Message from @caykoh
Discord ID: 519825408062128128
The message
How do you figure so? I'm doing some research as I am writing a paper on the topic
So two separate people bring to you one message each. One of them is a studied and acknowledged academic, the other is a convicted pedophile and the head of multiple ponzi schemes.
Both messages state "clean water is transparent". Which one of them is more trustworthy?
@caykoh Oh just saw this couldve pinged me
Wrong people can be right
Also the message is more important as it is what is being said compared to who said it
It does not prove it wrong for it being said by someone it is less credible based on someone previous faults and contradictions that is and should be took with a grain of salt
Sorry im tired
Ah, well, I presume a cursory assessment of both would favor the academic dude, but just a bit. Imagine if his message included a simple "h2o" mention, and the pedo didnt. However, if their message is both verbatim, extracting any character components to rely on them for trustworthiness isnt possible and k have to rely in the message . Thus , both are equal trustworthy claims of water bein g clear
@caykoh Just because someone is more studied doesnt make them right
Ultimately its whats said
I agree. So here's what really gives me friction...
If the entity issuing the message can be accurate, and thust trustworthy, regardless of its reputation or current standing, as long as the message in question maps onto the facts and data
Can the term fake news actually even exist in our vernacular?
As be im ng attributeed to the entity
Being *
If something contradicts itself or misleads it should considered less credible
Fake news story, or fake news article, I assume would be the good faith substitute
Ah glad you mention that. So...
If BBc contradicts itself today, and yes tsrday once too, does tomorrow's stories from them have less credibility already ?
Yeah
To some extent
Unless they clear it up and push an honest narrative
Instead of evade
Sk that's the messenger matterin g more than the message
No but the message caused the dent
Ultimately people want something credible but what they say is not automatically wrong
So I guess its what matters the exposure or the message
As a good reputation leads to exposure and the message is whats shown
But if two days in a row, BBC fucked up their,let's say reporting on soccer hooligans rioting, falsely claiming one side was more violent than the other. Should I be skepticle of BBC reliability and reporting the accuracy of the soccer match scores?
No because those are not related
Well you should be skeptical of anything shown to you
Just bbc even more so after that happened
You can’t spin an observable fact such as weather or match results
But just about anything else can be spun
Also do your own research
So i trust bbc weather reports but not their political analysis
I agree Largezo112, but would make a point that you can its just difficult, allege referee corruption incomtence
You can measure anger by stats or the metaphysical state
And you can spin the message to an audiences preferbce