Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Democracy is Teetering"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed"Democracy is Teetering"
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 21>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15163 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 11:18
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^ In proper science it is extremely easy to know the truth: You form a hypothesis, the hypothesis makes a certain prediction, you and many other scientists perform experiments to (in-)validate the hypothesis.
Chances are you are not a scientist, otherwise I'd be very surprised by what you just wrote. This is a very naive view that is clearly not in line with how modern science works.
From there:
Quote
For criticism is all that can be done when attempting to differentiate claims to knowledge, according to the critical rationalist. Reason is the organon of criticism, not of support; of tentative refutation, not of proof.

Supposed positive evidence (such as the provision of "good reasons" for a claim, or its having been "corroborated" by making successful predictions) does nothing to bolster, support, or prove a claim, belief, or theory.
Quote
According to this critique, an experiment in physics is not simply an observation, but rather an interpretation of observations by means of a theoretical framework. Furthermore, no matter how well one constructs one's experiment, it is impossible to subject an isolated single hypothesis to an experimental test. Instead, it is a whole interlocking group of hypotheses, background assumptions, and theories that is tested. This thesis has come to be known as confirmation holism. This inevitable holism, according to Duhem, renders crucial experiments impossible. More generally, Duhem was critical of Newton's description of the method of physics as a straightforward "deduction" from facts and observations.
This has strongly influenced Lakatos' criticism of Popper's Critical Rationalism (to be sure, what I quoted above is to some extent controversial, but it is attacked more convincingly from a direction opposite to naive realism), among other things.

Also in this discussion here, many seem to be convinced that they can tell apart what is information and what is misinformation, but rather obviously one writer's information is another writer's misinformation.


Edited by Lewian - April 08 2024 at 11:21
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 10:22
Originally posted by suitkees suitkees wrote:

^& ^^  This is actually a nice exemple of how information becomes misinformation:

First, it would be nice to quote the paragraph in the article that follows the one you quote, Cosmic:
Quote During the oral arguments today though, the [supreme court] justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion.

Second,
Originally posted by CosmicVibration CosmicVibration wrote:

I think most agree that censorship of truth is a serious threat to democracy.

Yes, I think so too. But what is the "truth" you are talking about? That "truth" is actually about Covid-19 misinformation and the Hunter Biden laptop story and misinformation.

Third, it is not about censorship but about pressure from the government not to avoid the spread of "truth", but to avoid the spread of lies.

Fourth, I've made a habit of checking all the source you quote, because generally they suck. From the Media Bias / Fact Check site:
Quote These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

    Overall, we rate Reclaim The Net as Right-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that align with a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing, lack of transparency, and one-sided biased reporting.

We know where you stand...
Ah, but you missed the point. You can't regulate what are lies or misinformation if they are not proven to be such. The problem with the Trump election lies is that they were proven to be unsubstantiated by 67 court cases, but the MAGA crowd still views them as fact. It's this disconnection with reality or the blatant lack of caring about the facts that is the problem.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 9050 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 09:46
Originally posted by CosmicVibration CosmicVibration wrote:

Let’s see how the Supreme Court rules on the issue.  What if Trump gets into office and has the power to influence censorship?


If Trump will get into office you will not be living in a democracy anymore. And, again, it is not about censorship - but about pressure - and it is not about truth, but about lies.

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
Archisorcerus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2709 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 09:42
^ When a spiritualist and/or conspiracy theorist "intives" you to question some things, they clandestinely mean "Think like we do.".

I have had more than enough experience and made infinitely abundant observations to understand that.

I'm a bit off-topic, though. Sorry.

Edit: This was addressed to Kees, as the person above is an example to my point. LOL

Edited by Archisorcerus - April 08 2024 at 09:54
Back to Top
CosmicVibration View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 09:40

Let’s see how the Supreme Court rules on the issue.  What if Trump gets into office and has the power to influence censorship?

https://reclaimthenet.org/biden-administration-urges-supreme-court-to-overturn-injunction-on-federal-agencies-influencing-tech-censorship
Back to Top
suitkees View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 9050 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 09:28
^& ^^  This is actually a nice exemple of how information becomes misinformation:

First, it would be nice to quote the paragraph in the article that follows the one you quote, Cosmic:
Quote During the oral arguments today though, the [supreme court] justices displayed skepticism towards a broad prohibition on governmental communications with social media platforms. They raised concerns that such a ruling could unduly restrain the government’s ability to address pressing issues.

Fletcher defended the Biden admin’s actions and framed them as the government exercising its right to “speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.” He argued that the government is entitled to communicate with social media companies to influence their content moderation decisions, as long as these interactions do not veer into coercion.

Second,
Originally posted by CosmicVibration CosmicVibration wrote:

I think most agree that censorship of truth is a serious threat to democracy.

Yes, I think so too. But what is the "truth" you are talking about? That "truth" is actually about Covid-19 misinformation and the Hunter Biden laptop story and misinformation.

Third, it is not about censorship but about pressure from the government not to avoid the spread of "truth", but to avoid the spread of lies.

Fourth, I've made a habit of checking all the source you quote, because generally they suck. From the Media Bias / Fact Check site:
Quote These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

    Overall, we rate Reclaim The Net as Right-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that align with a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sourcing, lack of transparency, and one-sided biased reporting.

We know where you stand...

Edited by suitkees - April 08 2024 at 09:29

The razamataz is a pain in the bum
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 09:01
Originally posted by CosmicVibration CosmicVibration wrote:

I think most agree that censorship of truth is a serious threat to democracy.  We are treading in very dangerous waters.

https://reclaimthenet.org/supreme-court-biden-admin-big-tech-censorship

 

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.

And that's a great example! Biden had no right to censor free speech on any social media platform. The same holds true for Trump being banned from Twitter. The 1st Amendment protecting free speech is, in my opinion, the most important guarantee of a democratic system. Once that right is lost or restricted, then democracy is over.

Edited by SteveG - April 08 2024 at 09:07
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
CosmicVibration View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 08:18

I think most agree that censorship of truth is a serious threat to democracy.  We are treading in very dangerous waters.

https://reclaimthenet.org/supreme-court-biden-admin-big-tech-censorship

 

The respondents in the case, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, and several other individuals who were subject to social media censorship, allege that the federal government had pressured platforms to block or downgrade posts on various topics, including some related to Covid and the Hunter Biden laptop story.

Several lower courts agreed with the respondents, with a district judge describing the Biden administration’s Big Tech-censorship collusion as “Orwellian” and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Biden admin likely violated the First Amendment when pushing for social media censorship.
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 08:10
Originally posted by Lewian Lewian wrote:

In many respects it is extremely hard to know the truth, and what is true is controversial even among experts, for example scientists in the same field. There is no instance that has absolute authority to distinguish information from misinformation. One implication of this is that it is also covered by the freedom of speech that somebody can call "misinformation" what is "information" to somebody else.
That is true some cases, but not in others as a lack of concrete validation for this misinformation is easily confirmed. The problem is people still believing the misinformation once they are concretely disproved. Again, See Rudy Giuliani.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21615 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 08:07
^ In proper science it is extremely easy to know the truth: You form a hypothesis, the hypothesis makes a certain prediction, you and many other scientists perform experiments to (in-)validate the hypothesis.

Unfortunately nowadays many things masquerade as science, and the way to recognise these improper hypotheses is that you cannot design any experiment to (in-)validate them. 


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 08 2024 at 08:12
Back to Top
Lewian View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 15163 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 07:51
In many respects it is extremely hard to know the truth, and what is true is controversial even among experts, for example scientists in the same field. There is no instance that has absolute authority to distinguish information from misinformation. One implication of this is that it is also covered by the freedom of speech that somebody can call "misinformation" what is "information" to somebody else.
Back to Top
CosmicVibration View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 07:33
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

The most wonderful thing about living in a democracy is the right to state your opinions without being censored. You can't yell fire in a movie theater but you can say almost anything else. There are also civil law procedures for those engaging in public misinformation. See Rudy Giuliani. A wonderful check against these koo-koos.

Yes, freedom of speech without censorship is a cornerstone of democracy.  Who currently deems things as misinformation and at what lengths do they go to suppress it?  If it’s truly not misinformation but labeled as such what happens to democracy? 


Back to Top
CosmicVibration View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 26 2014
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 1396 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 07:32

Of course, everything changes, including opinions on religion and politics.  It may be gradual or rapid, slight or considerable, but it does change over time. I bet everyone here knows of someone that changed their perspective on a religious or political matter.

Wasn’t there a chap here called Dean that went from being very religious to total atheist?
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6810 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 06:13
Originally posted by MikeEnRegalia MikeEnRegalia wrote:

^^ It's a nice analogy ... of course thermodynamic laws don't really apply on a social level, but it's probably correct to assume that since humans evolved as small groups, societies on the scale of cities, let alone nations do not automatically organise themselves in a way that makes sense, but require some guiding force by smaller groups of individuals. Without that guiding force, they fall apart (into smaller groups, which is our default mode of existence).

Entropy applies to the entire system. That said, there are islands of system evolution. Even so, the sun will become a red giant star and destroy the earth. There won't be any social systems on Earth.

 If you study powerful empires /companies/societies, you'll notice that they extract resources from less powerful societies. To build/maintain a complex system, another system must undergo chaos/entropy. 

My comment is just an addendum to your observation...which I agree with. Wink


Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 08 2024 at 06:34
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20617 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 05:58
The most wonderful thing about living in a democracy is the right to state your opinions without being censored. You can't yell fire in a movie theater but you can say almost anything else. There are also civil law procedures for those engaging in public misinformation. See Rudy Giuliani. A wonderful check against these koo-koos.
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21615 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 05:50
^^ It's a nice analogy ... of course thermodynamic laws don't really apply on a social level, but it's probably correct to assume that since humans evolved as small groups, societies on the scale of cities, let alone nations do not automatically organise themselves in a way that makes sense, but require some guiding force by smaller groups of individuals. Without that guiding force, they fall apart (into smaller groups, which is our default mode of existence).

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 08 2024 at 05:51
Back to Top
Archisorcerus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2709 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 05:47
^ I've also been affected by seeing such quarrels and/or exchange of ideas. They can be fruitful in one way or another. Yet, I wouldn't say that my perception is/was altered or changed.
Back to Top
omphaloskepsis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6810 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 05:08
Originally posted by Archisorcerus Archisorcerus wrote:

Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In my estimation, not a single soul has ever moved from their original premise or has changed their opinion on the Interwebz regarding politics or religion.

Correct. However, some youngsters can shape their views by reading such arguments/debates. It never is our goal while arguing such things, yet it can have such an advantage. Also hearing different perspectivas ain't a bad thing, methinks. I'm, thus, okay with such disputes; howbeit their absence wouldn't hurt, either. 

Also, in the past the situation was a lot worse. And I wouldn't say that I missed that knock-down drag-out era of PA. LOL


I disagree.  I've adjusted my political/religious opinions because of information that I gleaned off the internet. Human opinion is not a static thing.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates that everything changes all the time. The natural tendency of complex ordered arrangements and systems is to become simpler and more disorderly with time. For a period of time (that we call 'life"), biological organisms delay entropy by forcing other organisms to undergo entropy. 

Social and political systems are not immune.  The fall of the Roman Empire is a textbook example of a social/political system undergoing entropy.Wink  


Edited by omphaloskepsis - April 08 2024 at 05:11
Back to Top
Archisorcerus View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: February 02 2022
Location: Izmir
Status: Offline
Points: 2709 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 02:56
Originally posted by The Dark Elf The Dark Elf wrote:

In my estimation, not a single soul has ever moved from their original premise or has changed their opinion on the Interwebz regarding politics or religion.

Correct. However, some youngsters can shape their views by reading such arguments/debates. It never is our goal while arguing such things, yet it can have such an advantage. Also hearing different perspectivas ain't a bad thing, methinks. I'm, thus, okay with such disputes; howbeit their absence wouldn't hurt, either. 

Also, in the past the situation was a lot worse. And I wouldn't say that I missed that knock-down drag-out era of PA. LOL

Edited by Archisorcerus - April 08 2024 at 03:06
Back to Top
MikeEnRegalia View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21615 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: April 08 2024 at 00:40
^ Interesting perspective.

I would say that the whole thing (The West) looks more like a "racket" to me, a Mafia-like organisation. The problem is that while the original Mafia (the criminal organisation originating in southern Italy) is relatively small in comparison with a typical nation state, in the case of the global financial elite it's the other way round - they're above all other organisations (remember essentially all Western states owe trillions of dollars to them - usually more than their GDP. It's like making $1,000,000 a year and owing the bank $1,500,000 - no chance to ever pay it back). I agree that it's like a pyramid scheme, but without any possible authority above that could stop it. If anything, change would have to come from within (grass roots). That's unlikely to happen, since it's such an enormous system that it would be difficult to say where to start to properly reform it, and of course any serious opposition would be met with harsh violence, combined with media campaigns to frame the opponents as (of course) enemies of our precious "democracy". 


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - April 08 2024 at 00:57
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 21>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.133 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.