Tennis Fan, with all due respect, you do realize that this is precisely the shortest path to open (and often irrational) conflict, right? I never heard of the guy before (and maybe this is a blessing), but by chance I payed attention to this video, and for instance, he actually addresses (and answers quite well) all your remarks on the above post. So, even if I understand that sometimes it is extremely hard to listen to people we don´t like, in this case an outside observer (yes, I am self-entitling me as one) which just watches the video and reads your post is heavily inclined to label
you as a radical. Aren´t radicals those people who just repeat the same phrases and seem just to look to a very specific part of reality? I am sure you are pretty surprised to be compared to a radical, and please do not be offended, I am not saying you are. My point is: a person can get so attached to a set of beliefs that it will blind her to a lot of things that could challenge those very beliefs. This set of beliefs can very well be a "good" one to start with, but the end of the process is far from "good".
So, if you really want to achieve something, sensibilize people and actually dialogue with people, I am sorry, but there is no other way to do it than listening to the things you
do not want to hear. Sometimes to simply disagree with them, sometimes to change your own views. What is the point in getting in to a discussion if you do not even consider the possibility of being wrong?
Anyway, I am using this just to enter the subject I really want to address. The last posts on this thread are all about fake news and stuff. Again, as I said above, I do not think this is irrelevant. But it is ironic, to say the least to see that people now are starting to question news they see... And by "now" I mean "now that one given candidate lost".
So are you guys really more worried about phony, absurd news on social media, that (I am sorry) most 14 years olds could see that are fake, than carefully and well funded stories being fabricated on established media? I admit, I am a bit under the impression of a video I saw on the "Syria" thread, which is of panel on the UN discussing Syria. It is not a Russian government agency, not an obscure website ran by some weird guy in a country whose name people cannot even pronounce. The people on the video have their agendas? Of course they do, but, as my self and
@Federberg where discussing (and agreeing), they are there, their faces and names are there, they are accountable of what they say (and you can always look for your own evidence and check their stories).
I am not saying that this fake news subject is not relevant. "Fake news" is a problem, whichever side uses it. What worries me is that one political/economic group is using this agenda to try to silence a lot of voices which are anything but "fake".
And I just remember one post from you (sorry, this is not personal, you will see why I remembered it) where you say something along the lines of "we will never know the truth behind a given fact". Well, in a lot of cases we actually can, because the sources are public. If you care enough, you can check the information for your self. C-span is there for you to watch.
I will give you an example. There is a lot going on in Brazil right now, where I live. We have a heavily divided country here, just as US. We have mainstream media and "fake" media supporting all possible sides. It is a huge information war. I chose not to believe anyone and check things for myself as far as I could. We had a very important ruling of the supreme court this week. I watched it live on TV (there is a state run TV, under the department of justice, which airs all supreme court activity). I read the previous decisions that were taken (this is public information). So now I am pretty sure I know exactly what is going on, even if, of course, I cannot follow everything that happens in background.
(Just to explain, I remembered your post because I read it precisely when I was about to write something with an opposing view. I refrained from that on the occasion just to avoid putting more fuel to the flames.)
Back to subject: And you know what? I found out that most of what is published on both sides is wrong, or biased (not exactly a surprise). By the way, here we have at least four sides: mainstream media supporting political side A, mainstream media supporting political side B (minority, yes, but exists), "independent" media supporting side A and "independent" media supporting side B.
On the other hand, things that were published or said on all sides sometimes made sense. So, all this long rant is to say one thing: the closest thing to an honest and fair coverage of the facts is this wild west of different reports, some that look fine, some that look even grotesque. The moment you start silencing voices -- be it by not listening, be it by "control" of the so called "fake media" -- is the moment that you are absolutely sure that what comes next is biased and non-representative.
And also, about the step following this: hatred.
