Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[thedukeofearl]

Again I don't think it's any more complex than just people getting dumber and lazier.

People get lazy and dumb, and instead of going through the work of reading many different sources, learning about topics for themselves, and using the critical thinking framework we were all given in high school, they see twitter and facebook and fox and cnn and Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones, latch on to which ever flavor makes them feel warm and fuzzy, and roll with it. They don't need to do any critical thinking for themselves at that point and then you end up with folks like @PCHawk who feel that if you take the pacifier ("news" source) away, they're being robbed of their truth. But they're too lazy to read and find their own educated truth.

If you value intelligence, the valuation of expertise will follow naturally.

To be honest with you, I'm of the opinion that it'd be good if sites like twitter went away (on their own, I'm a capitalist). twitter is a full mix of right and left wack jobs and it does more harm than good.

Public schools are failing

There are too many distractions especially with smart phones

It might be difficult for preteens/teens to concentrate on whatever lessons are attempted

Teachers have their hands full

The Divide has no barriers

Less money is directed to public schools and seems to be concentrated on private schools

 

[Fryowa]

Fry in one breath you say how you don't pay attention to politics because it's a waste of time and in the next breath you call someone lazy for something you clearly know nothing about. That's like me calling someone lazy after they give their in depth option on the best way to sew. Like I'd have a clue what they were even talking about because I admittedly don't pay attention to sewing.

I pay attention, I just don’t participate currently. You’re confusing the two.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

The problem isn’t misinformation. The problem is our populace getting dumber at an exponential rate and not being able to use critical thinking.

Thinking twitter going out of business will lead to dystopia is a result of that degradation in intelligence.

We are talking about a whole lot of symptoms here, and forgetting that stupidity is the cause. How some people can tie their shoes in the morning and remember to breathe is absolutely baffling to me.

Lol. Made me chuckle.

 

[Fryowa]

It's not that people aren't using critical thinking. It's that information is dispersed on both sides to set people up to connect dots that may or may not be there. The dots I've connected over the last 4-8 years couldn't paint a more clear picture of what's going on.

You’re operating from a tiny tiny set of biased and off-the-wall dots my man. You’ve said here multiple times your single, solitary source of information comes from twitter posters. Quite literally said that.

Twitter has zero fact checking, zero vetting in any way, zero requirement for source reliability. It’s random people arguing with each other on the internet for gods sake man! It’s a breeding ground for unsubstantiated, biased, one-sided arguments by people with no credibility and no guards at all against AI generated content. It’s a nut-job whacko’s wet dream. Twitter is a mass available version of the self-published UFO/end times/paranormal/you name it mail order newsletters you could get in the 80s.

Like I totally understand using twitter for dick jokes and sports information or random gossip about Taylor Swift, but come the f*ck on, LOL

And if your information gathering is so credible answer me this…what part of the critical thinking process tells you to have as few sources as possible? What part tells you to only get your information from a single source? Especially an unreliable, un-vetted source?

 

[PCHawk]

You’re operating from a tiny tiny set of biased and off-the-wall dots my man. You’ve said here multiple times your single, solitary source of information comes from twitter posters. Quite literally said that.

Twitter has zero fact checking, zero vetting in any way, zero requirement for source reliability. It’s random people arguing with each other on the internet for gods sake man! It’s a breeding ground for unsubstantiated, biased, one-sided arguments by people with no credibility and no guards at all against AI generated content. It’s a nut-job whacko’s wet dream. Twitter is a mass available version of the self-published UFO/end times/paranormal/you name it mail order newsletters you could get in the 80s.

Like I totally understand using twitter for dick jokes and sports information or random gossip about Taylor Swift, but come the f*ck on, LOL

And if your information gathering is so credible answer me this…what part of the critical thinking process tells you to have as few sources as possible? What part tells you to only get your information from a single source? Especially an unreliable, un-vetted source?

Ok so clearly you don't know much about Twitter either. Can we talk about sewing now?

 

[Fryowa]

Ok so clearly you don't know much about Twitter either. Can we talk about sewing now?

Don’t I? I know it’s a total cess pool of misinformation just like Facebook. Any reliable news there is readily available elsewhere without the conspiracy theorists and bullshit free-for-all that anyone can post as fact (without, you know, fact checking). You do you though, man. It doesn’t hurt my feelings a bit

 

[Fryowa]

That is a great point.

Are you familiar with the island of knowledge surrounded by a sea of ignorance analogy? The shoreline represents your awareness of your own ignorance.

The sea of topics you are ignorant of is essentially infinite, it represents the total knowledge in the universe, of which any person can only master a teeny tiny fraction. If your knowledge (the island) is tiny, so is the shoreline, and hence your awareness of what you do not understand. This idea fits in with the Dunning Kruger effect, as well as the general idea that conspiracies are dreamt up by people who do not understand how the world actually works.

The more you learn, the larger your island of knowledge becomes, but also the greater your awareness of your own ignorance. Ultimately, this will lead to the appreciation that you cannot possibly know all things at an expert level, and hence you will need to lean on those whose expertise you lack.

I love to share this analogy with students because the amount of stuff they DON'T KNOW is beginning to dawn on them at that age. This is overwhelming, and it can easily lead to anti-intellectualism (relying on feeling, not thought, as you have described). But if they understand that this is the general way things work, i.e. the more you learn the more you are aware of your ignorance, they can venture forth into the world of learning with peace of mind.

I also heard it described decades ago as, "The importance of stupidity in [learning]." I actually read this in the context of scientific research, but it applies to any intellectual exploration. If the feeling of stupidity scares you away from further exploration, then you are never going to get very far. As soon as things get complex, you are out. But if you are willing to sit with that feeling of stupidity, and try to reason your way to a solution, you will reach a higher level of understanding. It is why I like math, it provides one of the most visceral confrontations between humans and their own stupidity. All that, "When will I ever use this down the road?" noise is beside the point...you are learning how to come to terms with your own stupidity and come out the other side to tell the tale. That matters.

Had not read that before but thanks for the link, great read and I bookmarked it. I have a colleague who would dig that as well and I’ll share it with him.

I have noticed as I get older I’m much more aware of how much I don’t know, and I’ve become really skeptical of experts. Out of every class of neurosurgeons, attorneys, and engineers, someone passed their boards, licensure, and bar exam in last place with the bare minimum. Not picking on those professions alone, but at the end of the day, no one knows as much as he or she thinks they do.

Thanks again.

 

[thedukeofearl]

You’re operating from a tiny tiny set of biased and off-the-wall dots my man. You’ve said here multiple times your single, solitary source of information comes from twitter posters. Quite literally said that.

Twitter has zero fact checking, zero vetting in any way, zero requirement for source reliability. It’s random people arguing with each other on the internet for gods sake man! It’s a breeding ground for unsubstantiated, biased, one-sided arguments by people with no credibility and no guards at all against AI generated content. It’s a nut-job whacko’s wet dream. Twitter is a mass available version of the self-published UFO/end times/paranormal/you name it mail order newsletters you could get in the 80s.

Like I totally understand using twitter for dick jokes and sports information or random gossip about Taylor Swift, but come the f*ck on, LOL

And if your information gathering is so credible answer me this…what part of the critical thinking process tells you to have as few sources as possible? What part tells you to only get your information from a single source? Especially an unreliable, un-vetted source?

Damn

 

[thedukeofearl]

Would never happen. That sentence would violate federal laws prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment....


View attachment 11143

Perhaps a bit too much moloko plus

 

[PCHawk]

Don’t I? I know it’s a total cess pool of misinformation just like Facebook. Any reliable news there is readily available elsewhere without the conspiracy theorists and bullshit free-for-all that anyone can post as fact (without, you know, fact checking). You do you though, man. It doesn’t hurt my feelings a bit

And how do you know that? From what you hear? Or first hand experience? Everything is on there. I see links to videos. Links to news articles. People posting their personal opinions on things. Pretty much everything. If you watch CNN or Fox news, a lot of times they will show you a link to a video and take it out of context, pushing an entirely false narrative. If you see it there, that's all you know. If you see that same exact video on Twitter, all you have to do is click the comments and within 5 comments someone is posting the entire video. If I see a clip of commentary from Fox or CNN, I could easily just watch the clip and form the wrong opinion. On Twitter, once again you can click on the comments and instantly see more info on the subject the commentary is based on. For instance, if they are saying Trump called white supremacists very fine people, someone posts the full video in the comments. That ends the misinformation right then and there.

That's not even factoring in community notes who I've seen fact check Trump, The White House, and Elon himself. You're right when you say it's a cesspool of misinformation. But you can say that about everywhere else. The difference with Twitter is they combat disinformation with more information. Like Elon says himself. The best way to find the truth is to go right to the source. Twitter always takes you right to the source. Why listen to what someone has to say about a subject when Twitter takes you right to the person who actually said it?

Honest question you should ask yourself. I don't even need you to tell me the answer because I couldn't care less. Is your opinion of Twitter from first hand experience, or from regurgitating talking points you've heard from somewhere else? I'd bet a lot of money you haven't spent shit for time on Twitter over the last few years. If it's the latter (which it obviously is) maybe try practicing what you preach, stop being lazy, and figure out the actual answer to a topic before commenting on it. That goes for your option of Rogan too. Suuuuure you have some first hand experience listening to Rogan and that's where you formed your opinion.

 

[Westernhawk]

View attachment 11138

I think it's pretty silly, but they are the #1 ranked public university in the US, so maybe they get a pass here and there.

 

[Westernhawk]

I haven't looked at the numbers in individual states. Did Trump get more votes in swing states than last time? Or did Harris get less?

I do agree that threat to democracy was a pretty big issue because bypassing a primary and going after a political opponent is really bad, but I don't think it was a main issue.

My main issue is clearly non elected officials were running the white house the last four years and there's no reason not to assume it wouldn't be more of the same with Harris. I just can't invasion Harris standing up to the people who pulled off the coup on Biden. Well shit, now that I type it out, I guess threat to democracy was my main issue. Good call.

Do you think Trump will try to stay in the White House at the end of his term, like he did last time?

 

[PCHawk]

Here are my dots I've connected to get where I'm at. It's just a series of questions I've asked myself over the last few years.

Is it lucrative to be a career politician? Pretty sure the answer to that is yes.

In most instances, does a career politician need to be corrupt to accumulate vast wealth? Pretty sure that answer is yes, even tho sometimes you can write books or something like that.

If someone ever came into politics with the agenda of cleaning up the corruption, would he be welcomed by said politicians with open arms? I think that answer is an obvious no.

If a politician is the first to ever be charged with a crime, does that mean he's the first to ever commit a crime? I think we all know that answer.

If you finally decide to prosecute a president (ex) of the United States, what kind of crime would warrant setting that presidence? You would think that answer would be treason, rape, or murder. But instead it's minor slap on the wrist stuff.

Why would you set that presidence for something so minor? You would hope it's because of a conscious decision to clean up Washington and send the message that from now on, no man is above the law. Do we really think that's what happened here?

If you are going to prosecute a political opponent, and it's not because you decided to start holding all politicians accountable, then is it because you want to get rid of someone who might shed light on your corruption, or won't "fall in line"?

To me, the dots that made me question things early were confirmed by the dots that came later. The over reach they used to find the crimes to charge a political opponent make it obvious what's going on. You don't have to see misinformation on Twitter to come to that conclusion. You just need to see the facts. When you watch a video of the governor of New York telling other businesses they don't need to leave the state for conducting business in the same manner Trump did because "they have nothing to worry about", you don't have to question whether it's misinformation. That's because Twitter excells at getting you the information that came directly from the source.

 

[HuckFinn]

Do you think Trump will try to stay in the White House at the end of his term, like he did last time?

Would not surprise me.

 

[PCHawk]

Do you think Trump will try to stay in the White House at the end of his term, like he did last time?

He can't even run again, so if you're of the belief that he's a sore loser and will never concede (which is an understandable to think that) you have nothing to worry about because he doesn't even have that option. If you don't even run, you can't say you won. So I guess my answer is obviously not. There's no avenue for him to stay, even if he wanted to. That's not to say he won't pull an Obama and try to be "the man" after he's done.

What do you think he will do? Are you thinking he will try to change the law that you can't run for a 3rd term? Or maybe just pass an executive order that there's no more elections? I think he's too old for that to be a worry.

 

[PCHawk]

Is the fear mongering really that bad that people think Trump is just going to take unlimited control of power until he dies? I know it's a talking point (because again, I see everything) but I chalked that one up to Twitter bots. I didn't think real people actually thought that.

 

[PCHawk]

Trump is going to be in office for four more years and he's either going to clean up corruption to the point where 90% of people see it and understand what happened, or he's going to try and fail and we will never know what went on behind the scenes. If the former happens, he will be remembered fondly by most. If the latter happens, people will mostly remember him like they think of him now. Either way, he will be gone. Then I'll be able to give everyone the biggest I told you so ever when the entire mainstream media runs a huge smear campaign on whoever the next republican candidate is. The over under on the sentence "worst than Trump" will be about 1.5 million.

 

[Fryowa]

Honest question you should ask yourself. I don't even need you to tell me the answer because I couldn't care less. Is your opinion of Twitter from first hand experience, or from regurgitating talking points you've heard from somewhere else?

First hand experience and it’s a-ok if you don’t believe me.

 

[Fryowa]

Is the fear mongering really that bad that people think Trump is just going to take unlimited control of power until he dies?

Is the fear lingering really that bad that people think twitter is going to be abolished by the secret society, effectively ending the free world and access to information as we know it?

Christ on a crutch.

If I have to quote your post insinuating that exact thing from you I can…

 

[PCHawk]

First hand experience and it’s a-ok if you don’t believe me.

Yep I'm gunna have to call you a liar on that one. No way in hell you scroll twitter lol.