"Truth" and Politics

[Quetzal]

As @Revoltingest would say, there is a lot of noise right now. Between the fake news fiasco, the Russian hacking allegations, extreme media bias and Trump being the worst thing ever since the cancellation of Firefly (had to do it. ); it is getting tougher to determine what is actually going on.

Folks on both sides of the aisle are so ingrained in their own parties politics, many refuse to budge. Further, and to the point of this post, they refuse to accept facts/evidence against their preconceived notions regards of the strength or validity of the claims. Let me toss a hypothetical (labels used to illustrate a point, not accuracy. )...

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have Hacked American Voting Results"
Right: CONSPIRACY! Not true!
Left: Told ya so!

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have NO Impact on American Voting Results"
Right: Told ya so!
Left: CONSPIRACY! Not true!

So, in both instances you have one side claiming that the evidence presented is not true. Illustrating that whoever is on the losing end of it was only interested in the truth if it supported them. Thankfully, most folks on here are willing to take the results and let it settle. But I am having a tough time seeing that happening on a more wide scale application.

Of course, this is nothing new. This election has seen both candidates exhibiting this behavior and no one is a saint. The question becomes this, would the general public accept the truth if presented, even if it went counter to their preconceived notions as to what they think happened? Thoughts? Ideas?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thoughts...?
When confronted with "noise" yet to be sorted out, to be agnostic is best.

 

[Kemosloby]

As @Revoltingest would say, there is a lot of noise right now. Between the fake news fiasco, the Russian hacking allegations, extreme media bias and Trump being the worst thing ever since the cancellation of Firefly (had to do it. ); it is getting tougher to determine what is actually going on.

Folks on both sides of the aisle are so ingrained in their own parties politics, many refuse to budge. Further, and to the point of this post, they refuse to accept facts/evidence against their preconceived notions regards of the strength or validity of the claims. Let me toss a hypothetical (labels used to illustrate a point, not accuracy. )...

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have Hacked American Voting Results"
Right: CONSPIRACY! Not true!
Left: Told ya so!

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have NO Impact on American Voting Results"
Right: Told ya so!
Left: CONSPIRACY! Not true!

So, in both instances you have one side claiming that the evidence presented is not true. Illustrating that whoever is on the losing end of it was only interested in the truth if it supported them. Thankfully, most folks on here are willing to take the results and let it settle. But I am having a tough time seeing that happening on a more wide scale application.

Of course, this is nothing new. This election has seen both candidates exhibiting this behavior and no one is a saint. The question becomes this, would the general public accept the truth if presented, even if it went counter to their preconceived notions as to what they think happened? Thoughts? Ideas?

The government has lost all credibility, everybody knows they lie and its just a matter of which side they are lying for.

 

[Quetzal]

Thoughts...?
When confronted with "noise" yet to be sorted out, to be agnostic is best.

You should write a book called "The White Noise". Then you will get under the skin of SJWs and be filthy rich! It's a win-win!

 

[Iti oj]

As @Revoltingest would say, there is a lot of noise right now. Between the fake news fiasco, the Russian hacking allegations, extreme media bias and Trump being the worst thing ever since the cancellation of Firefly (had to do it. ); it is getting tougher to determine what is actually going on.

Folks on both sides of the aisle are so ingrained in their own parties politics, many refuse to budge. Further, and to the point of this post, they refuse to accept facts/evidence against their preconceived notions regards of the strength or validity of the claims. Let me toss a hypothetical (labels used to illustrate a point, not accuracy. )...

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have Hacked American Voting Results"
Right: CONSPIRACY! Not true!
Left: Told ya so!

"After Formal Investigation: Russia Found to Have NO Impact on American Voting Results"
Right: Told ya so!
Left: CONSPIRACY! Not true!

So, in both instances you have one side claiming that the evidence presented is not true. Illustrating that whoever is on the losing end of it was only interested in the truth if it supported them. Thankfully, most folks on here are willing to take the results and let it settle. But I am having a tough time seeing that happening on a more wide scale application.

Of course, this is nothing new. This election has seen both candidates exhibiting this behavior and no one is a saint. The question becomes this, would the general public accept the truth if presented, even if it went counter to their preconceived notions as to what they think happened? Thoughts? Ideas?

There are so many solid reasons to be upset I try to avoid the gray areas. things like this topic are hard to fact check

 

[Revoltingest]

You should write a book called "The White Noise". Then you will get under the skin of SJWs and be filthy rich! It's a win-win!

I'd be accused of being "alt right" though.
No thanx!

 

[Augustus]

Of course, this is nothing new. This election has seen both candidates exhibiting this behavior and no one is a saint. The question becomes this, would the general public accept the truth if presented, even if it went counter to their preconceived notions as to what they think happened? Thoughts? Ideas?

In general, people aren't rational and don't make up their mind based on evidence.

This has always been the case, but now in the 'information overload' environment in which we live in it is just a bit easier than it used to be to find whatever we need to justify our preconceived notions.

We are more affected by emotions and feelings that we are by 'cold, hard facts'.

 

[Acim]

Of course, this is nothing new. This election has seen both candidates exhibiting this behavior and no one is a saint. The question becomes this, would the general public accept the truth if presented, even if it went counter to their preconceived notions as to what they think happened? Thoughts? Ideas?

It would depend on who's presenting the truth. If the truth was discovered, rather than presented, I think the public would accept it. Might not be discovered by everyone on the same day, but when it is, I think it would be accepted.

With this particular topic, Russia influencing our elections, I was watching some news commentary program and person was asked what they think about this. Their response was - of course it happened, it has happened ever since (I think he said) Eisenhower. Russians have had ongoing policy to subvert/undermine our elections. Now, this wasn't greatly surprising to me, but was a bit of news to me. Yet, the way (modern day) politics works is we can forget about all the past times Russia has (allegedly) tried to influence our elections, and focus only on the most recent. Perhaps that will lead to a different outcome. Or that's how I interpret the political banter from those who truly hope Russia is found guilty of influencing most recent elections. But this gets to the point of the 'truth.' If we discovered the truth as Russia has indeed subverted our electoral process in the last 50 or so years, what might change because of this? I would say nothing. We still accept all policy decisions made in last 50 years, so not much would change. On this point, it reminds of PED topic in MLB. The non PED players are benefiting from teammates that do use, such that if their team wins the World Series, it can be said that PEDs played a role in that achievement. But it is never framed that way to the public. Instead, it's about taking individuals down (where they are known PED users) and pretending like the issue starts and ends with them. Thus, only part of the truth is looked at, or presented.

Hence, the whole "presentation of the truth" thing is I think very tricky, and much more so when it comes to politics. If Breitbart presented the (actual) truth today, I think most on the Left wouldn't accept it. Likewise if MSNBC presented the (actual) truth today, most on the Right wouldn't accept it. But if people on the Left and Right discovered the truth in way that makes for credible sense to themselves, it would then be accepted. Given that I'm now aware of the notion that this has been going on for decades, I'd fully expect the truth on this matter to touch upon that. If it ignored it, I'd feel like I'm not yet discovering the truth.

 

[sun rise]

The way big lies work is to first try to discredit the truth by claiming the truth is biased and then discredit those who speak the truth as being biased while claiming that a lie is the truth in spite of all the evidence.

Climate change is a classic example where right wing political correctness trumps science and this extends to other areas of science as well. The roots of science denial go way back to the proof of evolution and the fact that the Earth is not the center of the solar system.

It also comes into play with politics where trump's minions and the alt right ignore the evidence of russian hacking which principled conservatives agree happened. This is not a left/right issue but one where the russian stooges from trump on out deny vlad the modern-day impaler was involved. What Russia and Putin Have and Have Not Accomplished

 

[Revoltingest]

It also comes into play with politics where trump's minions and the alt right ignore the evidence of russian hacking which principled conservatives agree happened. This is not a left/right issue but one where the russian stooges from trump on out deny vlad the modern-day impaler was involved. What Russia and Putin Have and Have Not Accomplished

That is one view.
I say this is a Hillary vs Trump issue.
Russian subversion here, like our subversion elsewhere has been a long practiced game.
(Mrs Revolt's father, a gov bureaucrat, had the job of manipulating Chinese news.
A friend who worked for the NSA monitored the Soviets.)
So if the Russians were behind the hacking (not a proven claim so far), it would be nothing
new. Moreover, what new useful course of action would we take as a result? Nothing.
So this appears to be naught but a sore loser's hunt for a boogeyman...a monster to blame,
& to hang the culpability upon Trump. Pure politics without substance.

The claim of "ignoring the evidence" is utterly fallacious.
Why? The evidence is secret.
We have only the claims of a government I don't trust to be honest in a politically
charged matter wherein the administration has a strong interest in the outcome.

I don't do faith.
There's no evidence to ignore.
This is not my poster...

 

[Quetzal]

So if the Russians were behind the hacking (not a proven claim so far), it would be nothing
new. Moreover, what new useful course of action would we take as a result? Nothing.

I suppose that depends on the actions taken and to what extent they could be proven. In the end, I do not see much happening myself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose that depends on the actions taken and to what extent they could be proven. In the end, I do not see much happening myself.

As it was true before, it is still true now....apply appropriate information security.
And even more important, don't do things you need to keep secret because they're evil.

 

[Quetzal]

And even more important, don't do things you need to keep secret because they're evil.

PS: Don't look in the "Tax Returns 98" folder on my computer.

 

[Revoltingest]

PS: Don't look in the "Tax Returns 98" folder on my computer.

Too late.
What's this charitable deduction of $500 for the "Bunny Ranch" all about?

 

[Quetzal]

Too late.
What's this charitable deduction of $500 for the "Bunny Ranch" all about?

HACKS! RUSSIANS ARE HACKING MY STUFF!

 

[YmirGF]

Then again, a lot of this tempest in a teapot has been told by a press that has had it wrong for so long one wonders why we even bother reading their thoughts any longer.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then again, a lot of this tempest in a teapot has been told by a press that has had it wrong for so long one wonders why we even bother reading their thoughts any longer.

Often, I'll check a source simply to see how the source itself behaves.
That's one reason to bother.
It's useful to see why people believe what they believe.
Some of us notice that we can tell that another listens to NPR by what they repeat.