Like I said previously, you obviously haven't looked into it properly otherwise you would not be stating the above.
March 7, 2024
401
-
-
True, but there are more democratic outlets doing the brainwashing than the other way round. Uneven playing field even if you rule out the bigger money behind it all.
-
Don't worry...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvff0huKQXo -
Please do stop repeatedly accusing me of carrying on this discussion in bad faith. I am using the definition of 'cancel' that I understand. Presumably your 'context' imbues a different meaning. If so, you should explain what that meaning is.
Certainly, when publishing anything it pays not to get the wrong side of the publishers. That's been the case for as long as there have been authors and publishers. I'm not seeing anything new here, apart from the point that what the publishers find acceptable changes over time. That also has been the case since the year dot. So I'm really not seeing the point you're making here.
Somewhat insulting to Leonardo. It wasn't ever that great. It was never really a 'test image', more of an illustrative image. It really never had the specificity to act as a good subject in any real test case. Its virtue was mainly in familiarity - for any but the most basic illustrations it was a pretty lazy choice. Moreover, the quality of the original image was sufficiently poor that as techniques improved it was becoming increasingly useless anyway. Finding better images was required and achieved.
Perhaps a little misleading to call it a 'paper'. It's an internet article, not any kind of learned paper. Anyhow, an OK story, but I fail to see the point that you're trying to make.
Are you just having a moan about the decisions that editors make these days - in which case, go ahead - forums like this are just the place for a good moan. Or maybe you're implicitly suggesting that there should be some kind of legislation that ensures that editors only exercise their editorial freedoms in the right way - by which I'd guess you'd mean the way that you agree with. If the latter is the case, could I perhaps politely suggest that not everyone thinks the same way. -
Interesting point of view. So you're suggesting that democratic outlets are more likely to be brainwashing than authoritarian ones. I would be delighted to see the evidence to support that, because I would have hazarded a guess that it would have been the other way round, based on historical precedent and all that stuff.
-
Oh, come on, Bob! The entire US public "education" system is just one massive brainwashing machine! For example, but far from limited to, saying the Civil War was about slavery as opposed to State's Rights (I mean, rights to things other than to have slaves and to require other states to be able to have slaves). The war where we took Texas from Mexico being about slavery?! Are you effing kidding me?! Out and out lies spouted by public "education"! And while I'm talking about slavery, their depiction of slavery as being different from a regular job. In fact, if anything was wrong with slavery, it was how socialist it was! I mean, they were housed and fed for free, FFS!
Of course, there's more. Lots more! They demonize Trump, but they idolize FDR (who almost wrecked the US with his socialist policies) and idolize JFK, who almost annihilated the whole freakin' planet in a senseless nuclear war! I mean, the list goes on and on and on.
Now, you're English, and England might be just as bad (I don't really know), so you may have sucked up all that indoctrination yourself. All I can say is to educate yourself and do your own research. There are many Facebook groups out there that will be happy to educate you, and the largest [real] news outlet in the US, Fox News, will tell you what you need to know (nevermind the Dominion Lawsuit -- just one more example of liberal judges forcing their agenda on the good people of America.
😁😆😂
-
You're right of course. Without using those information sources it would never have been found out the John Bolton, Bill Barr, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, John Kelly, Mark Esper, John Boehner, Brian Kemp, John Kasich, Chris Christie, Ann Coulter are all liberals. Who'd have thought it.
-
Elon Musk revealed how the media was doing so... no rocket science there at all, except to the media on the left trying to lie, deny and deflect.
The media lied about the laptop, the media spun the Russian collusion nonsense, the media lied about the BLM riots in that summer of hell. They lied about a so-called insurrection... they tried cover up Hunters actions. Funny how they won't tell how the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree of Mr McGoo... -
You can use Google translate to translate this article that appeared in Italy's, most important newspaper, that sits centrally on the political spectrum.
-
Impossible to fall through cookie consent - in italian I could accept cookies or subscribe (I usually won't do either, but would make cookie exclusion for you), in translated way cookie window just hides page and does not even accept consent. Maybe my block-everything-not-really-required policy interferes too.
-
Interesting read and have read that sort of thing before. The comments below the article are interesting. I would add that reverse racism is being promoted at the cost of meritocracy.
-
I tested it and it worked for me
-
I've looked into it quite well. I know for a fact that people on both sides have no trouble at all finding outlets providing echo chambers that reinforce their beliefs and shield them from challenging information. The counts don't have to match in order for both sides to be adequately supplied. Both sides in a nuclear war don't need to have the same count of warheads to assure mutual destruction. They just need adequate supplies of them.
-
You'll have to remind me how he revealed this. Mr Musk is certainly very interesting when he talks about the production engineering of enormous boosters, but I wasn't aware that he had given any useful information about 'how the media was doing so'.
what were the lies, exactly? What I find odd about this is that the Republican majority in the House, with the power of subpoena to issue to anyone they want, hasn't been able to evidence the truth about this. Maybe they're all really just RINOs and don't want to.
What did they say precisely that wasn't true? And when I say 'exactly', what I mean is a demonstrably untrue piece of information presented as a fact.
I remember a load of riots. What were the lies being told about them. I had failed to spot those.
You mean it was all CGI? All those people shouting 'Hail Mike Pence'? I'm not sure what that rope was about, probably so some poor disabled person could get a better view of the completely peaceful goings on.
Lucky they had the House Oversight Committee to uncover it all. Oh, wait...
I'm interested in what are the sources of information which tell us what was the truth in all of these cases. Please could you let us know where we can find actual evidence that all the things that we now find out were lies, actually were that.
-
That is the problem with the algorithms that run social media. You mainly get stuff which feeds your existing confirmation bias.
-
Once again, you haven't looked properly.
-
Google did it for me without even having to be asked.
-
That's always an unconvincing argument. If you can't show him what he would have found had he 'looked into it properly' then no-one, apart from people who already agree with you, is going to believe anything other than you don't have anything to show. You need to think what you're trying to do in the discussion. If you're trying to convince people who don't already agree with you, then you won't do it the way you're arguing, because all you're doing is saying that they're wrong and when they don't meekly accept that, saying it louder. Of course, you might just be trying to signal to other people that already agree with you that you can be tough on the other side, then fine, you're probably achieving that, but it doesn't make any difference to anyone's opinion.
