this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
-160 points (10.8% liked)
Memes
45406 readers
609 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OP is weird. He is just vomiting out old propaganda that has been debunked a hundred times over.
O RLY? The Nation, 2023: The Western Media Is Whitewashing the Azov Battalion
1/10 joke, missing a solid punchline.
Mor links plz.
Edit: Geez. You really do like to find any link on the internets that justifies anything you want to believe, don't ya?
So. Out of interest. Which alternative to presenting a dissenting opinion and sourcing it, would you prefer?
Not presenting any dissent at all - the only opinions posted should be ones that agree with the mainstream view?
Present a dissenting opinion, but don't provide any evidence for it?
Present a dissenting opinion but then provide evidence supporting the mainstream opinion instead?
Dissenting opinion, by it's very nature, has fewer sources, that's the whole point of it being 'dissenting', as such the character of any set of resources supporting it will be one of having "trawled through" a load of sources presenting the opposing, mainstream view.
By suggesting that any argument whose sources display that character is to be ignored, you're arguing that we should live in a society with no dissent from mainstream opinion.
Is that the sort of society you think Ukraine are fighting for?
How the fuck you wrapped your last sentence in is beyond me, but anywho...
Dissent is not spouting off Russian propaganda verbatim. You know, like quoting every single line vomited out by every Russian state media source. (OP)
Dissent is also not searching for every internet based opinion piece with a flashy headline that aligns with a specific view. I could find a hundred more that align with my views, as an example. (re: link-boy in this thread.)
We all should know that Russia invading Ukraine "because Nazis" is complete bullshit. If you didn't notice Russian media and government officials repeating that justification is just that: repeating things enough so people begin to believe it. (That is easy with state controlled media, btw.)
What we have is a failed case of seeing the forest through the trees and what ~~Russian~~ Putin's goals have obviously been for years now: Rebuilding the USSR. (Nevermind that Crimea was not ethnic Russian until the local population just disappeared, somehow.)
Dissent is actually showing, to the best of ones abilities, real cause for action. A person could actually read all of the source articles they post, compare figures and assemble something that might be worth something in an argument. This takes a fuck ton of work, actually. All sources need to be considered and not just select articles that are vomited out in these kinds of posts.
What link-boy is doing is just flooding threads with data, regardless of it is correct or not. It's not proving any points and likely just posted to flash out headlines, which people notoriously take at face value.
Then we need to loop back to the "reputable sources" bit. Nearly anyone can submit articles to these places with little review because "content". To properly use these articles, you have to dig. You need to understand the authors, the sources and the motivation. Again, link-boy is likely not doing this. If he is, it's still shitty referencing.
Above all else, this conflict has proven that Russia is a paper tiger, mainly by showing their wonder-weapons are crap. This is not actually about the tech itself: It's shown how Russian government has overstated just about everything about their capabilities. Not only did the world start to believe their own propaganda, Russians drank their own cool aid and thought they could just roll Ukraine in a couple of days, with or without western interference.
We don't need shit-memes or walls of old links to show how Russia has manipulated the narrative over the last few years. All we need to do is watch how poorly they are performing on the battlefield against a country a tenth their size. We can watch Russian media and how they continue to posture and threaten with nukes. (That is a stupid play, and they know it.)
What's even funnier, is that Lukashenko actually dumped out a couple weeks ago that Ukraine was already "denazified". Oops. If that is actually "true", why hasn't this "special military operation" been called off? Why is Russia at a full wartime economy now for what is likely illegal to call a "war"?
Fucking grow up, is my point. You want to get all script-flippy about "sPeAkiG diSsEnT" when the people "dissenting" don't know what the actual fuck they are posting with.
Why not? If Russia finds information which is opposed to the US/NATO position they will use it in their propaganda. It follows that anyone dissenting from the US/NATO position may also use the same information.
Something being part of foreign propaganda doesn't mean it's false. Propaganda isn't just lying. If the US had done something wrong, you can guarantee Russia would use it in their propaganda. They don't just lie about everything. They lie about things they want to hide, but if the truth helps their cause they'll tell it. It follows from this that some Russian propaganda is likely to be true (unless you want to make the case that the US never does anything wrong, or successfully hides it from Russia in all cases).
That's true it isn't. But you've no evidence at all that this is what's happening here other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one.
If you simply assume all evidence for dissenting opinion must have been derived this way purely on the grounds that the view it supports is not a mainstream one, then you have a self-immumised argument. The antithesis of rational thought.
It is a structural necessity of dissenting opinion that it be based on fewer sources. If you deny the ability to present sources simply on the grounds that they are select, then you deny dissent, because dissent, by necessity, will be based on select sources. Opinion based on majority sources is, by definition, majority opinion (among a rational community).
No, it isn't. Because whether a cause is a 'real' cause is the matter over which there is disagreement, so it is begging the question to only allow those causes you consider 'real' into a discussion about which causes are 'real'. You preemptively clear the field of all dissenting opinion before the debate even begins.
As before, you've no evidence this hasn't been done other than that the resulting opinion is a dissenting one. If your proof that sources are inadequate is solely that they are used to support a dissenting opinion then you have by definition denied dissenting opinion.
Unfortunately, despite increasingly popular opinion to the contrary, putting an argument into alternating capitals doesn't make it go away.
As far as my proof on link-boy is that his history kinda proves that he doesn't research shit. His go-to method seems to be find-link-vomit-link. There is no fucking way he would have time to dig into that stuff based on volume alone. Is that "proof"? No. It's a damn good assumption as I also could shit out a few dozen links after one Google search, too.
If he does "do his research" and happens to have a list of links at the ready, that is just weird or it's someone with a motive other than showing how smart they are.
By definition, you are correct on some points, btw. Dissent is dissent. However, dissent with bad information is just poor form. Endlessly shitposting like OP does is hardly quality dissent: OP just pushes narratives with cartoons and it reads like a fucking state media source. You can find the same style of shit all over right-wing media sources as well: Repeat the same basic points ad-nauseum.
As far as link-boy is concerned, I suppose he can dissent all over the place as much as he wants as well. It's doesn't change his history of link-flooding.
Also, "despite increasingly popular opinion" is supposed to convince me of something based on the rumored opinions of what? Your own social bubble? Really?
It's not, though. That's the point. Finding sources to back an unpopular opinion is, by definition, trawling through Google to find them. If you disallow that, you disallow unpopular opinion. Epistemological integrity does not simply oblige us to believe whatever view had the most sources, it's not dishonest to have a gut feeling about something and check that it is reasonable, based on finding supporting evidence. It's the mainstay of all academic essaying, for example. It's normal to check one's opinion is reasonable, we don't all arrive at an issue with blank slates to fill and if you think you do, you're lying to yourself.
Epistemic responsibility is about changing that initial view if it is overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, it's not about updating it according to some popularity contest. Truth is not decided by vote.
So searching through Google to find sources supporting your view is perfectly reasonable so long as the sources found are valid and reputable. That indicates it is reasonable to continue to hold your view. It doesn't matter if a greater number of equally reputable sources present the opposing view because truth is not determined by popular vote.
So damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
You're familiar, I assume, with the self-immunised argument?
It is. Unless the dissent is over whether the information is 'bad', in which case evidence must be brought to bear to support arguments to the contrary. No doubt this poster would not simply agree their information was 'bad', so that is the point over which you disagree. Again, assuming it's bad when that's the very point of disagreement is begging the question.
I was merely commenting on the increasingly popular move of repeating things back in alternating capitals aS iF tHaT pRoVeD aNyThInG At All.
Addendum:
Basically, some people's initial view on some matter will coincide with that of the mainstream. They're lucky. The evidence supporting their view will be plastered over every newspaper and government announcement. They won't have to do any digging to support it since quality newspapers are (generally) reputable sources.
Others, however, will form a contrary initial opinion. They are not so lucky since, by definition, sources supporting their view will be less well disseminated. They will have to actively search.
Doublely unlucky if that view happens to oppose US policy because the US's many enemies will also be seeking out such evidence to use in their propaganda.
Triplely unlucky these days because conspiracy theorists and online cultists are also looking for dissenting evidence to add credence to whatever bullshit they're spouting.
But a healthy democracy requires that neither of these issues is used to simply smear all dissenting opinion. Otherwise we just have a monolith.
😂