-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bad source. Bias source. Etc.
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Secret Chief
Very strong language
... you could ask the person who used the term instead. Curiously, this kind of relates to another object lesson in the importance of media literacy and perhaps more broadly, interpersonal communication skills. Not to say the compulsion to look something up in an external source is problematic - sometimes one cannot directly ask the writer or speaker what they meant after all - yet the value of directly interacting with the speaker or writer is something that seems to have... I dunno... it's changed significantly with these impersonal communications media like the internet. In some ways good, in some ways not so much.
But since you didn't ask, I'm going to tell you anyway - I refuse to call any distasteful megacorporations by their names. Respect is something granted to everything fundamental common courtesy - disrespect is what has to be earned. Once disrespect is earned, common courtesy no longer applies. Names are power - don't get to have one anymore with earned disrespect.
Looking it up is usually my first reaction, whenever I encounter a word, phrase, or concept which I'm not familiar with. I just do that as a matter of course before asking any questions or making any replies.
I could sense that you were referring to Google, and I was wondering if the usage of "schmoggle" was common, since I had never heard it before. When I found a completely different definition that had nothing to do with Google, that's when I posted my reply.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
For the bold, no. It makes it less likily to be accurate. And since as for the content if pertains to the reliablitiy of the site. The poster of the link makes the claim, it sort off means that additional sources are needed.
If it is a variant of the norm - Someone makes a claim, then that someone ought to back it up.
There are so many outlets on here nowadays. I don't know how anyone is supposed to read this. It's like trying to find something in my ex-wife's purse.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Why are you in your ex-wife's purse?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Yes.
Especially in the very near future, sources will be even more vital than they are now due to AI, slowly ruining the internet, because it will fill it with nonsense in an even faster and more convincing way than now.
Google just released a new AI search tool, and the information it provides is not only wrong but also potentially dangerous.
And lets be honest, there are a lot of ignorant people out there, and these tools they release are from what I can see, barely functional or even tested.
The amount of rubbish people can use them for when it comes to fake news or simply for fun is insane until the internet becomes such a huge mess of fake information, pictures and videos that no one trusts anything anymore, without verified sources.
So I think sources will be much more important in the future than it is now, however, I think we live in a time where things have to go fast, so a lot of people don't care or want to spend time verifying information and will just run with it, spreading even more nonsense.
Last edited:
When we were married, she's ask me to go in there and get something for her. I think she would do it just to screw with me...or keep me occupied for an hour or two.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
This is terribly sad. You may miss many things.
Soandso
ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
If you want to convince people, you have to meet them half way. Using a source you cite that is unreliable in their views won't do much to convince them of anything. This is true of more than just news sources or links - for instance, how is quoting the Bible going to convince atheists or people from other religions when they don't hold the Bible as an authoritative text?
Saying "Probably everyone here has access to google.It takes a few seconds to cross check the story" shows that you don't respect the time of people you are trying to convince, and expecting people to do the work for you of trying to convince them by researching the information from a source that they don't respect themselves is a bit illogical. Instead of wasting not only your time, but everyone's time involved, it's best to cite a source that is quick for everyone to discern and cut straight to the point of what you're trying to get across
Saying "Probably everyone here has access to google.It takes a few seconds to cross check the story" shows that you don't respect the time of people you are trying to convince, and expecting people to do the work for you of trying to convince them by researching the information from a source that they don't respect themselves is a bit illogical. Instead of wasting not only your time, but everyone's time involved, it's best to cite a source that is quick for everyone to discern and cut straight to the point of what you're trying to get across
McBell
Unbound
Simply stating a source is unreliable is not an attack.
For example, Answers In Genesis (AiG) is a completely unreliable source.
So anything presented from AiG is automatically dismissed.
There are several other sites that are also so unreliable that they are automatically dismissed.
McBell
Unbound
If you click on the link it will take you to the website.
Once at the website you can zoom in and out and scroll both up and down and left and right.
Much easier to navigate it when scrolled in.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
A few general thoughts ....
"Nothing but the truth" is important, but so is "the whole truth". Lying by omission is very effective and so are "half-truths". The most effective lie has some truth in it, so if you check a statement and find some truth, don't assume the whole statement is accurate.
Something that annoys me now is selective reporting. Hours of droning on about Trump's court case, when a simple summary of the day's activity is all I need. And I'd really like to hear how the war in Ukraine is going, but that's not the "flavor of the month" so there are almost no reports.
The science of persuasion has advanced by leaps and bounds since Vance Packard wrote The Hidden Persuaders about the advertising industry. How about those ads for whole body deodorants? She tells us that we "stink" all over. I remember when deodorants were new. Before that people didn't think we smelled bad (except in some extreme cases) but then they told us that we did and now we all slavishly buy deodorants.
Politicians have always been good at fooling people, but now there's a whole science helping them to do it. How to get elected? Put forward good policies? No, push subconscious buttons.
Yes, check with several sources, but when they all disagree to some extent and even when they do agree, which one to pick? This is the one that concerns me most. They've fooled us so much that we don't trust anyone.
"Nothing but the truth" is important, but so is "the whole truth". Lying by omission is very effective and so are "half-truths". The most effective lie has some truth in it, so if you check a statement and find some truth, don't assume the whole statement is accurate.
Something that annoys me now is selective reporting. Hours of droning on about Trump's court case, when a simple summary of the day's activity is all I need. And I'd really like to hear how the war in Ukraine is going, but that's not the "flavor of the month" so there are almost no reports.
The science of persuasion has advanced by leaps and bounds since Vance Packard wrote The Hidden Persuaders about the advertising industry. How about those ads for whole body deodorants? She tells us that we "stink" all over. I remember when deodorants were new. Before that people didn't think we smelled bad (except in some extreme cases) but then they told us that we did and now we all slavishly buy deodorants.
Politicians have always been good at fooling people, but now there's a whole science helping them to do it. How to get elected? Put forward good policies? No, push subconscious buttons.
Yes, check with several sources, but when they all disagree to some extent and even when they do agree, which one to pick? This is the one that concerns me most. They've fooled us so much that we don't trust anyone.
PureX
Veteran Member
But it's a bit like someone shouting "fire" is a crowded theater. The first time we'll nearly always give them the benefit of the doubt. But the 5th time they do it we're likely to just ignore them. That doesn't mean there isn't a fire the 5th time, however.
This is why it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
The forum is very screwed at the moment, also made a lot of duplicated posts.
(until they get it fixed, you just have to ignore the error message and just refresh the page after pressing Post.Agree, and especially in the US, the companies and organisations are behind the politicians funding them. And obviously, they don't do this for free.
We live in a potentially very manipulated world, based on who owns the information
We Never Know
No Slack
"And I'd really like to hear how the war in Ukraine is going, but that's not the "flavor of the month" so there are almost no reports"
Go to MSN and scroll down a little. They have a section only about the Ukraine war.
Secret Chief
Very strong language
Some sources ARE automatically ****. Any fact that might slip into anything with a potential political angle is only there to serve the agenda. By way of example, the Daily Express is there to trumpet the fantastic tory party and denigrate anything to the left of Ghenghis Kahn. I wouldn't wipe my **** with it, let alone treat it as a reliable source. Same with the Daily Heil.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
It’s less about ‘owning’ information than how it is presented. The information on most things that appear in the news is available, all that’s required is putting the time in to read around a bit.The forum is very screwed at the moment, also made a lot of duplicated posts.
Agree, and especially in the US, the companies and organisations are behind the politicians funding them. And obviously, they don't do this for free.
We live in a potentially very manipulated world, based on who owns the information