Message from @🌌Dougal 🌌
Discord ID: 619219021996490762
no, it makes it easy to cast DOUBT on any fact
proof via evidence takes time and energy
ABC, CBS, and NBC all had to settle lawsuits with car manufacturers.
They were apparently sticking rockets/explosives in the cars before a crash test, and then saying the cars were dangerous. You won't find this out if your only access to information is what people tell you, or what you see on the TV.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-10-mn-1335-story.html
Imagine having daughters taller than you as the father lmao
and 90% of the time you need to first CONVINCE someone to take the time to EXAMINE that evidence
otherwise, you just end up providing them with ammo to listen to what soupports their position and filter the rest
If you get your information from the TV, or from people you talk to, then you'll probably think GM fucked up super hard and made a car that's dangerous. If you get your information from the internet, it only takes one sperg to share an LA times article about how they had to settle in court because they done fucked up.
echo chambers 101
the tv is just as bad
Yeah, and people get their info from the TV.
i am not purposing the TV is better by any means
Internet is where half of the TV bullshit gets corrected, you dunce.
no, people go for information from EACH OTHER
Without internet, the TV guys could fucking lie and nobody would ever know the difference, because that one sperg who knows exactly how to prove they're full of shit has no way to share the info.
tv doesn't have the ability to instantly find what one wants to find that is rrelenvant
yes, you WOULD know the differnce
Ya how many people get their info from others on this site? Or from Athens alone? This place is a echo chamber we all post links from sites we all use and never challenge them we have our opinions and that’s it
by developing JUDGEMENT
People get challenged all the time, @Traps for Trump (Morepie).
thank you for making my point
it is JUST as easy to push a narrative if not MORE so with the internet as it is on tv
because i can provide volumes of data and video and audio to supoirt that made up narrative
on tv, there is only so much time
@ManAnimal - I'm sorry, but if I didn't have internet access I would've just assumed that the exploding car stories were true because I'd have NO WAY to fucking fact check it. Someone could fucking tell me the name of the court case, and unless I was in the mood to drive to a fucking California courthouse to personally look at the case file, I would have no fucking way to tell if they were right.
With the internet, you can pull the case file online.
Challenged by what though? Because you have a different opinion that was formed by reading or listening to fringe groups or individuals because you have a lack of trust to a news organization?
because you HAVE no judgement
Soonâ„¢
No judgement?
You mean the judgment to wanna look up a case file?
and you have no judgement because you never had to work in a vaccum
you always had an answer at your finger tips
There is no challenge. There is my side and your side and those sides were formed by opinion. Backed by facts that alone are true but added to a bigger picture don’t clear up anything
No, I didn't. There was a time when the internet wasn't available to me, and I went around like a fucking idiot blindly believing what people told me because I had no way to check for myself.
Now I do, and I'm significantly less retarded as a result.
no, judgment is what allows you to listen to a narrative and pick up on the fact the person isn't being truthful
without having concrete evidence either way
think of it this way: what type of test is harder?
...and what if the TV presenter doesn't know they're being fed a bunch of bullshit?
The TV presenter could be presenting a made up story, while having a completely honest expression on their face and absolutely zero indication that they're lying, because they also think the story is true.
1) an open book test; 2) a closed book test