Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I have pointed out in the history forum, there is factual history and there is also myth building, required for maintaining a positive identity of a group or country. Your last sentence is an example:
There was a vote of approval of a final draft of a document on July 4th 1776, but over time it has been corrupted into myth that it was signed then.
...
OK, I actually knew that the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed on 7/4/1776 and that in fact some delegates didn't sign right away. But it was officially adopted on that date. (Fun fact: King George III would have recognized 7/4 as July 4. Britain didn't switch to the European dd/mm format until the 20th century).
There's quite a bit of separation between someone believing the document was "signed" on that date, and an adult American who has no clue that anything of significance happened on that date.
Still, I take it you agree with me that most people are apt to hold a worldview and it takes a lot to change that. Earlier in this thread I went recounted my own journey from Socialism in the 1970's, through Libertarianism, then NeoCon Globalism, to populism. I don't know what might come next for me, but I reserve the right to change my mind or not change it.
OK, I actually knew that the Declaration of Independence wasn't signed on 7/4/1776 and that in fact some delegates didn't sign right away. But it was officially adopted on that date. (Fun fact: King George III would have recognized 7/4 as July 4. Britain didn't switch to the European dd/mm format until the 20th century).
There's quite a bit of separation between someone believing the document was "signed" on that date, and an adult American who has no clue that anything of significance happened on that date.
Still, I take it you agree with me that most people are apt to hold a worldview and it takes a lot to change that. Earlier in this thread I went recounted my own journey from Socialism in the 1970's, through Libertarianism, then NeoCon Globalism, to populism. I don't know what might come next for me, but I reserve the right to change my mind or not change it.
The two examples I cited were simply low hanging fruit that are out of reach of "the masses" (whatever that means). For all I know, you could be an expert on the convention.
...Then there is the myth within the document itself - "We, the people" For a majority of U.S. citizens asked, you will get a response that it meant everyone. Errrr... no. It meant white males of European (specifically English) descent who owned land and had "rights." The humans who were not people were - women, children, slaves, natives, indentured servants and other workers, and probably others that I am missing.
The myth was important to the development of the country, and it is only recently that the laws even come close to filling the rhetoric. Myth and reality both have value, provided there is some balance. As you point out, some understanding of the roots of the nation are important to a voting public, if the myth is to be made real.
Humanity is a work in progress. Any true democratic republic is also a work in progress. One of the beginning parts of critical thinking is being able to discern self-serving lies from the rhetoric of moral calls to arms.
That particular issue remains unresolved. The exact origin is dubious.
The issue is still hotly contested.
…
“What do scientists think?
A World Health Organization (WHO) investigation was supposed to get to the bottom of it, but many experts believed it produced more questions than answers.
A team of WHO-appointed scientists flew to Wuhan in early 2021 on a mission to investigate the source of the pandemic. After spending 12 days there, which included a visit to the laboratory, the team concluded the lab-leak theory was "extremely unlikely".”
Want to make a comment regarding one of your links and its quote from the link above
FWIW - you may completely disregard the conclusion of that so called WHO commission as it was chaired by a business owner who was paid by our NIH and our Department of Defense to arrange the coronavirus research (gain of function?)in the above mentioned lab and to channel money to the lab through his company.
It is a fact. He is on a payroll of TPTB. The conclusion can not be trusted and is irrelevant due to his involvement.
The media thinks the general population is stupid and easily manipulated. I surmise they are right.
Well, the average intelligence isn’t that high. What about a lower third percentile of the population?
A lack of education, inquisitiveness, motivation to verify the suggested explanations - and the results we are seeing in this country and the world.
We don’t meet very many people who are acutely aware that they are stupid.
Everyone thinks that they are very smart..
Is our OP thinks that they got “it”?
In addition, worker-bees who are busy with their daily struggles and family life have no time, energy to discern lies/omissions, partial truth from the facts.
It is easy to turn on TV/media outlets to get a regurgitated “analysis” by talking heads - that gives people an illusion that they are well informed.
The whole premise of K.Marx work “Das Kapital” was that the workers in their daily struggle to survive their exploitation can’t comprehend their status quo and find a solution to end the exploitation.
It is intelligentsia’s role to enlighten them.
It is quite an interesting phenomenon of friendship between Engels -the capitalist who financed the work of his friend Marx - the economist, predicting how the capitalism will end…
From a psychology’s point of view how it is done:
the book “Propaganda” was written nearly 100 years ago - in 1928. Still valid, but how many are even aware of it or read it?
Last edited by L00k4ward; 04-15-2023 at 08:14 PM..
I check out multiple news outlets and websites. I never base my final decision about an issue on hearsay or just one website or news outlet, so if something is a lie, it's going to come out fast if you visit multiple sites and check out background information on the topic. The more you read about something, the faster you will pick up the lies and see what sounds too good to be true or what's being refuted in another place. For example, if one site says the economy is roaring along like a supersonic train yet the financial sites are telling you about the impending downslide, then obviously there's a lie in there...it can't be both ways...I look for inconsistent information.
People believe fake information or lie because they aren't well informed and don't really care about digging for the truth. It takes time to investigate an issue. For example, climate change. I don't just gullibly believe what's on mainstream media; I want to investigate it myself and it would take me a year of reading books and digging into websites to bring myself up to speed on the truth of this topic. It was never a priority topic for me.
When you've been on this Earth for a while, you discover that "expert" often has no meaning. People throw that word around ALL THE TIME. I think you would be better off listening to older people who were actually there.
I notice this quite a bit, and especially with older people. I think they lived during a period when you could easily BS your way through life and it was hard to verify facts in a pinch. But today, so much information is easily accessible and can be found in 2 minutes! Even when corrected with links and evidence proving the contrary, so many of them double down instead of taking a step back, re-evaluating their previously held views, and admitting ignorance. Why is there not more shame and embarrassment from this behavior?
Some people are just liars. They lie about everything, even if it can be easily verified. When confronted about it, they lie again. I knew a guy like this years ago. He would lie about events that took place with people we both knew and were in recent contact with. I don't know the name for it, it seems to be a psychological condition. I stopped communicating with him, because I never knew if he was telling the truth about anything.
Can you name a news source anywhere that is unbiased?
We’ve had these discussions on the politics forum for a long time.
I don't think you can remove absolute bias from any source, but there are certainly some that are more centrist or fact-based reporting. Here are a couple different media bias charts that you can peruse at your convenience.
Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases. That insight can help you understand what perspectives sources bring as they share the news. That insight also might help you understand what perspectives you might be missing as a news consumer.
But use them with caution. Political bias isn’t the only thing news consumers should look out for. Reliability is critical, too, and the accuracy and editorial standards of organizations play an important role in sharing informative, useful news.
Media bias charts are a media literacy tool. They offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. But to best inform yourself, you need a full toolbox.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
