CDZ Fake News/Media Syndrome

[Foxfyre]

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does.

Okay. Fair enough and understood.

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

When on some topics all you get is commentary whether that be in the way the story is written to create a certain impression, re what facts are featured while others are buried or omitted, re the headlines that go with the story, re the photos that accompany the story, re the non sequitur comments included in the story, etc., then there is no such thing as straight news reporting that features all the facts and allows the readers/audience to draw a conclusion from them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does.

Okay. Fair enough and understood.

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

I should offer a mea culpa here to all those I have informed that I wouldn't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and/or separate the qualifications provided for an expressed thought. I find the chopped up posts tedious to deal with and boring to read as well as encouraging veering off into myriad unrelated subjects.

I have been violating my own personal code re that with you because of the thoughtfulness and competence of your posts whether or not we are in agreement on something. So kudos to you for the latter. And please understand why I am not responding to every point in a divided up post. And may not respond at all. I really do appreciate your take on it even though we probably won't have a meeting of the minds.

 

[Foxfyre]

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

I didn't click on any links. I was expressing my own opinion re how the fake news media operates. I was adding to the conversation with no intent to rebut what you said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

First, there's nothing to apologize for. Second, my feelings were not and are not hurt. As I said, I was disappointed, not hurt. Third, my disappointment is with myself for having expected that you'd respond to me in a contextually germane way and telling me that "such and such" is how it's supposed to go when "such and such" wasn't ever part of anything I wrote made clear to me that my expectations were excessive. I don't know you or anyone else here, so I am the only person in whom I can be disappointed re: conversations here. The disappointment results from my having misjudged someone here, not because they are who they are.

Thanks for that. In an enthusiastic discussion on a topic I feel strongly about, you wouldn't be the first to point out that I was less than diplomatic or considerate in the way I expressed my rebuttal or response. I'll take the legitimate heat for that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)​

Seriously? That's your response to my illustrating a valid yet unsound argument? Please tell me that is not what you truly meant to say...the links in my post are there for a reason. Did you click on them?

Edit:

Don't take the above the wrong way. It is an expression of disappointment, not of anger or ridicule.​

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does. It isn't that they necessarily get the facts wrong--though they too often do that--but it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

I did not mean to criticize your illustration, but only to provide one that is what the fake news media so often does.

Okay. Fair enough and understood.

it is their way too often unsupportable interpretation of what the facts mean that makes it fake news.

Interpretation of what the facts imply, portend, contradict, etc. is by definition commentary on the news. As commentary, it is not news; thus it is neither fake news nor not-fake news. As it's not news at all, what it is is something other than news. It's not even trying to be news, yet folks who call it seem to think otherwise and make themselves look asinine by calling it fake news.

I should offer a mea culpa here to all those I have informed that I wouldn't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and/or separate the qualifications provided for an expressed thought. I find the chopped up posts tedious to deal with and boring to read as well as encouraging veering off into myriad unrelated subjects.

I have been violating my own personal code re that with you because of the thoughtfulness and competence of your posts whether or not we are in agreement on something. So kudos to you for the latter. And please understand why I am not responding to every point in a divided up post. And may not respond at all. I really do appreciate your take on it even though we probably won't have a meeting of the minds.

I have been violating my own personal code re that with you because of the thoughtfulness and competence of your posts whether or not we are in agreement on something. So kudos to you for the latter.

TY.

I should offer a mea culpa here to all those I have informed that I wouldn't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and/or separate the qualifications provided for an expressed thought.

I should offer a mea culpa here to all those I have informed that I wouldn't respond to chopped up posts that destroy context and/or separate the qualifications provided for an expressed thought.

FWIW, you'll notice that though I "sub-quote," I do generally also include the full post from which the "sub-quote" is taken so readers can readily refer back to it to confirm that the context of my remarks to someone pertains to the letter and spirit of the entire post from which I've excerpted the passages that catalyze my remarks.

I also make a fairly diligent effort at indicating when it appears to me that what I'm about to write is off topic (either literally or by the tone/intent of what's in my mind as I write it) with regard to the thread's core theme(s), hence the "OT:" indicator at the start of some of my remarks. At least that way readers know not to expect any on-topic comments in what immediately follows the "OT:" and can just skip to something else.

As goes quoting post sections/passages and not including the remainder, well, that strikes me as a willfully disingenuous effort to deflect. Seeing that alone erects my hackles regarding what I'm about to read. If I then read the remarks and find they do not directly and with contextual integrity address not only the specific passage quoted but also the overall theme/context of the post from which the quoted passage came, the writer falls a rung in my esteem.

Aside:

There are generally two ways to gain my notice in a venue like USMB. One is to routinely quote me and deliver very well thought out, highly rational, well organized, and very contextually and literally relevant remarks. The other way to do it is to quote me, or post in my threads, and consistently deliver the polar of those things. There is a third way and a forth way; however, few folks effect either. Of the ways one might gain my attention, only the first way keeps one off my ignore list.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

I didn't click on any links. I was expressing my own opinion re how the fake news media operates. I was adding to the conversation with no intent to rebut what you said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

First, there's nothing to apologize for. Second, my feelings were not and are not hurt. As I said, I was disappointed, not hurt. Third, my disappointment is with myself for having expected that you'd respond to me in a contextually germane way and telling me that "such and such" is how it's supposed to go when "such and such" wasn't ever part of anything I wrote made clear to me that my expectations were excessive. I don't know you or anyone else here, so I am the only person in whom I can be disappointed re: conversations here. The disappointment results from my having misjudged someone here, not because they are who they are.

Thanks for that. In an enthusiastic discussion on a topic I feel strongly about, you wouldn't be the first to point out that I was less than diplomatic or considerate in the way I expressed my rebuttal or response. I'll take the legitimate heat for that.

Thanks for that.

You're welcome.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban.

It is that kind of thing that I believe I correctly see as deliberate and intentional misrepresenting of the facts of a story and a deliberate attempt to discredit the President whom most of the mainstream media hates/opposes.

And it is that kind of thing that just drives me nuts.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

For the point I made, that validity can exist absent soundness, there are multiple ways "it" can go. Validity is a function of an argument's structure, not of the truth/accuracy of its premises or conclusions. That that is the case is why I included the two links I did, both of which make that point. That is also why I asked in post 171 whether you clicked on them (and, of course, read the content found at the linked site(s)). That it seems you didn't click either link and read the content found there is why I'm disappointed. I thought better of you.

I didn't click on any links. I was expressing my own opinion re how the fake news media operates. I was adding to the conversation with no intent to rebut what you said. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings. It was not my intent.

First, there's nothing to apologize for. Second, my feelings were not and are not hurt. As I said, I was disappointed, not hurt. Third, my disappointment is with myself for having expected that you'd respond to me in a contextually germane way and telling me that "such and such" is how it's supposed to go when "such and such" wasn't ever part of anything I wrote made clear to me that my expectations were excessive. I don't know you or anyone else here, so I am the only person in whom I can be disappointed re: conversations here. The disappointment results from my having misjudged someone here, not because they are who they are.

Thanks for that. In an enthusiastic discussion on a topic I feel strongly about, you wouldn't be the first to point out that I was less than diplomatic or considerate in the way I expressed my rebuttal or response. I'll take the legitimate heat for that.

you wouldn't be the first to point out that I was less than diplomatic or considerate in the way I expressed my rebuttal or response.

OT:

If I'm honest, I think you were unclear, not undiplomatic or inconsiderate. What you didn't do was misrepresent what I wrote. Had you done that, we would have immediately and permanently stopped conversing.

I have zero tolerance for people "spinning" or "framing" what I write. If they want to present a sound, or at least very logically strong, argument for why what I wrote means what they allege it does, I'm fine with that, but unsupported assertions about what I said are, with me, conversation/interaction terminators. No one but I may "put words in my mouth."

I am fine with folks asking, in a non-loaded way, if I meant "such and such," but I'm not okay in the least with folks bastardizing my remarks by paraphrasing them so as to fit my words into whatever it be they want to think I wrote/meant. I may, at times, be incredulous that they need to ask, but I'm nonetheless okay their asking.

For me, it's all part and parcel of integrity in general and discursive integrity in particular. I have neither the time nor the will to engage with any stranger who does not exhibit both. And make no mistake, until I meet someone in person, they remain a stranger, as far as I'm concerned.

Truly, the one thing I like about chatting on USMB is that nothing about my physical bearing, nothing about my background and nothing having to do with what folks know about my "real world" accomplishments factors into how folks respond to my remarks and ideas. The last thing in the world I enjoy is "yes men" in my presence and pandering to me. I've had plenty of that in my life and I find it boring, and I find people who do it boorish.

Don't get the wrong idea, but in that regard, I'm the very opposite of Trump. I don't seek others' (especially not strangers') approbation, perhaps because I'm well aware of and content with the balance I've achieved between my strengths and weaknesses. I've variously developed, ameliorated, and/or suffered all of them over the course of my life. How could I not know them well? LOL

For example, I know that intolerance is among my weaknesses. Try as I might, I can't seem to alter that fact. Tell me I'm not tolerant enough about "such and such" and there's a fair chance I'll tell you that you're correct. At this point I have reconciled myself to the improbability of that changing. It'd be nice if I were more tolerant of some things, but I'm wise enough to know that it's probably not meant to be in my stars, as it were. On the other hand, I have learned how to, at times, convert my intolerance into a strength, and that's about the best I can do with that weakness.

Whom I aim to satisfy is myself. Generally, when I accomplish that, the folks who rely on me approve of the outcomes they receive as a result of my efforts. That's been so professionally, as a parent, in my volunteer efforts, and in my friendships and other unencumbered relationships. Perhaps I could do better were I differently constituted, but I am content with what I have done for it's both more than I ever dreamt possible and more than I sought to get done. I'm fine with the blessings I've received, and I'm okay with being imperfect.​

 

[Care4all]

FOX News did not get the name of FAUX News for nothing!

CNN with 7 news stories that had to be corrected out of 2000 stories or so, is only 0.003 percent.....that's extremely low.

The Press has always had Bias, in fact, I would venture that it was the main reason why people way back when, began a Newspaper in many cases over the years.

but to me, bias is NOT Fake News. They pick the stories to lead with and which ones to repeat....that is where the bias comes, but not necessarily or not at all, in the story itself

Fake News is news that is intentionally created to pass false information....to divert or deflect from the real news. Making a mistake is not fake news to me, as long as the mistake is corrected as soon as they found out what they posted may not be correct.

A government or government officials "using the news" to pass false information, as the President in my opinion tries to do daily and colluding with a news station to change the story line of the news to deflect from the truth being reported can be dangerous, or even a government who puts their thumb on the scale with the news media to pass on fake news is dangerous....

And calling factual real news, FAKE NEWS is dangerous....

But as long as we have multiple news outlets with journalistic standards of having two confirmed witnesses so to say, or sources, and they approach "the other side of the story people" for their comments, and sources are checked out by the editors, we will continue to have relatively good media sources to get the news from...like I said, 7 mistakes out of thousands of stories a year, is pretty darn good results and not concerning at all to me.

The problem is on all of these stories on Trump as example or the Russian scandal etc....the whitehouse has always been asked for their version or comments to the story they are breaking news on, BEFORE they go to print, but the whitehouse has always given "no comment" even if they know the story is inaccurate in some way, they refuse to correct them and HOPE it goes to print so they can scream "fake news"....

And then we have so so so many Internet news sites with no journalistic standards required like the DailyCaller and Breibart and Drudge and GatewayPundit and Infowars and RT and Sputnik...and TownHall and Democratic Underground etc etc etc

but we also have the Huffington Post, and Forbes, and Business Insider and Politico that does have bias but they do use journalistic standards on their news stories....their editorials or Opinion pieces are just that, opinions.

Our constitution protects a "free Press", it does not protect the accuracy of the press, other than saying, the power of the government should NOT be running it and the free market will get to the truth all on its own.

the press is not suppose to be the "mouth piece" of the government, they are the watchdogs OF the government....that's why our constitution gave them this protection in the First Amendment from the government's influence.

 

[Foxfyre]

FOX News did not get the name of FAUX News for nothing!

CNN with 7 news stories that had to be corrected out of 2000 stories is only 0.003 percent.....that's extremely low.

The Press has always had Bias, in fact, I would venture that it was the main reason why people way back when, began a Newspaper in many cases over the years.

but to me, bias is NOT Fake News. They pick the stories to lead with and which ones to repeat....that is where the bias comes, but not necessarily or not at all, in the story itself

Fake News is news that is intentionally created to pass false information....to divert or deflect from the real news. Making a mistake is not fake news to me, as long as the mistake is corrected as soon as they found out what they posted may not be correct.

A government or government officials "using the news" to pass false information, as the President in my opinion tries to do daily and colluding with a news station to change the story line of the news to deflect from the truth being reported can be dangerous, or even a government who puts their thumb on the scale with the news media to pass on fake news is dangerous....

And calling factual real news, FAKE NEWS is dangerous....

But as long as we have multiple news outlets with journalistic standards of having two confirmed witnesses so to say, or sources, and they approach "the other side of the story people" for their comments, and sources are checked out by the editors, we will continue to have relatively good media sources to get the news from...like I said, 7 mistakes out of thousands of stories a year, is pretty darn good results and not concerning at all to me.

The problem is on all of these stories on Trump as example or the Russian scandal etc....the whitehouse has always been asked for their version or comments to the story they are breaking news on, BEFORE they go to print, but the whitehouse has always given "no comment" even if they know the story is inaccurate in some way, they refuse to correct them and HOPE it goes to print so they can scream "fake news"....

And then we have so so so many Internet news sites with no journalistic standards required like the DailyCaller and Breibart and Drudge and GatewayPundit and Infowars and RT and Sputnik...and TownHall and Democratic Underground etc etc etc

but we also have the Huffington Post, and Forbes, and Business Insider and Politico that does have bias but they do use journalistic standards on their news stories....their editorials or Opinion pieces are just that, opinions.

Our constitution protects a "free Press", it does not protect the accuracy of the press, other than saying, the power of the government should NOT be running it and the free market will get to the truth all on its own.

the press is not suppose to be the "mouth piece" of the government, they are the watchdogs OF the government....that's why our constitution gave them this protection in the First Amendment from the government's influence.

Commenting on your first two paragraphs, there you I am quite sure unintentionally and completely nonmaliciously created fake news. Your slant was that the OP found only seven incidents of fake news out of however many total stories they covered in 2017. The article said nothing like that. It point out seven instances in which CNN put out fake news.

Big difference between those two things.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FOX News did not get the name of FAUX News for nothing!

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

I think there is no truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
• There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
• And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
• Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

 

[Care4all]

FOX News did not get the name of FAUX News for nothing!

CNN with 7 news stories that had to be corrected out of 2000 stories is only 0.003 percent.....that's extremely low.

The Press has always had Bias, in fact, I would venture that it was the main reason why people way back when, began a Newspaper in many cases over the years.

but to me, bias is NOT Fake News. They pick the stories to lead with and which ones to repeat....that is where the bias comes, but not necessarily or not at all, in the story itself

Fake News is news that is intentionally created to pass false information....to divert or deflect from the real news. Making a mistake is not fake news to me, as long as the mistake is corrected as soon as they found out what they posted may not be correct.

A government or government officials "using the news" to pass false information, as the President in my opinion tries to do daily and colluding with a news station to change the story line of the news to deflect from the truth being reported can be dangerous, or even a government who puts their thumb on the scale with the news media to pass on fake news is dangerous....

And calling factual real news, FAKE NEWS is dangerous....

But as long as we have multiple news outlets with journalistic standards of having two confirmed witnesses so to say, or sources, and they approach "the other side of the story people" for their comments, and sources are checked out by the editors, we will continue to have relatively good media sources to get the news from...like I said, 7 mistakes out of thousands of stories a year, is pretty darn good results and not concerning at all to me.

The problem is on all of these stories on Trump as example or the Russian scandal etc....the whitehouse has always been asked for their version or comments to the story they are breaking news on, BEFORE they go to print, but the whitehouse has always given "no comment" even if they know the story is inaccurate in some way, they refuse to correct them and HOPE it goes to print so they can scream "fake news"....

And then we have so so so many Internet news sites with no journalistic standards required like the DailyCaller and Breibart and Drudge and GatewayPundit and Infowars and RT and Sputnik...and TownHall and Democratic Underground etc etc etc

but we also have the Huffington Post, and Forbes, and Business Insider and Politico that does have bias but they do use journalistic standards on their news stories....their editorials or Opinion pieces are just that, opinions.

Our constitution protects a "free Press", it does not protect the accuracy of the press, other than saying, the power of the government should NOT be running it and the free market will get to the truth all on its own.

the press is not suppose to be the "mouth piece" of the government, they are the watchdogs OF the government....that's why our constitution gave them this protection in the First Amendment from the government's influence.

Commenting on your first two paragraphs, there you I am quite sure unintentionally and completely nonmaliciously created fake news. Your slant was that the OP found only seven incidents of fake news out of however many total stories they covered in 2017. The article said nothing like that. It point out seven instances in which CNN put out fake news.

Big difference between those two things.

I'm sorry, I didn't read the full op, only skimmed the first few paragraphs Foxylady, I was commenting primarily about fake news/ your title....

 

[usmbguest5318]

FOX News did not get the name of FAUX News for nothing!

CNN with 7 news stories that had to be corrected out of 2000 stories or so, is only 0.003 percent.....that's extremely low.

The Press has always had Bias, in fact, I would venture that it was the main reason why people way back when, began a Newspaper in many cases over the years.

but to me, bias is NOT Fake News. They pick the stories to lead with and which ones to repeat....that is where the bias comes, but not necessarily or not at all, in the story itself

Fake News is news that is intentionally created to pass false information....to divert or deflect from the real news. Making a mistake is not fake news to me, as long as the mistake is corrected as soon as they found out what they posted may not be correct.

A government or government officials "using the news" to pass false information, as the President in my opinion tries to do daily and colluding with a news station to change the story line of the news to deflect from the truth being reported can be dangerous, or even a government who puts their thumb on the scale with the news media to pass on fake news is dangerous....

And calling factual real news, FAKE NEWS is dangerous....

But as long as we have multiple news outlets with journalistic standards of having two confirmed witnesses so to say, or sources, and they approach "the other side of the story people" for their comments, and sources are checked out by the editors, we will continue to have relatively good media sources to get the news from...like I said, 7 mistakes out of thousands of stories a year, is pretty darn good results and not concerning at all to me.

The problem is on all of these stories on Trump as example or the Russian scandal etc....the whitehouse has always been asked for their version or comments to the story they are breaking news on, BEFORE they go to print, but the whitehouse has always given "no comment" even if they know the story is inaccurate in some way, they refuse to correct them and HOPE it goes to print so they can scream "fake news"....

And then we have so so so many Internet news sites with no journalistic standards required like the DailyCaller and Breibart and Drudge and GatewayPundit and Infowars and RT and Sputnik...and TownHall and Democratic Underground etc etc etc

but we also have the Huffington Post, and Forbes, and Business Insider and Politico that does have bias but they do use journalistic standards on their news stories....their editorials or Opinion pieces are just that, opinions.

Our constitution protects a "free Press", it does not protect the accuracy of the press, other than saying, the power of the government should NOT be running it and the free market will get to the truth all on its own.

the press is not suppose to be the "mouth piece" of the government, they are the watchdogs OF the government....that's why our constitution gave them this protection in the First Amendment from the government's influence.

They pick the stories to lead with and which ones to repeat....that is where the bias comes, but not necessarily or not at all, in the story itself

That is a key element that I think far too many people overlook.

Lord knows too that social media and the Internet have facilitated myriad publications and publishers that/who, pandering to an apparently pervasive demand for bias confirmation, insert all manners of falsity -- ranging from contextual fibs to blatant lies to flat out fabrications -- directly into the stories they publish. It seems these days that people, and too many of them, crave being able to say "see, I told you so" more than they crave discovering what is so, and there are more than too many publishers clamoring to sate the craving.

I think another part of the problem is that for whatever reason late night comedians have begun to be taken as some sort of news reporters. Perhaps it's that comedians like that have a way of boiling a news story down to some single element and that gross over simplification becomes the heart of the story, even though the matter/story is materially more complicated.

I think there is also a "wanna be comedian" effect whereby "everyday" citizens in their quest for notoriety levy acerbic invectives thinking they can draw laughs and, in turn, increase their popularity/status. That's not even something I understand, but I'm fairly certain it's what I'm observing. I guess I don't understand it because I'm okay with my social status as it is and has been over my life's course. Indeed, deliberate social climbers are among the genres of people whom I most detest.

Don't misconstrue me. It's fine to be a political comedian, but there's a timing and a time and place for being that. The reason most of us aren't making a living as comedians is because we lack the balance among those three qualities. Seeing that one hasn't that balance should be enough to tell one that one should let the comedians do comedy. while one does something else better suited to one's abilities and constitution.

For example, I once wanted to be a major league baseball player, but at some point I realized that wasn't going to happen and I focused my energies elsewhere. You know what? That was the right choice to make for had I stuck with the baseball thing, I'd today be a washed-up minor leaguer either seeking or part way through a second career of sorts. I'm fairly sure that would not have worked out nearly as well for me or my family and I might well be among the "pissed off" mofos running around hoping Trump will be their "savior" and "pleased as punch" over a few extra tax-cut-dollars.

 

[Syriusly]

I'll start with this piece from the Daily Caller listing seven times this year that CNN has botched or put out fake/erroneous news:

7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

These include:
--Comey testimony
--Scaramucci smear
--Fake news about fake news
--Feeding fish in Japan
--The President's knowledge of Japanese cars
--Funding of the Dossier
--Don Jr. and Wikilieaks

And that's just CNN. Let's see other examples or examples of news declared fake that was actually true.

You have inspired me to check on these 'examples of CNN' putting out 'Fake News'

First of all- lets remember who your 'source' is- which is the Daily Caller- itself a Conservative news site- so hardly unbiased themselves

Lets look at #3- because their bias seems to be pretty clear here
Fake news about fake news
The Daily Caller- itself a conservative news site- claims that CNN was spreading "Fake New about Fake News with this headline:
Mainstream Media Reporting About Twitter ‘Fake News’ Is 100% FALSE

CNN reported that fake news on Twitter was higher in swing states. The report was accompanied by the chyron, “How ‘Fake News’ Spread During Election Week.”

The study CNN cited comes from the Oxford Internet Institute, titled, “Social Media, News and Political Information during the US Election: Was Polarizing Content Concentrated in Swing States?”


The study’s authors’ do not, however, label their study as necessarily being about “fake news.” Instead, the researchers use the term “junk news.”


The bulk of “Polarizing and Conspiracy Content” comes from so-called “junk news” websites, which makes up 79 percent of the content.

Except- the Daily Caller is lying. While the researchers do use the term "Junk News"- they also extensively used the term "Fake News".

And CNN correctly talked about how the article that they were citing talked about Junk News
Here is what CNN said- and which your 'source' calls "100% False!"
Fake election news wasn't just for Facebook feeds. Twitter had its share as well.
"Polarizing and conspiratorial junk news" was as prevalent on Twitter as news from legitimate outlets in the days immediately before and after the US presidential election, a new study out of the University of Oxford released Thursday suggests.


Researchers from the university's Computational Propaganda Project examined more than 7 million tweets sent between November 1-11, 2016, which contained hashtags related to politics and the election. The study has yet to be peer reviewed and the team acknowledged limitations to its methodology.


They split content into categories including professional news, professional political content -- like that from a candidate's campaign -- and "polarizing and conspiracy content" which included objectively fake news websites, Russian sources of political news and WikiLeaks. Oxford researchers said the categories were not intended to be comprehensive.


They found that "polarizing and conspiracy" sources accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced news organizations also accounted for 20% of links shared. Links from professionally produced political material accounted for 10%. Other political content, including activist blogs and political satire, made up the remaining 50%


Researchers assigned each tweet a location based on Twitter users' biographical information. This allowed them to estimate how fake and polarizing content was shared across individual states -- what they call the "junk news index." The researchers acknowledged that volunteered location information could be misleading in some cases.

And here are some excerpts from the report:
http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-cont...17/09/Polarizing-Content-and-Swing-States.pdf

As an aside- in the article- the Daily Caller defends Infowars as a legitimate news organization. Because Infowars has professional journalists.

Do you agree with the Daily Caller that Infowars is as legitimate- as say CNN?

 

[Syriusly]

Too many have lost any ability to think for themselves or apply critical thought to all they hear or read. A short attention span public more obsessed with the happenings and opinions of irrelevant celebrities and talking heads spewing the same old tired partisan soundbites from both extreme sides of the aisle.
Fact is real news doesn't sell...gossip does, and ALL media has been reduced to TMZ style reporting.

I agree that the sound bite, repeating talking point, and false meme has become the new norm in media reporting. You know the meme is happening when you see the same unusual word like 'gravitas' repeated everywhere in the media during the same 24-48 hour time period.

But it is tragic for those who long for the Fourth Estate we once had that concentrated on at least a degree of fairness, accuracy, and attention to important details. We no longer have a media that we can trust to inform us. Instead we have a media that is almost wholly engaged in pure partisan propaganda.

Did you research the 7 items that you listed in your second post- to see whether the claims by the Daily Caller were accurate?

Because as I look into it more- that you cited the Daily Caller- which is itself a partisan media organization- and you ask us all to prove them wrong- did you do your due diligence- did you check out the stories and are they all 'fake news' or are they 'mistaken news'?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What constitutes the truth is not a relative thing. Neither does whether one believes that which is the truth have any bearing on whether it is indeed the truth. The truth may not always be knowable at every time at which one wants to know it; however, that too has nothing to do with what is the truth.

Well, you and I clearly disagree in that regard.

​

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries

The Muslim ban matter is as good a sequence of events as any to consider as an illustration of what is/isn't fake news.

What did you see as the news in that story? I'll tell you what I saw as the news story there:

1. Donald Trump campaigned saying the following:
   

   Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

2. Donald Trump also campaigned deriding the use of executive orders.
3. Upon taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order banning not "all Muslims" for whatever be the indefinite time period it takes "figure out what's going on," but rather banning for 120 days people from any of seven countries that happen to be primarily populated by Muslims.
4. Of the seven countries, not one of them had ever sent a terrorist to the U.S. -- hell, never even killed an American citizen that we know of -- and who had committed an act of terrorism. The man didn't even produce a USIC (or some other country's IC) report indicating that we'd captured or uncovered "this or that" huge ISIS cell that spanned four or more of the seven countries.
   
   
   
   
   
5. The executive order provided priority to religious minorities seeking to, from any of the seven countries, enter the U.S.
6. Of the seven countries, several (all?) of them have no U.S. embassy at which people could apply for a visa to enter the U.S.
7. The income/wealth of most folks who weren't highly placed officials in those countries is such that citizens of those places by and large lacked the means to leave the country, let alone get to one having a U.S. embassy, and the people of means in those countries, like people of means in most countries, weren't trying to immigrate anywhere.

In light of items one through four, one had to ask, WTF was the ban supposed to achieve? Adding items five through seven, it becomes clear that the ban was likely to achieve little other than preventing entry into the U.S. of people for whom there is no credible basis for thinking they are a threat in the first place.

Now had Trump put Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE on that list of banned countries, there'd have been a whole lot less to say. More likely, there'd have been nothing to say. Moreover, were he to have included those three countries, it'd have sent a very clear message to the leaders of those countries: "Hey! You get control of the people in your "effin" country and lock up the terrorists. Unless and until you do, ain't none o' y'all coming into the U.S."

That is a message that every American, Democrat or Republican, could relate to. Even I would not have had a problem with our sending that message. It's a message that tells the leaders of those countries that we're holding them accountable for the Wahhabism and other radical sects their governments have fomented and allowed to fester and/or flourish, and we're looking for some demonstrative, not "window dressing," evidence that they've either incarcerated or executed (the country's choice) those "nut jobs."

I think that's what "everyone" expected he meant he'd do when he made his "calling for a ban" statement, but once he took office, that's not what Trump did. What he did was institute damn near the most "tits on a bull" ban he could conjure. What he did was tantamount to the D.C. Archbishop telling me I am prohibited from entering a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, etc. in D.C. BFD! I ain't trying to go into any; hell, I don't even have to drive past one.

Now, the fact that Trump signed that largely ineffectual ban order spawned a bunch of news commentary, such as "is Trump truly as stupid as that ban makes him seem or does he think people are too stupid to see that ban as he crafted it is pointless?" But then given the insipidity of the ban he signed and the forcefulness of his campaign promise, that commentary/question was legit. Frankly, it still is.

 

[Syriusly]

Nice illustration of Plato's cave. It really works it out. Very naughty with the religious slant to it!

You can have your own truth, I guess: that's what this alliance business in America today is all about. You just can't have MY truth, that is, inform me that X is true and that I have to believe it because it's, you know, true. I'll just say, no, it's Y all the way. And there is nothing you can really do about that.

There is no truth: there never was. It's all opinion, but that's my opinion. Your opinion is that there is truth, and if you are like the rest of us here, that YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT TRUTH IS. OBJECTIVELY. VALID FOR EVERYONE. Whether they like it or not. No one will agree with that, however.

So-called "facts" are a subset of the problem and an interesting one. Where they are statistics -- tide tables and such -- we are tempted to make an exception for so-called facts as a sort of truth. However, that just leads to people saying atrocities such as that Trump is [obscenities, obscenities] dipped in Cheetoes and that's a fact! The word fact becomes an emphasizer for someone's opinion that they very, very much want to be recognized as "truth" by whomever they are talking with.

As if. My solution to the fact problem is the same as any other news: I believe the stats I like for whatever reason, and try to recall that they burned Copernicus at the stake, but nowadays we are not so......emphatic about insisting that the sun rises in the East. We still say it, but we think Copernicus may have had a point when he said the sun doesn't go around the Earth. There was a fact issue there, but facts are too often, often wrong.

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries

The Muslim ban matter is as good a sequence of events as any to consider.

What did you see as the news in that story? I'll tell you what I saw as the news story there:

1. Donald Trump campaigned saying the following:
   

   Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

2. Donald Trump also campaigned deriding the use of executive orders.
3. Upon taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order banning not "all Muslims" for whatever be the indefinite time period it takes "figure out what's going on," but rather banning for 120 days people from any of seven countries that happen to be primarily populated by Muslims.
4. Of the seven countries, not one of them had ever sent a terrorist to the U.S. -- hell, never even killed an American citizen that we know of -- and who had committed an act of terrorism. The man didn't even produce a USIC (or some other country's IC) report indicating that we'd captured or uncovered "this or that" huge ISIS cell that spanned four or more of the seven countries.
   
   
   
   
   
5. The executive order provided priority to religious minorities seeking to, from any of the seven countries, enter the U.S.
6. Of the seven countries, several (all?) of them have no U.S. embassy at which people could apply for a visa to enter the U.S.
7. The income/wealth of most folks who weren't highly placed officials in those countries is such that citizens of those places by and large lacked the means to leave the country, let alone get to one having a U.S. embassy, and the people of means in those countries, like people of means in most countries, weren't trying to immigrate anywhere.

In light of items one through four, one had to ask, WTF was the ban supposed to achieve? Adding items five through seven, it becomes clear that the ban was likely to achieve little other than preventing entry into the U.S. of people for whom there is no credible basis for thinking they are a threat in the first place.

Now had Trump put Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE on that list of banned countries, there'd have been a whole lot less to say. More likely, there'd have been nothing to say. Moreover, were he to have included those three countries, it'd have sent a very clear message to the leaders of those countries: "Hey! You get control of the people in your "effin" country and lock up the terrorists. Unless and until you do, ain't none o' y'all coming into the U.S."

That is a message that every American, Democrat or Republican, could relate to. Even I would not have had a problem with our sending that message. It's a message that tells the leaders of those countries that we're holding them accountable for the Wahhabism and other radical sects their governments have fomented and allowed to fester and/or flourish, and we're looking for some demonstrative, not "window dressing," evidence that they've either incarcerated or executed (the country's choice) those "nut jobs."

I think that's what "everyone" expected he meant he'd do when he made his "calling for a ban" statement, but once he took office, that's not what Trump did. What he did was institute damn near the most "tits on a bull" ban he could conjure. What he did was tantamount to the D.C. Archbishop telling me I am prohibited from entering a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, etc. in D.C. BFD! I ain't trying to go into any; hell, I don't even have to drive past one.

Now, the fact that Trump signed that largely ineffectual ban order spawned a bunch of news commentary, such as "is Trump truly as stupid as that ban makes him seem or does he think people are too stupid to see that ban as he crafted it is pointless?" But then given the insipidity of the ban he signed and the forcefulness of his campaign promise, that commentary/question was legit. Frankly, it still is.

Well as a follow up to that- did anyone else think what I thought:

The ban was supposed to be a temporary measure in order to improve vetting. The ban was put on hold for months- when the ban was finally lifted......apparently the vetting still haven't been improved- because supposedly we still needed the 'ban'.

It sure seemed to me like the 6 month ban was 'needed'- whenever it went into effect- regardless of where our 'vetting' was.

 

[Syriusly]

Lets talk about this bit of "Fake News"

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

In this tweet- President Trump says that all of the Networks are dishonest and corrupt- but not Fox.

Why? Is there any empirical evidence that President Trump is relying upon to show that NBC, and ABC and CBS and CNN are all dishonest and corrupt- but Fox is not?

Or is it just Fake News- because President Trump likes how Fox is everything that the other networks are- but biased towards him- not against him?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Interesting take on it. But yes, there are 'truths' that are stated incorrectly or in a way that those who don't know the truth or who don't want to believe the truth can or will interpret in an incorrect way. Like 'the sun rises in the east.' The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth. They in fact will repeat it over and over and over again until it feels like the truth. And once it feels like the truth, it is extremely difficult to get a person to see it any other way.

Having had serious discussions with educated people who really do believe in a flat Earth, that is exactly how that wrong idea becomes so entrenched and permanent. They will defend their wrong impression passionately.

Which is generally what also happens when fake news goes viral.

The only problem comes in when those who interpret something in an incorrect way insist/demand that the incorrect way is the truth.

If those individuals have arrived at their inferred truth via sound deductive reasoning, it is the truth. Whether anyone agrees with them or not is irrelevant.

Valid but unsound argument:

1. Daffy Duck is a duck.
2. All ducks are mammals.
3. Therefore, Daffy Duck is a mammal.

Sound, therefore valid, therefore truthful, argument:

1. In some states, no felons are eligible voters, that is, eligible to vote.
2. In those states, some professional athletes are felons.
3. Therefore, in some states, some professional athletes are not eligible voters.

If instead they arrive at their inferred truth via sound inductive or abductive reasoning, their conclusion is very likely to be accurate and representative of/indicative of the truth, but, unlike deductively determined truths, the conclusion yet may be incorrect. It's the difference between incontrovertibility and very strong probability.

But you used an incorrect fact to arrive at your conclusion.

The way it is supposed to go:

The glasses are on Daffy Duck. (correct)
The glasses are on the table. (correct)
Therefore Daffy Duck is a table. (incorrect conclusion)

Right facts. Wrong conclusion. And that is what makes up most of the fake news these days. The Obama administration named seven countries, all predominantly Muslim, as significant exporters/promoters of terrorism. Not a murmer from the media about President Obama being racist/Islamophobic.

President Trump orders a temporary travel ban of people coming from those same seven countries until a proper vetting process is in place. There was plenty of legitimate criticism of not thinking that through all the way due to some real injustices that occurred because of it and then noting when those errors were corrected.

But no, in most of the mainstream media, President Trump is racist/Islamophobic yadda yadda yadda with almost no mention of the stated reasoning around the temporary ban or that the countries were selected by the previous administration or that some 44-45 other predominantly Muslim countries were not included in the temporary ban..

But what you also left out- which most of the Right wing mainstream media also left out- was that prior to being elected President, Donald Trump campaigned on banning Muslims from coming to America.

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," it said.

His campaign statements were in fact part of the basis for most of the law suits challenging his temporary ban. And you didn't mention that fact at all.

In fact- in the (Left) mainstream media, the stated reasons why Trump was ordered the temporary ban were almost always part of the lead.

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
The executive order suspends the entry of refugees into the United States for 120 days and directs officials to determine additional screening ”to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.”

The order also stops the admission of refugees from Syria indefinitely, and bars entry into the United States for 90 days from seven predominantly Muslim countries linked to concerns about terrorism. Those countries are Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Trump border policy: Who's affected?
Trump's executive order: Who does travel ban affect?
On 27 January President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting all refugee admissions and temporarily barring people from seven Muslim-majority countries
But what is the order, dubbed the "Muslim ban" by those rallying against it, and who exactly does it affect?

Here are some key points from the full text explained.

What is the order?

• 
  
  
  • It brings in a suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
  • There is also an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
  • And anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries - Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen - faces a 90-day visa suspension. Some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension

• 
  
  
  • The order also introduces a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
  • Priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries. In an interview, Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria

Lets look at some of those- shall we?
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries
Trump Bars Refugees and Citizens of 7 Muslim Countries

The Muslim ban matter is as good a sequence of events as any to consider.

What did you see as the news in that story? I'll tell you what I saw as the news story there:

1. Donald Trump campaigned saying the following:
   

   Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

2. Donald Trump also campaigned deriding the use of executive orders.
3. Upon taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order banning not "all Muslims" for whatever be the indefinite time period it takes "figure out what's going on," but rather banning for 120 days people from any of seven countries that happen to be primarily populated by Muslims.
4. Of the seven countries, not one of them had ever sent a terrorist to the U.S. -- hell, never even killed an American citizen that we know of -- and who had committed an act of terrorism. The man didn't even produce a USIC (or some other country's IC) report indicating that we'd captured or uncovered "this or that" huge ISIS cell that spanned four or more of the seven countries.
   
   
   
   
   
5. The executive order provided priority to religious minorities seeking to, from any of the seven countries, enter the U.S.
6. Of the seven countries, several (all?) of them have no U.S. embassy at which people could apply for a visa to enter the U.S.
7. The income/wealth of most folks who weren't highly placed officials in those countries is such that citizens of those places by and large lacked the means to leave the country, let alone get to one having a U.S. embassy, and the people of means in those countries, like people of means in most countries, weren't trying to immigrate anywhere.

In light of items one through four, one had to ask, WTF was the ban supposed to achieve? Adding items five through seven, it becomes clear that the ban was likely to achieve little other than preventing entry into the U.S. of people for whom there is no credible basis for thinking they are a threat in the first place.

Now had Trump put Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the UAE on that list of banned countries, there'd have been a whole lot less to say. More likely, there'd have been nothing to say. Moreover, were he to have included those three countries, it'd have sent a very clear message to the leaders of those countries: "Hey! You get control of the people in your "effin" country and lock up the terrorists. Unless and until you do, ain't none o' y'all coming into the U.S."

That is a message that every American, Democrat or Republican, could relate to. Even I would not have had a problem with our sending that message. It's a message that tells the leaders of those countries that we're holding them accountable for the Wahhabism and other radical sects their governments have fomented and allowed to fester and/or flourish, and we're looking for some demonstrative, not "window dressing," evidence that they've either incarcerated or executed (the country's choice) those "nut jobs."

I think that's what "everyone" expected he meant he'd do when he made his "calling for a ban" statement, but once he took office, that's not what Trump did. What he did was institute damn near the most "tits on a bull" ban he could conjure. What he did was tantamount to the D.C. Archbishop telling me I am prohibited from entering a Roman Catholic church, cathedral, etc. in D.C. BFD! I ain't trying to go into any; hell, I don't even have to drive past one.

Now, the fact that Trump signed that largely ineffectual ban order spawned a bunch of news commentary, such as "is Trump truly as stupid as that ban makes him seem or does he think people are too stupid to see that ban as he crafted it is pointless?" But then given the insipidity of the ban he signed and the forcefulness of his campaign promise, that commentary/question was legit. Frankly, it still is.

Well as a follow up to that- did anyone else think what I thought:

The ban was supposed to be a temporary measure in order to improve vetting. The ban was put on hold for months- when the ban was finally lifted......apparently the vetting still haven't been improved- because supposedly we still needed the 'ban'.

It sure seemed to me like the 6 month ban was 'needed'- whenever it went into effect- regardless of where our 'vetting' was.

Well as a follow up to that- did anyone else think what I thought:

The ban was supposed to be a temporary measure in order to improve vetting. The ban was put on hold for months- when the ban was finally lifted......apparently the vetting still haven't been improved- because supposedly we still needed the 'ban'.

I too thought that. My thinking that is part of the reason for the last sentence in my post.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Lets talk about this bit of "Fake News"

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

In this tweet- President Trump says that all of the Networks are dishonest and corrupt- but not Fox.

Why? Is there any empirical evidence that President Trump is relying upon to show that NBC, and ABC and CBS and CNN are all dishonest and corrupt- but Fox is not?

Or is it just Fake News- because President Trump likes how Fox is everything that the other networks are- but biased towards him- not against him?

Because CNN has been caught making up crap about Trump? This isn't rocket science. You lie about the president and he'll call you out on it.

 

[airplanemechanic]

If the fake news would be 50/50 for dem and repub it would be one thing, but finding fake news from CNN about Obama is about as rare as finding water on Mars. With all fake news being against Trump. it becomes a bias. Which we knew about already.

Nobody errors 100% for one side or the other. That's no longer an error when its 100% against one candidate or person.