Ministry of Truth

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Burrito Wizard, Oct 25, 2022.

  1. In modern tongue they're simply called "fact checkers". They love being accompanied by curated search results on social media and search engines, censorship and shadowbans. Every single major platform and many smaller ones now implement these strategies to push narratives and to hide dissenting opinions (and FACTS).

    We once lived in a world where we allowed voices to be heard and people would decide what to believe based on their own reasoning, deduction, evidence, logic. Now the top results for anything the "fact checkers" don't want you to know will be a "fact check" saying whatever supports their narrative. Thus ensuring the lowest intelligence individuals will blindly take their word for it and get back in line.

    The term "fact checker" disgusts me. It's directly Orwellian. But I'm more disgusted by the morons that support being spoon fed narratives by big tech companies. You are the death of free speech online.
    • Like Like x 7
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  2. A Trumper who hates fact checking.


    Why aren't you supporting their right to free speech? Why do you want to control what they can and can't say? As a Trumper you sound like one of those liberal fascists.
    • Disagree Disagree x 8
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Anyone who reads what I just wrote and replies "you're a tRuMper" is a joke of a human incapable of independent thought. Orange man was never mentioned once, but I understand you need to project because he lives rent free in your brain, forever.

    I want to control what they say? Where did you get that? I said I'm against curating search results, censorship, shadowbans and self proclaimed gods of truth pushing their bullshit to the top of all social media platforms. In what world is that me wanting to censor them? I fully support everyone's free speech and at NO point did I even remotely suggest otherwise, in fact the entirety of what I said was the TOTAL opposite of what you just claimed.

    You're yawning? We're done here. You're dismissed, I'm the one that's bored with proudly ignorant and dishonest individuals such as yourself.
    • Like Like x 7
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. There is no free speech online. It's all owned by companies
    who don't have to allow anything they don't want on their platform.
    Mostly anything their advertisers don't like.

    If You don't like it, go find some little free speech platform that'll
    allow You to spew anything You like. There's Truth Social,
    oops You can't say anything bad about Trump or the company on there.
    Too bad for free speech.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ole zuckerburg admits that FB 'factcheckers' have zero training, it's just the opinion of the facebook employee on whether something is or isn't true. So if you get some 18 year old kid who doesn't know if he's a she or whatever, you get what you pay for.
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  6. #7 smokeout69, Oct 26, 2022
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2022
    Screw FB! I use G.C.....Discord...and google only few things
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. to day I met both my new neighbors at last, one who works with the web
    the other whose never ever been online in his life.
    whose the happier ???

    the latter: never been on a computer or phone but still pays high rates for his old landline
    both 27yo single and smart
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Im wanting to use the web just for CG and some shopping, Im gonna try and live without NEWS for a whole year,
    been wanting ...but when, have I the guts ???
    • Like Like x 2
  9. My old boss, one of the smartest guys I've ever met. He's got a PhD in chemistry, worked for the government/military. He got fed up in 2018 and moved to an extremely remote spot in Washington on the Canadian border on 200 acres. Inherited a crapload of money, built him a insulated shack, solar panels, wood stove, and uses starlink for the internet. His only contact is on his terms. His internet is mostly shutdown and he only makes phone calls, doesn't take them. He's near enough to a tower that he's got cell service. His only concern are bears about 8 months out of the year. He just got fed up with the world and went off the grid. I was his best friend for almost 20 years and hear from him every 2-3 months, nobody even knows really where he's at except his lawyer.
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 3
  10. See i cant handle news at all...u can do it!
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. I think most of us have been secretly trained to suck it up since child birth?
    so maybe thanks to TV we all have got an 8 minute attention span?
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Sounds like heaven to me.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Me too, I've 'sort of' done something like that here in Georgia with a getaway shack on 20 acres in the middle of nowhere... Not the same though.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. Did somebody say Trump?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. Fact checkers are the mercenaries of the internet.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. [​IMG]

    Did Orwell really say this or not? How would anyone know without some form of "fact checking"?
    He did say it btw, in his 1946 essay "why I write". This I would consider "fact" because anyone in the world can read his essay, find that quote. The experiment is repeatable with predictable results across multiple variables.
    (still though, am I really telling the truth on this, don't you feel the need to "fact check" this before registering it in your brain as a "truth" I told you anyone can verify this, whats stopping you?)

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in a world without "fact checkers" there is no truth except what someone is telling you right? Sounds to me that much of Orwell's work was a warning against what you are espousing, the denigration and discrediting of fact checkers, which allowed the the party (in the novel) to establish new truths to their liking without regard for "facts" correct?

    As its been awhile since I last read the book, I almost used this quote, as it seemed more relevant.

    I almost used this, but didn't, because I never remembered reading any passages like this in the book (although I may have forgotten) so I "fact checked"

    Turns out this text was in fact never in the book, is was a mis-quote from an article in the Guardian, which came up as the first few hits the minute I tried searching for "1984 train quote Orwell" but if you just do an image search for "1984 quote" that erroneous block of text pops up multiple times without any warning that it is false, just right there for me to copy / paste and spread to any other dumb asses out there without the capacity for critical thinking. Guardian was actually good enough to eventually publish a correction on that. Once again, take my word for it, or easily verify it yourself.


    What if I had posted this as a real quote, and no "fact checkers" caught that it was not in the book, probably a few people (depending on how far of a social influence I have) might go on to believe it and parrot it to others, until finally corrected. (and in this day and age even shoving proof into someone's face is often not enough)

    You can do this with any search engine, tailor your query to get results you want to support your argument, but I've come to realize that I may be in the significant minority of Americans at least, who when they read an especially provocative or inflammatory story, ensure they read articles from both progressive and conservatively biased sources, look at the case made by each person, and decide based upon the evidence presented.

    Remembering of course, that "eyewitness testimony" is the lowest form of evidence, if I tell you its "75F outside I was just out there" and you look out the window and see snow, would you not double check my claim against a weather forecast or just bring a thermometer outside? Is it entirely possible for two different observers to see the same event or item differently? I believe it is simply from the number of convictions based on "eyewitness testimony" that are later overturned once new evidence is found or presented that exonerates the convicted person. Once again, don't take my word for it, check another source that shows almost 70% of the several hundred cases studied where a person was convicted based on eyewitness testimony alone, were overturned.

    People also seem to forget that the burden of truth rests on the person making the claim, so if you say I was trespassing on your property last night, you are responsible for backing up that claim to the satisfaction of the police, the courts, or anyone you make that claim to. More extraordinary claims "This guys trespassing across my yard last night, while dragging 2 bodies" require more extraordinary evidence, like an actual body (or better yet both of them).
    Too many people out there imo who don't understand this, and are willing to support some theory without sufficient evidence to support it. Ultimately, I feel far too many of us (myself included) are blinded by what we "believe" to be true, rather than what the evidence and experimentation bears out.

    I would implore anyone, regardless of belief, to think critically and in such ways especially online.

    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. #18 Lawlerskates, Oct 26, 2022
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2022
    This is the case for so many people today and they don't have the ability to admit or realize it. The propaganda hits everyone at a subconscious level, in a way that is truly disturbing.
    The only reason fact checkers exist is to attack ideas from the political right. Have they ever fact checked themselves? Nope. Liberals that write those articles want to take away free speech from anyone that isn't also a liberal.
    Just because they call themselves "fact-checkers" doesn't mean they are dealing in facts. That's how they get you tricked from the get go. They present themselves as THE empirical and definitive evidence, when it is anything but that. Also if you haven't noticed, fact-checkers have an extreme political lean. No such thing as independent "fact checkers". Anyone that wants to present what they say in good faith, would never consider calling themselves fact-checkers. It's as if they're completely oblivious to the pompousness of it. Welcome to Idiocracy.
    This is simply not true. Google results have little to do with keywords that you enter. Not only that, the vast majority of arcticle results are extreme left leaning. For example, search on Google. Can black people be racist? You get one balanced view point from a blog post ( the rest of the links and articles claim, "by definition black people cannot be racist". Which is an extreme leftist perspective.

    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  18. I remember for a while people noticed if you searched "famous Americans" or something like that the first like 10 or 15 people were all black. I of course have no problem with them including famous black Americans and someone like Obama coming up would make total sense, however it was so obvious they curated it and it included people that few have ever heard of. It's sense been changed but it's just an example of the kind of agenda pushing that is done.

    They definitely push left wing articles to the top even if you specifically search things that should clearly find more right wing view points.
    Not at all. "Fact checker" is simply a (self proclaimed) label just as ministry of truth is a label. It suggests that they are always telling the truth. That's objectively not true. Many times they include highly opinionated non fact based statements in their "fact check" as well. I'm not suggesting "fact checks" are always wrong, I am stating they're not always right. They aren't gods of information but they act as if they are. People treating them as such is dangerous and highly ignorant. If we want the truth we need to be willing to find it and trust no one entity alone.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Who is "they"? Could you be more specific? I agree also that Facebook has poor fact checkers imo, I'm sure other organizations do too (could it be that facebook goes for engagement, and non-factual, bombastic stories generate more engagement, probably some studies that could be found, but to be honest I'm too lazy to support that, so chaulk it up to "wild ass guess"). I'm more than happy to agree with anyone on that point, what I can't agree with are these claims about a shadowy "they" with some sinister motive.

    However the way you frame this, it could be inferred that all fact checkers are members of this "they",which casts doubt on facts in general. I believe the proper term for this is to "muddy the waters".

    upload_2022-10-26_17-33-53.png upload_2022-10-26_17-34-9.png

    This grabs didn't come out great, but you can read them in more detail at the search bar headings
    Ranking Results – How Google Search Works
    Why your Google Search results might differ from other people - Google Search Help

    Are we right now, not politely "fact checking" each other? So long as we can be civil, I don't see an issue on two people disagreeing, and I accept that if you present hard evidence commensurate with your claims, that perhaps I was wrong.

    Also, I have no trouble turning up voter fraud by democrats, second hit, first hit is Heritage foundation, a group generally considered to be pretty conservative.
    From the text of the second hit though
    Former U.S. Congressman and Philadelphia Political Operative Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Election Fraud
    "Diamond after pleading guilty to conspiracy to deprive voters of civil rights, bribery, obstruction of justice, falsification of voting records, conspiring to illegally vote in a federal election, and for orchestrating schemes to fraudulently stuff the ballot boxes for specific Democratic candidates in the 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Pennsylvania elections. The defendant was immediately remanded into custody following today’s hearing."

    I mean, is this not factual evidence, with court records, of democrat voter fraud, or was it just not the extent of fraud many people have been looking for?

    Is the problem that its not the fraud that some believe occurred? I can try to search for results that say the world is flat too (or stacked up on a bunch or tortoises), you won't find many of them either.

    I guess, it just honestly makes me question ones intentions when the original quotes like
    That in the presence of my polite rebuttal become
    This is a true statement but it carries no weight (with me at least) without context, what percentages? Were many of these fact checkers employed by facebook, google, or another organization, if they were, that may change how results are interpreted to "Facebook fact checkers are not fact checkers" as opposed to the much broader implications of the original posts.
    Thats also a mighty tall order without some form of evidence to support the claim.

    If I told someone that dirt grown cannabis needs regular watering (or for sticklers out there, some form of h2o to absorb) to thrive, and another poster claims otherwise, and I show evidence that proves me correct, did I not "fact check" them?

    So right now, lets say I presume to call myself a "fact checker" with regards to that post, according to your statement if I call myself a "fact checker" I am no longer presenting my argument in good faith right? Did anything change except my title? Can I decide tomorrow that I'm no longer a "fact checker" and suddenly what I say is in good faith again?

    I'm just trying to narrow down the specific group of people it seems you both are upset about, because no one would want to falsely accuse someone of lying right, in my book, thats considered a "dick move".

    Now if I claim to be a "fact checker" and don't back up my claims with sufficient evidence, I should be rightfully (in the context of what I perceive as "justice") ridiculed or shamed, more so if it can be determined that I knew a claim was false and I supported it anyway.

    At no point am I trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just saying there are ways to discern the truth, use them, and reach your own conclusions, as is your right. To once again re-quote Orwell

    Whatever anyone decides to fill the 1400 or so cubic centimeters of their brain with is their prerogative, I'm just offering the way in which I judge and curate information I am exposed to, because it seems to be a rapidly declining number of people who critically examine both sides of an argument before making a judgement.

    Is there not enough hate, violence, and bullshit in the world now? Should we not all be doing our part to find the "truth" without regard to whether or not "truth" supports one's own opinion? I'm not too proud to admit I've changed my mind about something on more than one occasion when presented with sufficient evidence to discredit my formerly held belief.

    However the very nature of political and social situations can make them difficult to discern fact from opinion, which is why I'll be returning to my grow threads where I can make claims based on data and research I've personally performed. Also because its pretty time consuming to write these posts and supporting links / grabs, I'd prefer to spend my evening discussing my plants and those of other growers while smoking a fat bowl.
    Sometimes, I find it helpful to just pull back away from the argument, and re-examine it holistically, and from "different angles", but to each their own.

    Best of luck in the debate mates!

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page