When you have two sides that disagree strongly, you always seem to find misinformation or even lies on one side or other - agree?

Yes, agreed.. so often i see spin..  And I like you, am able to sit back and watch two people using misinformation on opposing sides. 

It's the absolute worse when you see someone saying something you know is correct use misinformation to try and prove it too.   It's like "NOOOOOOOO!!!!".   You just made it look like you're FOS and the point is incorrect because you used a bad source.

It's gotten so bad these days there's even misinformation and lies to support the actual truth out there.

@Bozette -- Could you please share what you know about the Flint, MI water crisis that you believe media sources failed to cover accurately? I'm genuinely curious.

Just a few major points:

*It was touted on the left as being a racial issue.  Factually, Flint is nearly a 50-50 split, with a slightly higher black population.

*It was touted on both sides as being a partisan issue.  Factually, the city is Democrats, the state is Republicans, and both screwed up.

*It was reported on the left that the state forced the city by making the decision, when factually the state endorsed a vote made by the city.  

*The city had long planned on changing water sources.  It had been in the works for many years.  This is fully verifiable.  

*Whatever spin one puts on it, each side acts as if the other intentionally caused the lead in the water.  Factually, it was a perfect storm that arose over many years and happened while the city was under state emergency management (that is the city's fault, but the state was working with the city, not dictating to it), and involved a bit of CYAing, a bit of politics, a dash each of incompetence and negligence and it ended up a massive ClusterF*** that involves blame to be shared at the city, state and federal levels...but no one set out to intentionally hurt people based on race or party affiliation.  

@Bozette -- Thanks. I would have to do more research to see if I agree with all of your inferences, but I appreciate the perspective.

My one comment is situations like the media coverage you observed of the Flint, MI crisis happen because much of our media tries to squeeze reality into a GOP vs. Democrats/liberals vs. conservatives framework which doesn't fit the situation. This usually occurs in situations where it's the Corporatist Kleptocracy (i.e. the Rich and Corporate and the politicians of BOTH parties whom they have purchased) screwing over the general public.

And, or course, since most of our media is OWNED by the Corporatist Kleptocracy, the press is not permitted to frame stories in a way that would point out the CK's culpability.

As I said, every single source had something wrong.  That's when I expanded into the international and alternative sources to compare the reporting.  All of them had it wrong.  Each and every one.  Sure Fox spun it one way, but CNN spun it the other.  I checked a great many, including all the major TV, newspaper and online sources, plus a lot of other ones that various people were citing.  Bar none, there was not a truly accurate report.  

Tbh, part of the reason is this demand for news right now.  Every news outlet is rushing to report the story and they are not taking the time to do the fact checking that was SOP back when newspeople had deadlines...but were not expected to immediately Tweet the story as it happens.  That is cause for a great deal of misinformation flying around these days.  People need to understand that if you want something RIGHT THIS MINUTE, it will likely contain inaccuracies.  If you want the TRUTH, it will require time to investigate.  JMHO

@Bozette -- I have no way of verifying what you said, so I'll take your word for it.

I agree with you abot the problem of instant news. It's one reason I watch almost no TV news and don't put very much stock in initial newspaper reports. I find it usually takes as least a week for enough good information to settle out to have something that approaches usefulness.

I turned my TV off 7-1/2 years ago, never Twittered, and take everything I see with a tablespoon of salt.  If it is important to me, I research it myself and I try not to jump the gun on drawing conclusions until enough information is available.  I neither discount nor believe something based solely upon the source, and I encourage everyone to do their own research.  

Absolutely my point.. people should research, learn.. not just blindly read rubbish and believe it.

So true ... Read as much as you can then decide

Does it not stand to reason that the leftist, whose mentality is far more geared towards social collectivism, would be more vulnerable to the effects you describe?

The faith you place in so called "empirical data" given to you by an authority, is no different than the tribespeople who are told the cave is haunted. You have not personally verified the data just as the tribespeople have not personally checked out the cave. You feel a social obligation to respect the source of the data.

What you show here is pure psychological projection. YOU care what others think. YOU fear being belittled by others. YOU need your intellectual vanity flattered by a peer group that see you as clever and informed. YOU are sensitive to social pressure to conform. Just because you're a sheep, doesn't mean everyone else is. :-))

I can't claim to be completely immune to the pressures that you describe but compared to you, I couldn't give a damn. 

"The same social pressures which caused the tribespeople to denounce the cave visitor as a demon-possessed heretic prompt people today to declare anthropogenic global warming, "...created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

This is just an astounding statement. You have it completely backwards. Believing in man made climate change is the mainstream view that exerts a social pressure to conform. Skepticism is politically incorrect. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 12, 2016 3:50 PM MST

@TrumpianDunningKruger --- Wow, what a fascinating web of bulls**t you weave....


Does it not stand to reason that the leftist, whose mentality is far more geared towards social collectivism, would be more vulnerable to the effects you describe?

Leading off with "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS STOOPID...AND EBIL!" I see.

No, actually, that pesky empirical data shows that authoritarian/right-wing personality types are significantly more likely to engage in this behavior than people who are not refugees from The Reality-Based Community.


The faith you place in so called "empirical data" given to you by a 3rd party, is no different than the tribespeople who are told the cave is haunted. You have not personally verified the data just as the tribespeople have not personally checked out the cave. You feel a social obligation to respect the source of the data.

Yes, of course. I cannot personally verify every empirical fact in the world. Hence, I depend upon other people who have done the research, published their methods, and published their findings. You do, too. When you flip on a light switch, you assume it's going to work because lots of other people have done the research on how electrons work, how materials react to electron flow through them, and so forth.

That is a very different thing then trusting the witch doctor/Der Pumpkinfurher that the cave is haunted/global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese (for which they have NO empircal evidence).

Your equating the two in the  service of STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL-bashing perfectly illustrates my original point.


What you show here is pure psychological projection. YOU care what others think. YOU fear being belittled by others. YOU need your intellectual vanity flattered by a peer group that see you as clever and informed. YOU are sensitive to social pressure to conform. Just because you're a sheep, doesn't mean everyone else is. :-))

This paragraph is especially rich (and somewhat meta) since you are engaging in psychological projection to claim that I'm engaging in psychological projection. Either you don't understand the term, or your need to belittle THE STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ is so great you don't care that you're misusing it...;-D..

I can't claim to be completely immune to pressures that you describe but compared to you, I couldn't give a damn. 


And yet you took the time to compose this pile of bulls**t because you don't give damn, right?

"The same social pressures which caused the tribespeople to denounce the cave visitor as a demon-possessed heretic prompt people today to declare anthropogenic global warming, "...created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

This is just an astounding statement. You have it completely backwards. Believing in man made climate change is the mainstream view that exerts a social pressure to conform. Skepticism is politically incorrect.

No, this is only astounding because you don't understand it. Stating anthropeginc global warming is a real phenomenon is no more a failure of skepticsm than believing the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that matter is made up atoms, or that memory is encoded in the brain by the hippocampus. If you're "skeptical" about any of those statement, it's not "political incorrectnes", it's just stupidity. There are thousands of observations backing up each one of those statements.

Better luck next time...;-D...

This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 12, 2016 6:46 PM MST

"And yet you took the time to compose this pile of bulls**t because you don't give damn, right?"

I don't care what you think of me. You don't exert social pressure on me. I take the time because I enjoy studying the psychology of leftists. You fascinate me.

Whether man made global warming is real or not is another question entirely and completely irrelevant to our discussion. We are talking about the social pressure to conform, not science.

The social pressure to conform is exerted by the mainstream opinion regardless of whether it's actually right or wrong.

You asserted that social pressure makes people deny climate change. Nonsense. There is no social pressure to deny climate change. Zero. It's a minority view that is shamed by pseudo intellectuals like you. All the social pressure is to shut the f*** up and "trust the experts". This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 12, 2016 5:07 PM MST

@TrumpianDunningKruger -- Yes, there is social pressure to "conform" because society itself would be impossible without some minimum level of people conforming to social norms.

If we allowed people to drive in whatever lane of the road they felt like and obey red and green lights as they wished, there would be chaos.

We have "social pressure" (and, in fact, laws) which require people who practice medicine to have certain minimum qualifications and that the tools and materials they use be empirical tested for efficacy.

So, yes, there is "social pressure" for people to believe the scientists who have done the actual climate science, just as there is "social pressure" to have people believe the medical researchers who do the science investigating remedies for medical ailments.

But there is also social pressure, despite your denials, to conform to the "Anthropogenic global warming is hoax cooked up by Al Gore and the climate scientists" point of view. If you don't believe me, try going to any right-wing political web site or Warming Denier website and, purely as an intellectual exercise, try debating the actual climate science behind the controversy. Watch how rapidly they will gang up on you and call you names without actually refuting the evidence.

So, no, anthropogenic global warming is NOT irrelvant to our discussion. There is a substantial body of scientific evidence supporting the proposition it is real. There is a group of people who, solely for political identification reasons, have decided to not believe what the science is telling them. Not because they can show the science is wrong, but because the implications of the science are social changes which would involve "TEH STOOPID EBIL COMMIE DEMOCRAP SOCIALISM." And because the social changes are not ideologically acceptable, the science must be denied. A classic case of ideological belief trumping (pun!) empirical accuracy.

And because you value your identity as NOT one of TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ, you engage in the exercise of denying AGW's relevance to the topic at hand and resorting to ad hominem attacks ("pseudo-intellectual") instead of actually showing evidence for your propositions. I submit the hypothesis you are less interested in "leftist" minds than you are in hearing yoursel spout your own bulls**t.

This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 12, 2016 6:49 PM MST

I don't think online discussions give any real insight into social pressure. On an anonymous forum like this the normal social forces are not present which is why people tend to be more aggressive than they would be in real life interactions.

I don't believe that two individuals arguing over something are exerting any real social pressure on each other. It's society collectively that exerts pressure on individuals. Mainstream opinions don't experience significant social pressure to change. Only fringe opinions can experience social marginalization. Someone getting angry with you, being insulting etc etc, is not really social pressure. It only becomes significant when society at large begins to turn against you and collectively ostracize you for your refusal to conform.

"There is a group of people who, solely for political identification reasons, have decided to not believe what the science is telling them."

I think you're wrong to dismiss deeply held beliefs about morality, ethics, and philosophy as just "identity". Conviction is something to be respected. I hate the communists passionately though a part of me respects their conviction. There is fine line between being conviction and dogmatism. There is a fine line between flexibility and being weak.

I believe about 95% of the scientific consensus. I don't believe science to be an infallible thing like you seem to. I consider all things to be vulnerable to error and corruption because that's human nature. You have elevated scientists to the status of high priests and are displaying a religious faith in their competence and integrity.

I don't believe in AGW but even if I did, it wouldn't change my mind. If you really believe this horsesh*t then I suggest you think of a solution that doesn't undermine capitalism. I would rather the land burned and ocean boiled than give global control of the means of production to a bunch of Marxists. There is nothing irrational about this. It's simply a question of priorities. All free people care more about their principles than anything else. This post was edited by Zeitgeist at December 14, 2016 2:36 AM MST