Trump is the one who didnt move on and accept facts. As a pretend American and provocateur who gets his basis of understanding and opinion from youtube, what is your knowlege and understanding of Adlai Stevenson?It was a protest. Some rioted. They've been punished. Move on or don't. Doesn't make a bloody difference.
Go vote for what you want. I have :)
Dax pretends to be American, they’re not?Trump is the one who didnt move on and accept facts. As a pretend American and provocateur who gets his basis of understanding and opinion from youtube, what is your knowlege and understanding of Adlai Stevenson?
The belief that the perspective of every side of an issue deserves equal—and continual—consideration, most often with the implicit endorsement of there being some validity and/or merit to each, is one of the most damaging developments in society.That was how the BBC lost the plot over Brexit.
Balance experts with loonies, and balance truth with lies.
100% agreeThe belief that the perspective of every side of an issue deserves equal—and continual—consideration, most often with the implicit endorsement of there being some validity and/or merit to each, is one of the most damaging developments in society.
Even otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people have been taken in by that nonsense, which has lead to insane and/or malicious people gaining exposure and following that would have likely never happened in previous generations.
Not all perspectives and opinions hold the same validity, nor are all worthy of (especially continual) consideration, for the same reason that you wouldn’t be asking (and intently listening to) random people on the street for their opinion on your cancer diagnosis, or where you should invest your pension, or the best way to build half mile suspension bridge.
One of the biggest downsides to the democratisation of information (which, in isolation, has huge benefits to society, even if they can be destabilising) is the mad belief that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and valuable and therefore should be (repeatedly) platformed. The “free market of ideas” is another tragically flawed theory of information that also fundamentally underestimated (and misunderstand) the new dynamics of socialisation and behaviour that would come with the adoption of the internet.
It has lead us to MAGA, Brexit, the Palestinian Genocide, dictator democracies, and many other horrible movements, events, and situations.
That was how the BBC lost the plot over Brexit.
Balance experts with loonies, and balance truth with lies.
Oh.It was a protest. Some rioted. They've been punished. Move on or don't. Doesn't make a bloody difference.
Go vote for what you want. I have :)
You should send that to the BBC who are the worst example of the phenomenon…….and we effing pay for it.The belief that the perspective of every side of an issue deserves equal—and continual—consideration, most often with the implicit endorsement of there being some validity and/or merit to each, is one of the most damaging developments in society.
Even otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people have been taken in by that nonsense, which has lead to insane and/or malicious people gaining exposure and following that would have likely never happened in previous generations.
Not all perspectives and opinions hold the same validity, nor are all worthy of (especially continual) consideration, for the same reason that you wouldn’t be asking (and intently listening to) random people on the street for their opinion on your cancer diagnosis, or where you should invest your pension, or the best way to build half mile suspension bridge.
One of the biggest downsides to the democratisation of information (which, in isolation, has huge benefits to society, even if they can be destabilising) is the mad belief that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and valuable and therefore should be (repeatedly) platformed. The “free market of ideas” is another tragically flawed theory of information that also fundamentally underestimated (and misunderstand) the new dynamics of socialisation and behaviour that would come with the adoption of the internet.
It has lead us to MAGA, Brexit, the Palestinian Genocide, dictator democracies, and many other horrible movements, events, and situations.
Aye, got to have 'balance', haven't we? For every person who's dedicated their life to researching something, we've got to have a moron who's done a quick Google search and thinks that counts as research.You should send that to the BBC who are the worst example of the phenomenon…….and we effing pay for it.
The problem the BBC have is that unless some people just have a constant diet of their own viewpoint reflected back at them they scream bias as they want it to be like their social media pages where by 'blocking' and 'following' according to their views a false reality is created.You should send that to the BBC who are the worst example of the phenomenon…….and we effing pay for it.
There is no harm in exposing people to all sorts of views as long as you equip them to think for themselves through education. Once you find yourself wanting to filter or police views it suggests either a weakness in the opposing arguments or in that education. Probably a bit of both.The belief that the perspective of every side of an issue deserves equal—and continual—consideration, most often with the implicit endorsement of there being some validity and/or merit to each, is one of the most damaging developments in society.
Even otherwise intelligent, thoughtful people have been taken in by that nonsense, which has lead to insane and/or malicious people gaining exposure and following that would have likely never happened in previous generations.
Not all perspectives and opinions hold the same validity, nor are all worthy of (especially continual) consideration, for the same reason that you wouldn’t be asking (and intently listening to) random people on the street for their opinion on your cancer diagnosis, or where you should invest your pension, or the best way to build half mile suspension bridge.
One of the biggest downsides to the democratisation of information (which, in isolation, has huge benefits to society, even if they can be destabilising) is the mad belief that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and valuable and therefore should be (repeatedly) platformed. The “free market of ideas” is another tragically flawed theory of information that also fundamentally underestimated (and misunderstand) the new dynamics of socialisation and behaviour that would come with he adoption of the internet.
It has lead us to MAGA, Brexit, the Palestinian Genocide, dictator democracies, and many other horrible movements, events, and situations.