Kansas Crimson

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 11:47 am i have come to learn that "misinformation" is in the eyes of the beholder.

one mans misinformation is another mans "not" misinformation.

it's just so subjective. whatever that means.

You are a poster child for things that you would deny exist.

i don't know what that means. but thank you. i think.

no offense you guys but mich just might be onto something here.

It's foolish to assume misinformation is a one-way street.

is it misinformation if i say i think margot robbie is a skank. and you disagree.

or is it misinformation if you say margot robbie is a skank. and i disagree.

BiggDick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:27 pm It's foolish to assume misinformation is a one-way street.

Of course it is foolish to do so in all circumstances.
But this is not the argument here.
Misinformation should not be subjective and we should strive to live in a world where it is not.

agreed!

but you're arguing "should not be" when mich's argument is, "is."

One's an ideal to strive for, and one's a realistic observation.

There's a tendency among everyone, but some far more than others, to:

- discredit as misinformation anything and everything that challenges their own views, no matter how credible the source and/or info.

- neglect to think critically about the credibility of, or be willing to criticize, the sources and/or info that supports one's own views.

I guess you missed the key word, 'subjective'.

this is always the struggle/battle when you are dealing with internet deviants and malcontents.

bd gets it. if he can get it. seems like the rest of you should be able to.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:56 pm I guess you missed the key word, 'subjective'.

I very much saw the key word, "subjective," in your argument.

It's synonymous with mich's "eye of the beholder."

That part was the same. The different part of your arguments was, "should not be" versus "is."

But I guess I already said that.

OK, so you are going the Bill Clinton route and arguing the meaning of the word 'is'.
Have a good one.
Once-a-fucking-gain.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:09 pm OK, so you are going the Bill Clinton route and arguing the meaning of the word 'is'.
Have a good one.
Once-a-fucking-gain.

"The water is -2.2 degrees Celsius, Jack!"

"Rose, I'm an American."

"Ok, that means 28 degrees Fahrenheit, you silly rube."

"How can that be, water's freezing point is 32 degrees Fahrenheit?"

"Well you see, Jack, between the water's salinity and these severe waves here in the North Atlantic, the water can remain in liquid form despite its temperature being below water's usual freezing point."

"But Rose, why are icicles forming below my nose?"

"That's different, there the water is more exposed to the subzero air and not so roiled by the waves."

[glug glug glug]

"but the water should not be this cold!"

BiggDick wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:27 pm no offense you guys but mich just might be onto something here.

It's foolish to assume misinformation is a one-way street.

What MICH said was most definitely NOT "misinformation affects both sides of the political spectrum". He said it is subjective, which is patently false in the vast majority of cases.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:36 pm is it misinformation if i say i think margot robbie is a skank. and you disagree.

or is it misinformation if you say margot robbie is a skank. and i disagree.

Something like that is an opinion, not a fact. Which highlights the problem in that some people feel that facts are only opinions that can simply being blown off as inaccurate when those facts do not support their opinions.

pdub wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:09 pm OK, so you are going the Bill Clinton route and arguing the meaning of the word 'is'.
Have a good one.
Once-a-fucking-gain.

Not sure why you're getting so worked up.

and fwiw I'm not trying to argue the meaning of the word "is," either.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:03 pm bd gets it. if he can get it. seems like the rest of you should be able to.

If he gets it, then you're making the point wrong.

and I guess twocoach makes a good distinction between "misinformation affects both sides" and being subjective.

But the problem is how so many do subjectively, as some matter of opinion, seem to think misinformation only affects the other side - especially considering how often the subjective opinionated approach to information can be drawn so tidily along partisan lines.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:34 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 12:36 pm is it misinformation if i say i think margot robbie is a skank. and you disagree.

or is it misinformation if you say margot robbie is a skank. and i disagree.

Something like that is an opinion, not a fact. Which highlights the problem in that some people feel that facts are only opinions that can simply being blown off as inaccurate when those facts do not support their opinions.

Right.

If there is no such thing as objective truth, then there's no such thing as misinformation.

If nothing is true, then nothing is a lie.

What we are dealing with is exactly what you say: a great many people feel entitled to have their opinions treated as facts. And to treat facts they don't like as opinions.

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:36 pm

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:03 pm bd gets it. if he can get it. seems like the rest of you should be able to.

If he gets it, then you're making the point wrong.

I don't think you realize you're doing it, right now but you (among others) seem to be discounting sources not based on some objective credibility of the information provided by the source, but based on some rather (and rather obliviously) biased subjective opinion - and, surprise! - largely along some partisan lines too.

It's just so damn meta for this thread.

now BRB lemme go get some popcorn!