something that is "against Obama" or what Obama is pushing, the right praises him, because now, it appears he's rooting for "their team", and the left feels betrayed because it appears he's rooting for the "other team" when they thought he was on the "praise Obama" team.

The people on the "left" hear what Ashton said and "think", Wait, I thought he was on OUR team! Why did he cheer for the other team?

This is a HUGE problem today! People don't "THINK", they pick a side. If the issue comes down on "their side", it's like a score for their team and that's what they believe, WITHOUT thinking.

Why is it that some of us see this and some don't know what you're talking about?

Originally posted by intrepid
What I'm referring to here is the ridiculous acts of people going on to Google, YouTube, Twitter, etc. to find material to back up their ideology. We see it all the time here on ATS. It's not constructive, it's divisive and counterproductive to critical thinking. If you have to look for something you are starting with a preconceived notion, rather than a thought or theory.

I don't quite understand your point. Everybody has opinions about everything that they know exists. Most people believe that their opinions are based on facts. Sometimes, people are mistaken in what they believe to be fact.

Ashton Kutcher was mentioned. Other than the fact that he's good looking, I don't know or care about him. But let's say that I thought that he was a vegetarian and that made a difference. If I were to be in favor of vegetarianism, (I'm not, I eat dead animals and I don't care what you eat), I might want to use him as a poster boy for the cause. But before I did so, I would go online to see if there is any basis to my (hypothetical) belief that he was vegetarian. If the second link was (again, hypothetically) to an article about him making a commercial for Big Macs, then I would know not to use him as an example of vegetarians, and thereby not say something that would destroy the credibility of whatever else I wanted to say. My theoretical opinion about vegetarianism would not depend on what Ashton Kutcher decides to have for dinner.



[edit on 15/10/2009 by christianpatrick]

Originally posted by ruckus49
thank you appeal to authority! because its only right if you're "qualified" to write about it. everything else online is junk?

Historically governments would burn books to keep the public ignorant. I trust textbooks, old reference materials, and microfiche more than anything published online. Most of Roswell's more reliable accounts are found in old newspapers, books in the library, and in other more reliable offline sources. If you want to find the truth behind some event, your best best is to search through your state's main library.

Libraries only put summaries online; thus, you are forced to walk into a local establishment. If I had to make an assessment on prevalence, I will predict that 90% to 95% of what you find online is fake. Its all advertisement, entertainment, and/or being used for propaganda.

I had a similar conversation not too long ago.

-- How much information in Above Top Secret's discussions were originally planted by an external government?

-- Is your opinion shaped by an external government trying to discredit your own country?

-- Are your feelings about your own country being manipulated by another government?

-- Are disgruntled citizens planting false information online, about their own countries, and are they shaping the opinions of average citizens?

-- Are criminals, racists, and radicals visiting forums? Are they also contributing to the spread of hatred?

-- Was you opinion about your country shaped by someone from a terrorist country or socialist country?

Colleges are now limiting online references. Most colleges only accept online references, which have an offline counterpart.

Can you tell the difference between a fabricated piece of online content and the real deal? I'm willing to bet that most people on ATS were influenced by something, which they saw online at some point or another. Sometimes I have a problem.

How many lies have been created online, and how much of an impact have they had on society?

Psychology 101 - Human beings react to things in their environment. Social psychologists believe society does have an influence on an individual's behavior. Even though an individual makes a cognitive choice, they are sometimes forced to react on something in the environment.

Originally posted by christianpatrick
I don't quite understand your point. Everybody has opinions about everything that they know exists. Most people believe that their opinions are based on facts. Sometimes, people are mistaken in what they believe to be fact.

Unless you are trained through psychology, science, or mathematics, you will never know what 'truth' looks like.

Psychology 101 - Old wise tales, assumptions, and common knowledge is statistically incorrect (wrong). Prevalence edges around 100% of the time.


[edit on 15-10-2009 by Pathos]