Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Mo_reese]

Beware of those offering to protect us from misinformation.
To fight misinformation we need to seek a variety of sources recognizing that sources all have agendas and they might not be to seek the truth. Independent journalists are more apt to be truthful than corporate sponsored media. The establishment will try to silence agendas contrary to their own. They will use their massive resources to buy and control medias like Twitter or ban others like Tik-Tok.
It seems to me that the big concern of the establishment about misinformation has grown as the number of independent journalists and non-corporate controlled social media outlets have grown. The establishment appears to be running scared and are "offering" to help us by censoring what they label as misinformation.
With regard to misinformation, I feel that the New York Times is much more dangerous than Fox News. Fox News is out in the open with their obvious misinformation while the NYT relies on their reputation (rightly or not) and their deviousness. The NYT favors the establishment as does 95% of American media.

[Sy Borg]

Thing is, it's alright not to care.

I disagree.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Are you saying that you would beat me in a caring contest? Bully for you.

A solid piece of virtue signalling, which - like all virtue signalling - is meaningless since you can't possibly care about the 300 million+ people in grinding poverty, suicide rates rapidly climbing due to widespread growing despair, and many millions of animals suffering gruesome deaths every day. You don't care because you can't care. The scope is vastly beyond you, if you are to be honest.

Actually, I do care about all those people. But your point is valid and correct. It's like the care must be diluted for each person, in order to reach all of them at once. It can't be as ... caring when there are so many involved.

You cannot care about those you don't know. You can have moments of sentimentality and send a relative pittance in charity that will change nothing, but that's it.

The term virtue signalling refers to the act of expressing opinions or stances that align with popular moral values, often through social media, with the intent of demonstrating one's good character. While the expression might sometimes be sincere, it is frequently used pejoratively to suggest that the person is more concerned with appearing virtuous than with actually supporting the cause or belief in question.

If this is the meaning of that phrase, I deny it, and express my sorrow at your lack of care; in this case, for me. You judge my actions too harshly and, it seems, with ill intent. You have no idea what I care about, or why. But I really don't like one of my core beliefs to be trivialised and devalued as you have done here. Please don't do it again. Thanks.

Your core beliefs are to care more than other people do? Do you see others who care less than you do - who have different core beliefs - as being less good than you, less ethical? Perhaps you see this as having a greater qualification to adjudicate on misinformation?

As for "ill intent", it seems you have been infected with today's penchant for taking offence. Yes, I'm calling you out for affectations and maintaining double-standards, but not damning you as a human being. I can be abrasive, weird and annoying, and I have worse navigation skills than anyone I've ever known (aside from my late mother). So what? None of us are perfect.

We all emerge from the Earth, bumble around in various ways for a while, and then return. Somehow this process has run over billions of years from igneous rocks and minerals to today's humanity and wildlife. Thus, all the suckiness - wars, injustices, inequalities, violence, cruelty, selfishness and denials of freedom of movement and speech, ultimately worked out for the best (unless one thinks like Benetar).

At no stage has the Pale Blue Dot baulked at putting its emanations through the grinder in its relentless entropic quest for equilibrium while under a barrage of solar and cosmic rays. So it's rather a waste of energy to always bemoan that brute fact.

I used to think very much like you. I know I was virtue signalling. I wanted to be trusted as a "good person" so I tried really hard. Then I found out that I was not so good in a relative sense, that people I assumed to be less virtuous because they were less ostensibly caring than me had their own virtues, often above and beyond my own in a practical sense. It's performative.

Ultimately, most people are good (unless they are denied nine meals, of course) because large societies out-competed smaller ones. Large societies have been selected. Large societies need mostly cooperative denizens to exist. So "nice" people are the norm today - we have been selected.

Of course - people being people - they sometimes compete, trying to be the nicest of the nice. Then they die, and are replaced by a new batch of nice people.

So no, like most others, I don't care about those in faraway lands, other than the occasional sentimental twinge at the mainstream media's endless stream of distorted horrors, designed to manipulate our inherent negativity bias. I suspect the situation is not actually so different with you. It depends on how much we identify with our sentimental twinges.

[Good_Egg]

Seems to me likely that everyone cares more for people they know as people, than for people they know only as statistics in the news. That's not good or bad, just how we're made. (*)

But there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.
That's the Big Lie here.

And it's so entrenched that any assertion of caring in the abstract has acquired overtones of claiming a virtue that one's political opponents lack.

Which may be far from what Pattern-chaser intends here. But that's how it comes across.

Maybe a separate thread is needed to adequately debunk that particular Big Lie ?

And in the meantime maybe we need to find a form of words for expressing how we care for each other as fellow-humans in a stressful world that steers well clear of that political sense of the word ?

‐----------------
* arguably one of the problems of our modern world is that we're taught to care more about suffering that is widespread and visual in far corners of the world than for less-visible forms of suffering amongst our neighbours up the street.

[Sy Borg]

In the end, if the left or right have control of a misinformation apparatus, injustices will happen. Both the left and the right have their delusions and cognitive dissonances - from hardworking people being presented as greedy and evil to embryos being seen as people.

The chances of a misinformation control system being objective, never slanting one way or another? Hmmm.

[chewybrian]

In the end, if the left or right have control of a misinformation apparatus, injustices will happen. Both the left and the right have their delusions and cognitive dissonances - from hardworking people being presented as greedy and evil to embryos being seen as people.

The chances of a misinformation control system being objective, never slanting one way or another? Hmmm.

If you want to lose all hope of humanity ever being objective, take a look at the issue on the ballot in Ohio which purports to "end gerrymandering". We might all agree that ending gerrymandering would be a good thing, but that's where illusions of objectivity end.

A bipartisan screening panel of four retired judges will review and screen applicants
The judge panel will review 90 applicants
30 from the largest political party
30 from the second largest political party
30 independents
The judge panel will then narrow applicants down to 45 finalists
15 from each pool
The judge panel will randomly draw six applicants from these finalists, and select the remaining nine commissioners.

They haven't agreed to *BE* objective in the slightest sense when they draw the districts, but only to set up battle lines that give the appearance of a fair fight. As tortured and petty and human as that reads, at least there is some attempt at objectivity, though.

However, it's easy to lose hope for humanity when reading the language of the proposal. The ballot language was written by the Republican Secretary of State and approved by the 5 member committee consisting of himself and two from each party (guess how they voted to approve the language!). The language on the ballot makes it appear that the proposal would do the exact opposite of what it would do, saying it would "require gerrymandering" and "repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering", etc. Nobody without skin in the game would even want to pretend that lying to the voters and attempting to confuse them into voting against their own interest or preference is fair or morally correct or "objective". It's a tell that whatever allegedly fair system might be enacted will simply become the new battleground where these folks will do anything and everything to advance themselves at the expense of justice, rather than pursuing justice.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are you saying that you would beat me in a caring contest? Bully for you.

[...]

You cannot care about those you don't know.

[...]

Your core beliefs are to care more than other people do?

[...]

I used to think very much like you. I know I was virtue signalling. I wanted to be trusted as a "good person"...

[...]

Once again, you tell me what I think, and explain my motivations, etc, for the things I get up to. You assert, with no apparent justification, your own beliefs. Beliefs, not about the world, but your corrections to my beliefs, that I apparently cannot express correctly for myself. It seems I don't actually believe ... what I actually believe...

It would be nice if, instead, you listened to my account of what I think, and why. When it comes to my opinions, I think it is, er, my opinions that must dominate. Unless I am lying to you about those opinions (I'm not), they are not subject to challenge. I can be wrong, like everyone, but that's beside the point.

It's difficult to discuss anything with someone who tells you that your own impression of your own opinions is ... mistaken. How is it that you know, so much better than I do, what I think and believe? Where does this knowledge and insight come from?

[Lagayascienza]

Doesn't sound fair to me. How did they ever agree to it?

But it's what goes on. It's hard to ensure fair elections when the political tribes themselves write the rules and stack the courts in their favor. The US needs a body of federal law and an independent regulatory body capable of overseeing the election count. It needs a regulatory body with real oversight and which could prevent gerrymandering, ballot stuffing and the Electoral College shenanigans that goes on. Without that, it's a circus.

[Lagayascienza]

The censorship of misinformation cannot be done in a democracy. There is no inerrant regulatory body that could decide what constitutes misinformation, or which could do so quickly enough to prevent its publication. If we are talking about the expression of opinion, then that cannot be regulated at all, whether opinions are expressed in private or in public. And we should not want to regulate it. The powerful propaganda machines of NAZI Germany and Soviet Russia effectively shut down the expression of opposing opinions and that did not end well for them or for the world.

Political parties and the corporate controlled media will always use information selectively and put their own spin on it, or resort to “alternative” facts. But, with honest reporting and history writing, the truth has a way of getting out sooner or later. Maybe that’s the best we can do.

[Pattern-chaser]

there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.

There is an extent to which this is true. The left, in general, care about society, about others as well as themselves. While the right can often focus on individual needs and desires. But that still leaves us a long way from left-caring, right-not-caring.

...any assertion of caring in the abstract has acquired overtones of claiming a virtue that one's political opponents lack.

Which may be far from what Pattern-chaser intends here. But that's how it comes across.

And perhaps this is a form of misinformation?

There are many people who consider outward, superficial (?), appearance is of paramount importance. I do not judge such people; I simply observe that there are many people who hold such views.

But it is a mistake, IMO, to judge *everyone* as if they were so inclined. I, for a start, do not think in that way. I never have. I like to think I never will, either. And I deeply resent my personal qualities being misjudged in that way. I resent being told that I *am* such a person, when I am very much *NOT*. Most of all, I resent any assertion that I don't know my own mind, and that I believe in something I strongly oppose.

[chewybrian]

there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.

There is an extent to which this is true. The left, in general, care about society, about others as well as themselves. While the right can often focus on individual needs and desires. But that still leaves us a long way from left-caring, right-not-caring.

If I was a right leaner, I think I would explain caring in terms of caring about others' freedoms. I don't know if I'd call it ego or what, but the right seems, in general, to think they have the right answers. So, I will take them at their word if they say they want everyone to be free to pursue their own choices, and that sometimes leaves people out in the cold as a side effect, I guess. I think they might fairly label me naive, but I don't think that someone who wants to house the homeless or some such thing always deserves a label of 'virtue signaler'. I don't have the means to house the homeless, as Elon Musk does (and he promised to do so and reneged). Yet, that doesn't mean the only motive left for me is "look at me; I care and you don't!".

For example, I'd like to see very strong labels and warnings on our food and extra tax on harmful food products to pay for their costs to society. Yes, go get your 96 ounce Mountain Dew and a bag of Cheetos if you want, but at least be forewarned and perhaps penalized, as you would be when buying cigarettes. I don't see these warnings or taxes as infringement of my rights, but as reasonable responses to dangers and the costs of the harm these products cause.

I think the real right leaners would tend to assume that they know (or should/could know) all about the dangers of Mountain Dew, and project that belief onto others who possibly don't rate on the understanding scale. I don't suspect that they don't care about the losers, but just that they feel the information is out there and most folks should be able to make an informed choice. They probably, presumably sincerely, think that the cost of any lost freedom 'trumps' the possible payback of any safeguards we might wish to impose.

But it is a mistake, IMO, to judge *everyone* as if they were so inclined. I, for a start, do not think in that way. I never have. I like to think I never will, either. And I deeply resent my personal qualities being misjudged in that way. I resent being told that I *am* such a person, when I am very much *NOT*. Most of all, I resent any assertion that I don't know my own mind, and that I believe in something I strongly oppose.

It's ironic that you would get wrapped up in that bundle by mistake or on purpose. I've never encountered anyone more committed to the truth and so diligent in investigating their own motives. I would seek your counsel in any case in which I wanted an 'objective' answer, while realizing there is no such thing. If I ever encounter someone more diligent in the future, then I might ask them first.

[Mo_reese]

There are many people who consider outward, superficial (?), appearance is of paramount importance. I do not judge such people; I simply observe that there are many people who hold such views.

But it is a mistake, IMO, to judge *everyone* as if they were so inclined. I, for a start, do not think in that way. I never have. I like to think I never will, either. And I deeply resent my personal qualities being misjudged in that way. I resent being told that I *am* such a person, when I am very much *NOT*. Most of all, I resent any assertion that I don't know my own mind, and that I believe in something I strongly oppose.

I agree with you and it seems to me that trying to judge the "personal qualities" of other posters will most likely result in misinformation.

[Mo_reese]

It's ironic that you would get wrapped up in that bundle by mistake or on purpose. I've never encountered anyone more committed to the truth and so diligent in investigating their own motives. I would seek your counsel in any case in which I wanted an 'objective' answer, while realizing there is no such thing. If I ever encounter someone more diligent in the future, then I might ask them first.

With my limited experience here, I would agree with this except that I don't see it as "ironic", but that's me.

[Mo_reese]

Seems to me likely that everyone cares more for people they know as people, than for people they know only as statistics in the news. That's not good or bad, just how we're made. (*)

But there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.
That's the Big Lie here.

And it's so entrenched that any assertion of caring in the abstract has acquired overtones of claiming a virtue that one's political opponents lack.

Which may be far from what Pattern-chaser intends here. But that's how it comes across.

Maybe a separate thread is needed to adequately debunk that particular Big Lie ?

And in the meantime maybe we need to find a form of words for expressing how we care for each other as fellow-humans in a stressful world that steers well clear of that political sense of the word ?

‐----------------
* arguably one of the problems of our modern world is that we're taught to care more about suffering that is widespread and visual in far corners of the world than for less-visible forms of suffering amongst our neighbours up the street.

I would be interested in a thread about your idea of "The Big Lie" but I think I think we'd have to be more specific about what "caring" means. We all care about something.

[Sy Borg]

there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.

There is an extent to which this is true. The left, in general, care about society, about others as well as themselves. While the right can often focus on individual needs and desires. But that still leaves us a long way from left-caring, right-not-caring.

If I was a right leaner, I think I would explain caring in terms of caring about others' freedoms. I don't know if I'd call it ego or what, but the right seems, in general, to think they have the right answers. So, I will take them at their word if they say they want everyone to be free to pursue their own choices, and that sometimes leaves people out in the cold as a side effect, I guess. I think they might fairly label me naive, but I don't think that someone who wants to house the homeless or some such thing always deserves a label of 'virtue signaler'. I don't have the means to house the homeless, as Elon Musk does (and he promised to do so and reneged). Yet, that doesn't mean the only motive left for me is "look at me; I care and you don't!".

Nor should I be labelled as one who calls those who want to house the homeless as virtue signallers - as you have tacitly done. You misunderstood my post.

I have made it clear many times that I think charity begins at home. That means housing the homeless - the opposite position to the one you attributed to me. This means not sending billions in aid to people in nations that hate us, that wage war against us, and seek to form tyrannical autocracies that would victimise women and kill gays.

You can't save everyone. There is no escaping that truth. Thus one must prioritise. I prioritise housing the homeless or protecting wildlife in my country over sending aid to distant hostile people.

Some would label my claim "You can't save everyone" as misinformation.

[chewybrian]

there is a widespread delusion amongst left-leaning people that the fundamental difference between political left and right is that the left are caring and the right are not.

There is an extent to which this is true. The left, in general, care about society, about others as well as themselves. While the right can often focus on individual needs and desires. But that still leaves us a long way from left-caring, right-not-caring.

If I was a right leaner, I think I would explain caring in terms of caring about others' freedoms. I don't know if I'd call it ego or what, but the right seems, in general, to think they have the right answers. So, I will take them at their word if they say they want everyone to be free to pursue their own choices, and that sometimes leaves people out in the cold as a side effect, I guess. I think they might fairly label me naive, but I don't think that someone who wants to house the homeless or some such thing always deserves a label of 'virtue signaler'. I don't have the means to house the homeless, as Elon Musk does (and he promised to do so and reneged). Yet, that doesn't mean the only motive left for me is "look at me; I care and you don't!".

Nor should I be labelled as one who calls those who want to house the homeless as virtue signallers - as you have tacitly done. You misunderstood my post.

I have made it clear many times that I think charity begins at home. That means housing the homeless - the opposite position to the one you attributed to me. This means not sending billions in aid to people in nations that hate us, that wage war against us, and seek to form tyrannical autocracies that would victimise women and kill gays.

You can't save everyone. There is no escaping that truth. Thus one must prioritise. I prioritise housing the homeless or protecting wildlife in my country over sending aid to distant hostile people.

Some would label my claim "You can't save everyone" as misinformation.

I'm confused. I only responded to what Pattern Chaser said about what Good Egg said. I don't know what you said and was not trying to attribute anything to you in the post to which you responded.