- by Broadway0474, Blogger
- 1/30/2017 11:32:34 PM
James, perhaps. Most people are just trying to make it through the day, whether because of illness, wild children, stress at work, bills --- you name it. Life is tough enough when there's stability in the world, let alone when uncertainty seems to increase with every headline.
- by James Connolly, Blogger
- 1/24/2017 4:46:24 PM
@Broadway. These days that last one-third (who don't know what to believe when it comes to truth and untruth) is more like one half, and most of them have given up trying.
- by Broadway0474, Blogger
- 1/23/2017 11:17:57 PM
Lyndon, one breakdown I heard is that 1/3 of the people will try to correct the untruths, 1/3 of the people will believe them, and 1/3 won't know what to believe. The goal of the tellers of untruth is to get that last 1/3 to give up on ever trying.
- by louisw900, Blogger
- 1/23/2017 4:37:45 PM
@Bryant I meant ethically. While I understand your arguments and do not have any problems with them. I think the selling of information is ethically questionable as a whole.
Sure, those that sell your data do give you the option to opt out, but as you surly understand, if you really need to use the source, what choice do you have ? These companies know that the layman will never go through all of the written small print and most likely will not read it at all and if they do disagree - what are they to do if they want to use the resource ?
This intentional "boxing in" of the user is unethical IMO. And this situation comes well before one even considers whether the issue is legal or not.
And even though this practice may be legal, this type of coercion is unethical at best. The mutual acknowledgment that is so vital to this question is never achieved due to the circumstance described. Which leaves companies to make a decision. Do we sell this information that we know has been provided without a clear understanding of the consequences ? If the answer is yes, then to your point it is most often legal, but it is ethical ? I don't believe so.
But I understand your point about "where there is no law there is no sin" which brings up the issue of regulation or lack thereof as it applies to data and the selling and profiting from it.
- by louisw900, Blogger
- 1/23/2017 3:41:44 PM
@Lyndon_Henry Thank you for the link. This is really disturbing because it means to me that "rational deliberation" no longer matters and we are seeing the results of this. There is no denying it and yet I am still having trouble accepting it.
Have we become a nation of National Enquirer readers ? Even though most of the articles appear to be clear nonsense, it doesn't matter because one will believe what they want to be believe ?
I read somewhere that this tactic was in fact used during the run up to the election, all sorts of "fake news" was plastered all over this type of reading material. Those who had always believed the crazy headlines on the front page had no problem continuing to think the latest Clinton headline was true. And this goes back to quote you reference - it doesn't matter as long as it reinforces the opinions already held.
This is scary stuff, because I don't see this correcting itself anytime soon - only worsening. And I would have to agree, we have created a society of the "willfully ignorant" and rational thinker's worldwide should be concerned to no end.
When we allow rhetoric and outright misinformation to be taken as truth and to outweigh rational thought then we as a society will create and get what it deserves. Democracy depends on it and without this check and balance we are doomed to the whims of "fake news makers". Will this situation improve going forward ? I doubt it because this millennial generation will take the first search result from Google as Gospel.
This is an embarrassing outcome for those who have fought and died for our right to practice reason as a gate keeper of constructive progress.
- 1/23/2017 11:16:30 AM
Have the principle and value of honesty become irrelevant to a significant swath of the population as well as the new administration in Washington?
Since a significant number of people (states with popular vote majorities) and a number of significant people (states with swing electoral votes) dictated the outcome, I would say that the persons elected are mirrors of those than pushed the buttons, checked the boxes and dimped the chads. They are truly our representatives; they are the numerators and we are the denominators.
- by Lyndon_Henry, Blogger
- 1/23/2017 5:43:55 AM
I think that instead of post-truth, we can call it 'alternative truth' - a post modern expression of competing truth claims of equal weight (smile).
The Trump administration's latest foray into relabeling lies/falsehoods as "alternative facts" actually prompted a bit of an admonition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The controversy is also elaborated in an article in Huffington Post:
The attempt to confuse and diminish the distinction between factual truth and deception also elicited a cautionary essay from journalist Robert Kuttner:
All of the Trump/alt-right's jaw-dropping recent effort to confuse and diminish the value and need of truth and competent, reliable factual information makes me wonder if this heralds the emergence of a troubling new paradigm within the USA's social and cultural norms. How many schoolteachers voted for Trump? Scientists? Have the principle and value of honesty become irrelevant to a significant swath of the population as well as the new administration in Washington?
ANALYTICS IN ACTION
INFOGRAPHICSVIEW ALL +
- by James M. Connolly