Jump to content

U.S. Politics, 5


TerraPrime

Recommended Posts

Anti intellectualinsm!!!!! :)

A better way to phrase that is probably 'more educated', rather than 'smarter'.

I would probably disagree that smarter people are more likely to believe the crazy stuff. I think it crosses intellectual boundaries pretty evenly.

Well you would be going against what seems to be the forming scientific consensus. Not that thats a bad thing, given that this type of research is still in its infancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship of the media of any kind is wrong. Full stop. This does not interfere with liability for fraud, slander or libel.

That is all.

Amen.

Free speech is needed at all times, but it is needed most when a government becomes oppressive or acts contrary to the will of the people. And that is precisely the time when the most controversial and outrageous allegations are going to be made against that government, and when the government is most likely to crack down on dissent. I can't believe some people seriously want to give the government the rope with which it can hang all of us. Or maybe they know exactly what they are doing, and this is just a backhanded way of silencing dissent on the health care plan, global warming, etc.

There are two factors that the supporters of government dissent may not be considering. The first is that sometimes, commonly accepted facts are simply wrong. Does anyone care to research the number of times our government, or even "reputable scientists", have simply been wrong about previously announced facts? And if they do get it wrong sometimes, then they're inevitably going to be silencing some folks who may actually be getting it right.

The second factor is when the government, or any politician, for that matter, is lying about something intentionally. A reporter can provide a fact that the government, politician, or shit, any sports executive or anyone may flatly (but falsely) deny. The chilling effect on legitimate free speech inherent in such censorship is something that should give pause to anyone who values liberty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second factor is when the government, or any politician, for that matter, is lying about something intentionally. A reporter can provide a fact that the government, politician, or shit, any sports executive or anyone may flatly (but falsely) deny. The chilling effect on legitimate free speech inherent in such censorship is something that should give pause to anyone who values liberty.

And what happens when the media lies like it currently does? Why is it better to get lied by corporate interests than any other interests?

I gave example of media self-regulation but even that wasn´t good enough for scot as everyone is apparently biased and cannot be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what happens when the media lies like it currently does? Why is it better to get lied by corporate interests than any other interests?

Because they average out. No corporation or group thereof has power over all the media -- they play an endless game of propaganda and counter-propaganda, calling each other out on the more blatant lies and presenting opposing points of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jose,

The "corporate interests" will always face the possibility of some other group exposing the lies. If the Government gets to preview what is broadcasted or printed how can a contrary message get out if it's pedaling lies?

Where has anyone talked about previewing anything? i´m talking about bloody peer-review but it´s apparently too biased for you. Or is that just your bias against being biased about biases?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they average out. No corporation or group thereof has power over all the media -- they play an endless game of propaganda and counter-propaganda, calling each other out on the more blatant lies and presenting opposing points of view.

Or they could just do their job, but who could expect journalists to have even a smidgeon of integrity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship of the media of any kind is wrong. Full stop. This does not interfere with liability for fraud, slander or libel.

That is all.

Media is already "censored". There's already tons of rules, from government or other agencies, about what you can and cannot put on the air. Who's allowed to put what on the air. And so on.

The problem with this attitude is that it ignores that the dissemination of not-false information is an essential service. Democracy cannot function without it.

That's not the kind of thing you want to leave solely up to chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you would be going against what seems to be the forming scientific consensus. Not that thats a bad thing, given that this type of research is still in its infancy.

Not sure i'm following you.

I only skimmed the article, but it actually seems to make the same point I made:

For the most part intelligence is orthogonal to and independent of belief. In geometry, orthogonal means “at right angles to something else”; in psychology orthogonal means “statistically independent of an experimental design: such that the variates under investigation can be treated as statistically independent,” for example, “the concept that creativity and intelligence are relatively orthogonal (i.e., unrelated statistically) at high levels of intelligence.” 7

It seems to me that the author is mostly talking about why smart people believe crazy things, and specifically Not about why smart people believe crazy things more than less smart people.

But it's probably not important to run down this road in the context of the current thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they average out. No corporation or group thereof has power over all the media -- they play an endless game of propaganda and counter-propaganda, calling each other out on the more blatant lies and presenting opposing points of view.

And yet we don't see that happening now to any large degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jose,

I'm saying any group of people will have biases? Out of curiosity given the 24 hour news cycle how is there time for "peer review" before broadcast or publication. Is this a system of fines after the fact? If so it's not prior restraint and is an interesting idea.

Basically any individual can make a formal complaint and the board decides if there could be merit and makes it´s decision public. Not much need for fines either as small issues usually just get correction and high-profile case is newsworthy on itself and it doesn´t really look good on you if every other publication and channel choose to report about you getting caught. :pirate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what happens when the media lies like it currently does? Why is it better to get lied by corporate interests than any other interests?

That's not the point. The point is that the government could suppress the truth, claiming that it is false and subject to censorship, when in fact the statement being reported is true. It's not a difficult concept. All it takes is a government that assumes anything printed about it that is bad is a lie.

First Amendment prior restraint of the type you are advocating is one of the things I think might unite a lot of Americans on both ends of the spectrum, and actually induce violent resistance. Shit, if the feds started that, and someone wanted to raise the flag of rebellion, I'm in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...