The Canary, views and discussion...

[butchersapron]

...and on same.

 

[frogwoman]

Axe man threatens Jews outside synagogue sparking police pursuit

all totally harmless innit. No relationship between increasing numbers of violent antisemitic attacks and increasing prevalence of conspiracy theories on social media, obviously..

 

[Tom A]

I got slagged off in another thread for suggesting Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia fame) launching a news source to counteract fake news was a good thing since the fact-checking ethos of Wikipedia would be a good fit in ensuring that facts are put above ideology - on the grounds that Jimmy Wales is an Ayn Rand fan and therefore an Evil Free Market Promoting Scumbag (although I would readily choose fans of her over fans of David Icke any day). However, the likes of the Canary and other "alt-left" media pushing any claptrap as long as it stirs people up regardless of factual accuracy is exactly why campaigning should be rooted in reality and not trying to dishonestly dupe people by distorting - or even fabricating facts to suit the agenda. People tire of this in the end (other than the True Believers™ - see also: Indymedia) and the movement they claim to support just gets discredited. I for one would readily trust a centrist (or even right leaning) source that got its facts in order over a left source that relied on distortions, half-truths, and outright fabrications.

I can't stand the likes of The Canary, they are responsible for cultivating a pack mentality where one dare not speak ill of Corbyn and the movement around him lest they be accused of being brainwashed by/promoting right-wing disinformation. That I have recently gone back to being slightly optimistic about Corbyn is IN SPITE of those that attacked me when I was a sceptic, something that only served to confirm my doubts. The Canary is effectively the Socialist Worker for a certain type of person that does nothing to the movement but engage in endless "look how great I am" virtue signalling and promoting empty platitudes. Get it in the sea.

 

[J Ed]

The thing is that the factcheck websites like Snopes, Politifact and the Washington Post often assert that certain things are factual when in fact they are subjective, and are obviously informed by the bias of the fact checker. I don't really know what the solution to websites like The Canary is, probably a functioning media in a post-neoliberal country, but it isn't fact checking websites.

 

[butchersapron]

I got slagged off in another thread for suggesting Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia fame) launching a news source to counteract fake news was a good thing since the fact-checking ethos of Wikipedia would be a good fit in ensuring that facts are put above ideology - on the grounds that Jimmy Wales is an Ayn Rand fan and therefore an Evil Free Market Promoting Scumbag (although I would readily choose fans of her over fans of David Icke any day). However, the likes of the Canary and other "alt-left" media pushing any claptrap as long as it stirs people up regardless of factual accuracy is exactly why campaigning should be rooted in reality and not trying to dishonestly dupe people by distorting - or even fabricating facts to suit the agenda. People tire of this in the end (other than the True Believers™ - see also: Indymedia) and the movement they claim to support just gets discredited. I for one would readily trust a centrist (or even right leaning) source that got its facts in order over a left source that relied on distortions, half-truths, and outright fabrications.

I can't stand the likes of The Canary, they are responsible for cultivating a pack mentality where one dare not speak ill of Corbyn and the movement around him lest they be accused of being brainwashed by/promoting right-wing disinformation. That I have recently gone back to being slightly optimistic about Corbyn is IN SPITE of those that attacked me when I was a sceptic, something that only served to confirm my doubts. The Canary is effectively the Socialist Worker for a certain type of person that does nothing to the movement but engage in endless "look how great I am" virtue signalling and promoting empty platitudes. Get it in the sea.

So called slagging starts here.

Point still not gone into your brain.

 

[Tom A]

The thing is that the factcheck websites like Snopes, Politifact and the Washington Post often assert that certain things are factual when in fact they are subjective, and are obviously informed by the bias of the fact checker. I don't really know what the solution to websites like The Canary is, probably a functioning media in a post-neoliberal country, but it isn't fact checking websites.

However when one of "our side" pushes something that is blatant bollocks it should be called out as just that, no questions asked.

 

[butchersapron]

However when one of "our side" pushes something that is blatant bollocks it should be called out as just that, no questions asked.

But also argue that their side is just objective fact free ayn rand goodness. I'm so torn.

 

[Tom A]

Point still not gone into your brain.

I bow down to your knowledge and wisdom, which is infinitely greater than an ignorant fool like me who does silly things like putting the truth above ideology can ever be.

 

[butchersapron]

I bow down to your knowledge and wisdom, which is infinitely greater than an ignorant fool like me who does silly things like putting the truth above ideology can ever be.

You've just done it again you prat.

 

[mather]

I bow down to your knowledge and wisdom, which is infinitely greater than an ignorant fool like me who does silly things like putting the truth above ideology can ever be.

All truths concerning human affairs are mediated by ideology, that you choose one over the other simply reveals your own liberal bias.

 

[butchersapron]

Everyone else is biased but jimmy wales - one of the most highly ideologically motivated actors on the internet. You whining prat.

 

[Tom A]

All truths concerning human affairs are mediated by ideology, that you choose one over the other simply reveals your own liberal bias.

Yeah but there comes a point when you have to admit the world has proven you wrong. Example being: GM crops being considered perfectly safe by the vast majority of the scientific community and potentially a highly useful tool in ending world hunger - however the environmentalist community has still yet to acknowledge that, even a group as mainstream as Greenpeace is still stuck down that dead end. I for one refuse to deny facts just because it is politically useful to do so, because it does no good in the end.

Everyone else is biased but jimmy wales

I never said that. All I said was he would be a damn sight better than the numpties pushing dross at the likes of the Canary and Indymedia. Keep up with the insults, the really help confirm the validity of your argument.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah but there comes a point when you have to admit the world has proven you wrong. Example being: GM crops being considered perfectly safe by the vast majority of the scientific community and potentially a highly useful tool in ending world hunger - however the environmentalist community has still yet to acknowledge that, even a group as mainstream as Greenpeace is still stuck down that dead end. I for one refuse to deny facts just because it is politically useful to do so, because it does no good in the end.


I never said that. All I said was he would be a damn sight better than the numpties pushing dross at the likes of the Canary and Indymedia. Keep up with the insults, the really help confirm the validity of your argument.

I called you a prat twice -the content of your argument deserved that. As does this latest one. You've just wrote that you're prefer a biased bit of reporting that you like rather than a biased bit of reporting that you don't. Not that you don't like biased reporting.

 

[butchersapron]

I for one refuse to deny facts just because it is politically useful to do so, because it does no good in the end.

Yeah, not like them people you just made up and replied to.

 

[Tom A]

I called you a prat twice -the content of your argument deserved that. As does this latest one.

Is this how you talk to people in real life when they say something that doesn't glorify the cause to build the revolution to bring society into a great anarchist utopia?

You've just wrote that you're prefer a biased bit of reporting that you like rather than a biased bit of reporting that you don't. Not that you don't like biased reporting.

One can at least attempt to weigh up the facts and evidence and produce a report that illustrates what really happened. Human beings are flawed people but they can still try their best. Unfortunately many do their worst, and mislead people to suit their agenda.

Yeah, not like them people you just made up and replied to.

What people?

 

[butchersapron]

Is this how you talk to people in real life when they say something that doesn't glorify the cause to build the revolution to bring society into a great anarchist utopia?


One can at least attempt to weigh up the facts and evidence and produce a report that illustrates what really happened. Human beings are flawed people but they can still try their best. Unfortunately many do their worst, and mislead people to suit their agenda.


What people?

If they say something like that then fuck yeah, what a triple prat. Look at what you just wrote fffs

Of course they can, you've just said that you prefer them to fail and offer right-wing ayn rand types views then pretend that they're objective.

The MAD anti-GM poster that you invented in your reply to mather. Then trying to use that MAD person as a surrogate for all people who disagree with you. This, really, is why indymedia failed - not because of your enemies. Because you have no idea what reporting is.

 

[cantsin]

I got slagged off in another thread for suggesting Jimmy Wales (of Wikipedia fame) launching a news source to counteract fake news was a good thing since the fact-checking ethos of Wikipedia would be a good fit in ensuring that facts are put above ideology - on the grounds that Jimmy Wales is an Ayn Rand fan and therefore an Evil Free Market Promoting Scumbag (although I would readily choose fans of her over fans of David Icke any day). However, the likes of the Canary and other "alt-left" media pushing any claptrap as long as it stirs people up regardless of factual accuracy is exactly why campaigning should be rooted in reality and not trying to dishonestly dupe people by distorting - or even fabricating facts to suit the agenda. People tire of this in the end (other than the True Believers™ - see also: Indymedia) and the movement they claim to support just gets discredited. I for one would readily trust a centrist (or even right leaning) source that got its facts in order over a left source that relied on distortions, half-truths, and outright fabrications.

I can't stand the likes of The Canary, they are responsible for cultivating a pack mentality where one dare not speak ill of Corbyn and the movement around him lest they be accused of being brainwashed by/promoting right-wing disinformation. That I have recently gone back to being slightly optimistic about Corbyn is IN SPITE of those that attacked me when I was a sceptic, something that only served to confirm my doubts. The Canary is effectively the Socialist Worker for a certain type of person that does nothing to the movement but engage in endless "look how great I am" virtue signalling and promoting empty platitudes. Get it in the sea.

"gET IN tHe SEa "

gawd yr dull ....

 

[Tom A]

If they say something like that then fuck yeah, what a triple prat. Look at what you just wrote fffs

You have made wild assumptions about me, I'm making wild assumptions about you. Fair's fair. Incidentally, I still really do not know what Jimmy Wales has done to stir such hatred from you. He's not Alex Jones nor is he Andrew Breitbart. Also, for the record, I am not really a fan of Jimmy Wales, I'm indifferent to him, although grateful he started Wikipedia.

Of course they can, you've just said that you prefer them to fail and offer right-wing ayn rand types views then pretend that they're objective.

No I did not. The Canary is not attempting to do their best to "illustrate what really happened". It distorts the truth in order to attempt whip up people's moods. By the way, please inform me of any evidence that Wikitribune (which is the name of Jimmy Wales' new attempt to bust fake news) is going to be a Randist rag, otherwise you are just poisoning the well.

The MAD anti-GM poster that you invented in your reply to mather. The trying to use that MAD person as a surrogate for all people who disagree with you. This, really, is why indymedia failed - not because of your enemies. Because you have no idea what reporting is.

Greenpeace are still opposed to GM crops. An anti-GM stance is still considered mainstream among the environmentalist movement. Environmentalists of all stripes are still doing somersaults trying to justify that stance, discrediting the movement in the process. The case study of how people allow ideology to run roughshod over facts still stands.

I could also give other examples of how ignoring the facts because of ideology has had negative consequences, such as the influence of Trofim Lysenko and his pseudoscientific beliefs on Soviet agricultural policy under Stalin, the Catholic Church rejecting Copernicus' revelation that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa, oh, and one that all people on the left (and even possibly some on the centre these days) can agree on, that economic growth will be infinite and without end, defying the rules of gravity, and will eventually trickle down to support even the poorest of people in the world.

Indymedia failed because of power struggles within the collective, a serious lack of quality control on the newswire and a failure to adapt to the rise of social media, which had a much greater outreach than Indymedia could ever hope for.

 

[butchersapron]

You have made wild assumptions about me, I'm making wild assumptions about you. Fair's fair. Incidentally, I still really do not know what Jimmy Wales has done to stir such hatred from you. He's not Alex Jones nor is he Andrew Breitbart. Also, for the record, I am not really a fan of Jimmy Wales, I'm indifferent to him, although grateful he started Wikipedia.


No I did not. The Canary is not attempting to do their best to "illustrate what really happened". It distorts the truth in order to attempt whip up people's moods. By the way, please inform me of any evidence that Wikitribune (which is the name of Jimmy Wales' new attempt to bust fake news) is going to be a Randist rag, otherwise you are just poisoning the well.


Greenpeace are still opposed to GM crops. An anti-GM stance is still considered mainstream among the environmentalist movement. Environmentalists of all stripes are still doing somersaults trying to justify that stance, discrediting the movement in the process. The case study of how people allow ideology to run roughshod over facts still stands.

I could also give other examples of how ignoring the facts because of ideology has had negative consequences, such as the influence of Trofim Lysenko and his pseudoscientific beliefs on Soviet agricultural policy under Stalin, the Catholic Church rejecting Copernicus' revelation that the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa, oh, and one that all people on the left (and even possibly some on the centre these days) can agree on, that economic growth will be infinite and without end, defying the rules of gravity, and will eventually trickle down to support even the poorest of people in the world.

I've responded to what you're wrote and what you've said about yourself on here. You literally offered a jimmy wales (a highly ideologically motivated actor) as one way out of the reality of biased news. It's there that you did. and now you say that you have no idea who he is or what he believes.

I've not defended the canary (the opposite in fact) or counterposed it to whatever you think is good. I've said a) that your posts on that other thread are naive and stupid and your re-telling is disingenuous.

Also, you've just done it again - go on about fucking Greenpeace if someone here is arguing their daft point against you. They're not.

Lysenko? Lysenko vs Jimmy wales. Fuck me.

 

[Tom A]

I've responded to what you're wrote and what you've said about yourself on here. You literally offered a jimmy wales (a highly ideologically motivated actor) as one way out of the reality of biased news. It's there that you did. and now you say that you have no idea who he is or what he believes.

ONE way out - "one" being the operative word there. I thought it was a promising idea given how Wikipedia has become such a useful tool, you immediately poured scorn on it going all "boo hiss Jimmy Wales". By the way, I have still yet to see evidence that this project is going to be nothing but an outlet for propaganda for Wales' beloved Ayn Rand.

I've not defended the canary (the opposite in fact) or counterposed it to whatever you think is good.

Nor have I wanted any non-Randists and/or non-fans of Jimmy Wales who "attempt to weigh up the facts and evidence and produce a report that illustrates what really happened" to fail as you accused me of. The more people out there seeking the truth above all else the merrier.

Also, you've just done it again - go on about fucking Greenpeace if someone here is arguing their daft point against you. They're not.

It was a point about how ideology leads people to ignore important facts. I never accused anyone on here of making that particular point, in fact I was taking it as a given that people here generally disagree with Greenpeace's stance on GM crops.

Lysenko? Lysenko vs Jimmy wales. Fuck me.

At least Wikipedia never worked to incorporate pesudoscience into the official policy of a state.

 

[butchersapron]

ONE way out - "one" being the operative word there. I thought it was a promising idea given how Wikipedia has become such a useful tool, you immediately poured scorn on it going all "boo hiss Jimmy Wales". By the way, I have still yet to see evidence that this project is going to be nothing but an outlet for propaganda for Wales' beloved Ayn Rand.


Nor have I wanted any non-Randists and/or non-fans of Jimmy Wales who "attempt to weigh up the facts and evidence and produce a report that illustrates what really happened" to fail as you accused me of. The more people out there seeking the truth above all else the merrier.


It was a point about how ideology leads people to ignore important facts. I never accused anyone on here of making that particular point, in fact I was taking it as a given that people here generally disagree with Greenpeace's stance on GM crops.


At least Wikipedia never worked to incorporate pesudoscience into the official policy of a state.

That you think a hardcore ayn rand idelogical warrior is one way out is the point. It's not one way out and supporting it does not equate to carefully balancing each side blah fucking blah. You have no idea how media bias operates and what produces it.

It was a point directed to a specific poster designed to make that poster stand in for everyone who disagrees with you - the same as lysenko. It's lazy dishonest and you shouldn't do it.

 

[J Ed]

We need an Urban75 fact checking site

 

[Tom A]

That you think a hardcore ayn rand idelogical warrior is one way out is the point. It's not on way out and supporting it does not equate to carefully balancing each side blah fucking blah. You have no idea how media bis operates and what produces it.

Yeah, whatever. Unfortunately for you I have long since abandoned the notion that four legs (revolutionary socialism, anarchism, etc) good, two legs (social democracy, liberalism) bad, especially since all the anarchists and "revolutionary" socialists are becoming more and more irrelevant to society by the day - especially the anarchists.

It was a point directed to a specific poster designed to make that poster stand in for everyone who disagrees with you - the same as lysenko. It's lazy dishonest and you shouldn't do it.

It was nothing of the sort. You just want it to be so because I refuse to fall in line.

 

[Tom A]

We need an Urban75 fact checking site

I could go with that.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah, whatever. Unfortunately for you I have long since abandoned the notion that four legs (revolutionary socialism, anarchism, etc) good, two legs (social democracy, liberalism) bad, especially since all the anarchists and "revolutionary" socialists are becoming more and more irrelevant to society by the day - especially the anarchists.

That's 'unfortunate' for me? It's no skin off my nose. Join labour -have an easy path to point out your personal relevance.

 

[Tom A]

That's 'unfortunate' for me? It's no skin off my nose.

Unfortunate in the sense that your attempt to get me to denounce the Devil Jimmy Wales and his Whore of Babylon Ayn Rand has utterly failed - in fact it was doomed by all the sneering insults you sent my way.

Join labour -have an easy path to point out your personal relevance.

I might just do that. Been put off by the small but loud group of idiots that claim to support Corbyn (including those who run a 'news' site that forms the very subject of this thread) but embarrass both him and themselves, however I acknowledge they aren't the whole of the movement to get left wing politics in government and making left wing policies. Then there's the fact I'll be forever butting heads with the Labour right, but then that is probably no worse than the recent arguments I have had with certain people on certain message boards.

 

[NoXion]

The thing is that the factcheck websites like Snopes, Politifact and the Washington Post often assert that certain things are factual when in fact they are subjective, and are obviously informed by the bias of the fact checker. I don't really know what the solution to websites like The Canary is, probably a functioning media in a post-neoliberal country, but it isn't fact checking websites.

Can't say I've seen any examples for myself (I'm mainly familiar with Snopes), but nevertheless if certain studies are to be believed, then presenting facts does nothing to shift the positions of the ideologically committed, and may in fact further reinforce them.

Different strategy required, then.

 

[Tom A]

Can't say I've seen any examples for myself (I'm mainly familiar with Snopes), but nevertheless if certain studies are to be believed, then presenting facts does nothing to shift the positions of the ideologically committed, and may in fact further reinforce them.

Different strategy required, then.

Providing the facts about immigration certainly did not cause people to turn away from anti-immigrant opinions or discourage them from voting UKIP and swinging the result for Brexit. I have seen numerous attempts on social media to alter the minds of people by providing them with statistics which illustrate the true situation and the track record of such an approach is not good. What doesn't help in such a case is people are provided with so much bullshit passing itself as data, such as the election leaflets which say "The Tories/Greens/Labour can't win here - only the Lib Dems can beat the Tories/Labour" which carried on even after the Lib Dems started having difficulty campaigning their way out of a paper bag. Of course people may just plainly not trust the source of the data, if they are people who have struggled to survive under government policy then anything from the government becomes dubious - remember that their economists failed to predict the whole premise of the economy going belly up when the sub-prime loans shit hit the fan. Then of course we should all be struggling under the yoke of Theresa May's landslide majority if opinion polls up to a few weeks before the election are to believed. Trust in the mainstream media of whatever political stripe is at an all time low and sinking lower, meanwhile "alternatives" flourish regardless of what wild claims they promote as news, and fake news gets circulated throughout social media.

Those that have their views set in stone are not likely to change their minds from outside persuasion, extreme cases being Flat Earthers, Creationists and 9/11 "Truthers" (the last one of course doing a lot to sully the word "truth"). All that can be done is to mitigate the potential harm such people can cause and encourage those in the middle to see things differently. However rationality and objectivism should not be thrown out of the window just because pushing sensationalist hype will give you an extra hundred thousand clicks. Also if you find something on a fact-checking website that doesn't tell the whole story, provide that extra part of the story, just don't go distorting and fabricating evidence to push your agenda - it's dishonest and hackish.

 

[frogwoman]

We need an Urban75 fact checking site

I'm thinking of writing a fact checking guide tbh.

 

[Kaka Tim]

didn't know wiki-bloke was a randist.

I think wikipedia is one of the best things on the internet - although its fucked pub quizzes.