Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jamaal Valentine said:

I recently 'finished' writing a related article for DAU AT&L Magazine. Hopefully I can submit it by the Feb 1 deadline.

Jamaal...I would love to get a pre-read of your article (feel free to message me for my email if needed).  Aside from Kahneman, Herbert Simon coined the term "satisfycing" when it comes to decision making where no optimal solutions are evident.  Also look into his work on "bounded rationality" (decision making with partial information due to lack of time and bandwidth).  Each of these pieces influenced Kahneman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reminded of this thread yesterday when hauling horses....

bumper sticker on the pick-up in front of me.....

"It does not require many words to speak the truth - Chief Joseph" (attributed to)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Research this issue beyond the New York Times. The specific pictures and comments, unsurprisingly, are not posted or mentioned in that New York Times "summary." Google is your friend. You can find a complete archived compilation of all the pictures and comments. Again, do not look at them on a work computer. They're disgusting.

Specific? Your posts are anything but...

"one of the main characters" - who exactly?  name, handle, etc.?

"the pictures and comments" - which ones exactly?  what do they show or describe?

You of all frogs should realize that you're shifting the burden of proof here (e.g. prove it isn't vs. prove it is...and to make this even more absurd you don't even define "it" because your posts are so vague and cryptic).  I'm going to hop along now as I have more important topics to research and dedicate my time to than allegations of Hillary Clinton running a child-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, PepeTheFrog said:

The New York Times' position is or was that "Fake News" comes from the independent media, their competitor. That meme was immediately flipped to the New York Times', Washington Post's, and establishment media's detriment. When people say "Fake News," now, they're usually referring to the establishment media or legacy media. The only proof you need is the absolute fear that television networks of the establishment or legacy media have for this term. They loved the term when they thought they could attack and undermine their competitors. Now they hate the term and will literally cut off your microphone if you throw it at them in an interview. 

No, no, no. This is an utterly false narrative you're propagating. "Fake news" was not used to describe competitors of liberal media, unless you consider hostile actors using social media to be "competitors."

"Fake news," in the context you are describing, came about to describe quite literally the Russian campaign to spread false information on social media using paid trolls. Concocted stories. That this occurred is supported by the entire US intelligence community. If you want to dispute this, then that's on you. But I suggest you keep those comments to the darkest corners of the internet where you'll gain the greatest acceptance, not Wifcon. It was not a meme; it was a literal description of what was (and still is) occurring.

If you want argue that all media is biased (as it has always been), you'll get no argument from me. If you want to argue that the majority of mainstream US media has a liberal bias, again, I would support that assertion. I would even support the argument, depending on the case, that mainstream, liberal journalists and reporters have lied to advance an agenda. But so have conservatives. Humans of all ideologies are prone to the same shortcomings and temptations.

The irony here is what a victim of you're own confirmation bias you've become, Pepe, and you don't even realize it. In the words of one prominent Tweeter: Sad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

If you want to see a hilarious portrayal of the propagation of fake news, watch "His Girl Friday" (1940) with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell. It's based on the play, "The Front Page" (1928), which has been made into a movie at least twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

allegations of Hillary Clinton running a child-trafficking ring out of a pizza parlor.

Seems like "poisoning the well" is something you do not want to consider. Thank you again for proving my point. As far as specifics, there are rules for Wifcon about defamation and attacking individuals. PepeTheFrog understands you are not interested in anything other than what the New York Times has told you, and that is your prerogative. 

1 hour ago, FrankJon said:

"Fake news," in the context you are describing, came about to describe quite literally the Russian campaign to spread false information on social media using paid trolls.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

1 hour ago, FrankJon said:

That this occurred is supported by the entire US intelligence community

"entire"

FrankJon, you really need to slow down and read your posts before you hit the button.

PepeTheFrog loves you both, FrankJon and Matthew! Thank God America has informed citizens, an honest press, and critical thinkers! Democracy dies in darkness, after all. Thank you for Correcting The Record and taking these brave positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

Seems like "poisoning the well" is something you do not want to consider. Thank you again for proving my point. As far as specifics, there are rules for Wifcon about defamation and attacking individuals. PepeTheFrog understands you are not interested in anything other than what the New York Times has told you, and that is your prerogative. 

Do you even know what "poisoning the well" means?  It's preemptive by nature and the article I cited that you're referring to is an examination after the fact which begs the question, how could it be preemptive?

17 minutes ago, PepeTheFrog said:

PepeTheFrog loves you both, FrankJon and Matthew! Thank God America has informed citizens, an honest press, and critical thinkers! Democracy dies in darkness, after all. Thank you for Correcting The Record and taking these brave positions.

You've revealed yourself for what you truly are - a cowardly frog who hides behind anonymity, sarcasm, straw man fallacies, and vague/cryptic comments.  If, however, this is truly what you're reading and thinking, someone has poisoned the well that WIFCON's poor frog drinks from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Everybody take a deep breath. Rather than pursue the foregoing line of discussion let me recommend some reading: The News: A User's Manual (2014, 212 pages), by Alain de Botton. From a synopsis:

Quote

The news is everywhere, we can’t stop checking it constantly on our screens, but what is it doing to our minds?

The news occupies the same dominant position in modern society as religion once did, asserts Alain de Botton – but we don’t begin to understand its impact on us. In this dazzling book, de Botton takes 25 archetypal news stories – from an aircrash to a murder, a celebrity interview to a political scandal – and submits them to unusually intense analysis.

He raises questions like: How come disaster stories are often so uplifting? What makes the love lives of celebrities so interesting? Why do we enjoy politicians being brought down? Why are upheavals in far off lands often so… boring?

De Botton has written the ultimate manual for our news-addicted age, one sure to bring calm, understanding and a measure of sanity to our daily (perhaps even hourly) interactions with the news machine.

From Amazon:

Quote

To check on the news via paper or myriad electronic devices is “to raise a shell to our ears and to be overpowered by the roar of humanity,” asserts philosopher de Botton. Exploring the media conceit that it brings its readers, listeners, viewers only the facts, de Botton argues that what we need is the truth, something more nuanced than the facts. To make his point, he offers a collage of headlines and news items from various sources and ponders how they fit into the grander scheme of the human condition. His quirky collection touches on economics, geopolitics, violence, celebrities, and disasters. Short and pithy essays drill down beneath the news item to the general absurdity of life and observations of how the media is constantly feeding us information without real context. Interspersed throughout are references to art, literature, and culture and their more enduring messages in contrast to the impression left by the news of a desperate lack of humanity. This is a thought-provoking look at the impact of news on culture and individuals.

I gave it to several young relatives for Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vern Edwards said:

I was sitting in our design team area yesterday while contracting’s area got new carpet. I just asked does 2+2 ever not equal 4, and one of them got up and drew me a picture of a clock and the math on a white board. He probably read something similar before or maybe a professor in school taught him. He’s a smart guy, but he's not that smart to come up with something like that on his own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Matthew Fleharty said:

Do you even know what "poisoning the well" means?  It's preemptive by nature and the article I cited that you're referring to is an examination after the fact which begs the question, how could it be preemptive?

Matthew, there is no way this is your best. Preemptive refers to preemptively refuting an idea, position, fact, or assertion, not the timeline of when an article is published versus when the "story" happened. 

Let PepeTheFrog explain. PepeTheFrog is using "poisoning the well" to describe a common method that #FakeNews uses to bury, ignore, or obfuscate a story.

(a) focus on the most outlandish and ridiculous and easily disputable aspects 

(b) downplay, or more often, completely ignore aspects which gives the story "legs" 

The result is that the reader gets a poor impression of the story, thinks it's a ridiculous conspiracy theory, or some zany nonsense, and dismisses any further reference to it. Why would the reader consider the story at all, if he or she never sees the important, interesting, salient, or useful leads, facts, stories, etc.? "Poisoning the well" works. It worked on you.

Example: In this thread, you provided a #FakeNews article from the New York Times which focuses on the most outlandish and ridiculous and easily disputable aspects of what is collectively called #PizzaGate. You also described it yourself in the most outlandish and ridiculous form possible. That would be (a). PepeTheFrog doesn't think you're hiding anything at all, so you're not doing (b). But you're carrying water for (a).

PepeTheFrog is not willing to give details about (b) - the things about that topic that are worth discussing. It is not appropriate for this board or polite discussion. It's disgusting. It also might violate Wifcon rules. PepeTheFrog will not make any more posts about that topic. It's not relevant to government contracts and is only tangentially related to this thread, if at all.

But PepeTheFrog, vaguely, told you enough that can lead you to a Google search to find more information, which again, is not in the New York Times article or any number of #FakeNews and establishment and legacy media coverages. If you're interested in finding that information, PM PepeTheFrog. If you're happy in the warm cocoon of #FakeNews, by all means, drink your soy milk and read the New York Times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vern Edwards said:

let me recommend some reading: The News: A User's Manual (2014, 212 pages), by Alain de Botton

Vern...as usual thanks for the reference.  I like de Botton's work and did not know about this one.  Looking forward to getting it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, PepeTheFrog said:

Matthew, there is no way this is your best.

You're right, this doesn't deserve my best.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well

https://www.thoughtco.com/poisoning-the-well-fallacy-1691639

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

https://ses.edu/poisoning-the-well

If you're going to use a term of art like "poisoning the well," use it correctly (or maybe the whole point of this thread is that there is no truth to include the proper usage of "poisoning the well").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

There is a handy publication entitled 42 Fallacies, which is available free for download as a pdf document. Google <42 Fallacies>.

Here is the entry for "poisoning the well":

Quote

Poisoning the Well

Description:

This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This “argument” has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.

2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of “reasoning” is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Hominem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of “reasoning” is quite poor.

Example #1:

“Don’t listen to him, he’s a scoundrel.”

Example #2:

“Before turning the floor over to my opponent, I ask you to remember that those who oppose my plans do not have the best wishes of the university at heart.”

Example #3:

You are told, prior to meeting him, that your friend’s boyfriend is a decadent wastrel. When you meet him, everything you hear him say is tainted.

Example #4:

Before class
Bill: “Boy, that professor is a real jerk. I think he is some sort of Eurocentric fascist.”
Jill: “Yeah.”
During Class:
Prof. Jones: “...and so we see that there was never any ‘Golden Age of Matriarchy’ in 1895 in America.”
After Class:
Bill: “See what I mean?”
Jill: “Yeah. There must have been a Golden Age of Matriarchy, since that jerk said there wasn’t.” 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:44 PM, jonmjohnson said:

Makes me also wonder about "Truth Decay" in federal contracting

Sounds like the Fact vs Folklore conversation on Wifcon a couple months back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew Fleharty:

The second link you provided in your latest post warns readers that the site contains malware.  Of course, that may be part of this topic.  If it isn't, could you please test the link and remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards
On 1/22/2018 at 12:44 PM, jonmjohnson said:

Makes me also wonder about "Truth Decay" in federal contracting....

There's plenty of Truth Decay in federal contracting. Think of the propaganda and false claims about performance-based contracting and contract incentives. Think of the falsehoods about the Wright brothers contract with respect to both those policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, bob7947 said:

Matthew Fleharty:

The second link you provided in your latest post warns readers that the site contains malware.  Of course, that may be part of this topic.  If it isn't, could you please test the link and remove it.

Bob, I didn't get that warning when I accessed it (otherwise I would not have posted it), but I removed it nevertheless.  Better safe than sorry.  Thanks for the heads up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this discussion reminds me of the statement we hear repeated frequently that we are all entitled to our opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.  That statement may or may not be true.  Consider this anecdote:  Bill and Sam run a race in which Bill beats Sam.  In Bill's version, Sam came in last.  In Sam's version, he came in second.  Which, if either, is true and the other false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Retread:

You've posed a false dichotomy. It's not a matter of either/or.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2018 at 12:57 PM, PepeTheFrog said:

But PepeTheFrog, vaguely, told you enough that can lead you to a Google search to find more information, which again, is not in the New York Times article or any number of #FakeNews and establishment and legacy media coverages.

By the way, I took the time to Google "Pizzagate" over the weekend in search of credible evidence. I clicked on what seems to be one of the more popular sites supportive of this theory (it was the first site in the results list). The site states that it obtained its information from the 4chan message board. Indeed, the detailed case it presents - complete with pictures - is compelling. Likewise, I have little doubt that the cases it makes in support of the 9/11 inside job, Sandy Hook false flag operation, and illegitimacy of Obama's birth certificate are also compelling (I didn't click on those, however). Of course, the "evidence" cannot withstand even modest scrutiny. To help you out, here's a sample of some basic critical questions you might ask yourself: if the innocence of children is something that society at large still considers to be inviolable, where is the accompanying local/federal police investigation and arrests? what is the original source of this information? how trustworthy are images posted to extremist message boards? what is the nature of the media sites propagating this theory? how do conspiracy theories originate? how do the minds of those susceptible to conspiracy theories, who dutifully spread and build upon the theories, work? which is more plausible: that this story was manufactured or that the upper echelons of the Democratic Party were involved in child sex trafficking (and apparently got away with it)?)

Pepe, you use the buzz term "critical thought" as a shield - a shield to defend yourself from critique here (which may have been effective), and a shield from your own rational mind, in order to further confirm your intuitive and emotional beliefs (this has doubtlessly been effective). But the blanket rejection of mainstream media and the Government because you distrust them, and the accompanying wholesale subscription to "alternative" media and discussion boards, is not critical thinking; it is simply denial and gullibility. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

Be skeptical about everything you read in the public media. Consider this from a recent "breaking news" New York Times story:

Quote

President Trump ordered the firing last June of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation, according to four people told of the matter....

So the "breaking news" report from our "newspaper of record" was based on something told to somebody at the Times by four unnamed persons who did not witness the event but were told about it by one or more other unnamed persons. Right. What are we supposed to do with that? That report is aimed directly at people who already distrust or hate Trump and are inclined to believe any bad thing said about him. It is designed to incite them. Of course, the Times will say that it verified the story by getting confirmation from at least two unnamed sources. Trust us.

Don't kid yourself about the media, any of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Vern Edwards said:

Be skeptical about everything you read in the public media.

Vern - I cannot decide whether this is a response to my post or a general comment to put a bow on this discussion. I also don't know how you define "public media" or "non-public media."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Vern Edwards

It was not intended to be a response to your post, but it could be. You and others should be generally skeptical of what you read in any of the public media.

By "public media" or just "media," I mean any source of mass communication that intends to provide information to the general public (the people at large). Newspapers, television, radio, magazines, journals, Facebook, Drudge, 4chan, and other websites open to the public, etc., are public media. The NYT, Washington Post, FOX News, Today Show, Atlantic, National Review, etc., etc. are all public media, some are more respectable than others, but none are completely reliable and trustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×