The Glade 4.0

Facts.

No, they're not lies, or falsehoods... they're "Alternative Facts".

**** you Conway and Spicer. They're *lies*. You're both liars.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... s-briefing

++ungood yo. ++ungood.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Not enough room to swing a cat without hitting one in DC in my lifetime. Easier to list folks that don't have pants on fire...

...let's see...

...nope, I got nuttin.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

You speak truth my llama from another mama.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Used to be when my family or friends would repeat something they read I'd reply innocently that if it was on the internet it had to be true.

I've stopped even joking about that. Everything from every source is "fake news" these days. If it should be "so-and-so killed on I-55 during rush hour", it's presented as "so-and-so killed on I-55 during rush hour, residents blame local politician for killing traffic bill" just so they can get their agenda communicated. You don't hear a fact that doesn't include a twist in whatever direction the media and/or some demagogue espouses, and couple that with so few "facts" really being facts.

Not long ago, "Trust no one" sounded a bit like paranoia. Now ...

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There's a vast, vast difference between unintentional bias and outright lying. Mainstream news sources may be guilty of the former, but not the latter. Even mainstream politicians only take the latter so far - i.e., they spin things and are selective in which facts they highlight, but outright falsification is the exception rather than the rule because they and their supporters have a functioning sense of shame when they get caught lying. Trump and his alt-media, however, blatantly embrace outright lying, and because they have zero shame about getting caught doing it, they're happy to lie about easily verifiable things.

Acting like there's no difference between bias, spin and blatant lies is <i>how</i> we've gotten to this point in our public discourse. That kind of cynical hand-waving isn't wisdom; it's just apathy.

Give me a name, I'll be able to find someone that's seemingly accurately called them on a big ol' fat honker of a lie. Of course, if you believe "you can keep your physician" isn't a lie, well, that's your bias now, isn't it?

It's always the other guy's golden idol's that's morally challenged, isn't it.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I've got the same insurance and the same doctor that I had before Obamacare. So do most people. However, a not insignificant minority do not, and Obama knew that would be the case, so yeah, he wasn't being fully honest there in the sense that he oversimplified things for the sake of a sound bite. But that's the case in any complex policy issue. When Trump says his plans to eliminate various tax breaks for poor and middle class homeowners will actually make buying a home more affordable, there's some truth to it in the big picture sense and some b.s. in the sense that it's not really "true" for many people who otherwise would have qualified for those tax breaks. That's categorically different than saying you have the largest crowds ever at your inauguration when that's demonstrably false or claiming you never attacked the intelligence community when there are numerous public examples as recently as last week of you doing exactly that. Trump is unique among modern US politicians at the national level in his complete disregard for truth/facts, or rather, his complete lack of concern over having his lies be obvious and direct.

Opinions on how many people attended the inauguration doesn't affect the public in any way, shape or form. It's trivia by definition. You can't prove the claims, anyway, you can only gather data that suggests the claim is wrong by using transportation data and photographic evidence, and that's circumstantial evidence, nothing definitive. "Trump supporters are less likely to take the tram!" or "It was raining", "people were refused entrance to the mall", etc. I actually read those arguments.. and dismissed them as trivia too. It's all smoke and mirrors, nobody that would profit from the outcome can be believed.

Having an administration tell the public something that affects some percentage of that public in ways that call into question the veracity of the administration is the category I'd think folks should be most concerned with, unless you have an agenda to delegitimize the administration.

I think all politicians and the media are crooks, liars and/or thieves until proven otherwise. If I offered "for every proven honest representative of that category I'll pay you $1,000 and for every one proven to fall outside that category even on one occasion, you pay me $10", would you take me up on it?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The former is far more dangerous in my opinion. It's more widespread, you can get out of being called a liar, and it's somehow become acceptable.

The latter can be easily shown for what it is.

Lol! "All" we have is photos and video footage from every conceivable angle, and transportation data, all of which has been the basis for numbers estimates every other time. But *this* time, it's just smoke and mirrors, circumstantial, and nothing definitive. Could be half a million, could be a million and half. Who can say!? I mean, clearly, they're all liars. Good lord, man.

I disagree, insofar as I think the former is at least constrained by good faith - i.e., you're not being deliberately false, so you're susceptible to reasoned correction if the facts prove otherwise. What I think is dangerous is the loss of faith in any and all sources of information such that everything is reduced to he said / she said and demagogues like Trump can come in, blatantly lie their asses off, and not lose a single supporter because they're already primed to believe that every other politician, academic, journalist, etc. is "just as bad". For 30 years, the Republican establishment has been feeding their base on this diet of crap about liberal bias in the media and the academy, and now that base is so thoroughly convinced that only "their guy" can be trusted, no matter how obvious the lie. And even people who aren't in the Republican base - the marginally-engaged middle - now has a sizable percentage of useful idiots who've digested the critique as well and think they're being wise by saying "both sides do it" when really they're just being lazy and apathetic.

I'm thinking I can expend my category of liars... Oh, but of course I wasn't including YOU in that category! I'd never do such a thing! You certainly read what I wrote and would never try to discount my point by ignoring what I wrote for teh lulz!

I know! Let's all talk about the Russians! Yeah, so the Democrats were caught with their hands in the cookie jar with outright manipulation of the election by stacking the deck against Sanders, leaders in the party were caught in onerous lies, but that's OK .. .'cause it's *US* doing the manipulating! Let's talk about the attendance of the inauguration!

Oh, I'm sorry... is that lazy and apathetic thinking?

Let me sell you a vowel, RD. There is a component of Trump's win that came from folks that are NOT lazy or apathetic, and they gave the nod to the guy that wasn't a politician, for that specific reason. They believe that both parties are corrupt and deserve to suck eggs. You keep riding the horse that came in second, see how that works for you in the end.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This isn't the dawn of the age of alternative facts. It's more like the early afternoon.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Aww man, don't tell me I missed second *fake* breakfast

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Dawning?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... a8324b4963

If this were Trump and Putin, I'm sure the Washington Post would be just as generous.

_________________

House Science Committee Chairman: Americans should get news from directly from Trump, not media, for "the unvarnished truth"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... not-media/

Exhibit A:

ABC quoted Ari Fleischer criticizing Sean Spicer on Nightline... and he didn't, he actually complemented him, and Ari complained... so they corrected a nationally televised broadcast with a link.



http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/nightli ... d=45017358

Exhibit B:

I have read on several mainstream media news sites that "Trump has no evidence of voter fraud". Folks are calling him out left and right. "He's making up FALSE NEWS!!"

Actually...there is a source if someone looks. I have no idea of the validity and I'm not in a position to vet this study, but it does exist, the authors appear to be credible and everything about it has, at first blush, the air of credibility.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 414000973#

Again, I can't vet the study and I make no claims whatsoever about it's validity, but it does, in my mind, qualify as evidence. It's pretty obvious that your mileage may vary.

So, I know that 2 pieces of evidence isn't enough to hang your hat on, but I didn't look hard to find them... for every roach that scurries from the light, there are 10 in the walls.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Mainstream media has been caught lying repeatedly, or intentionally covering up inconvenient facts - which is a lie by omission. Or they let the non-mainstream sources put it out there and then just sort of vaguely allude to it. Or they repeat things that have a veneer of respectability such as the "campus rape crisis" or "gender wage gap" as if they were simply givens when the most elementary analysis demonstrates that they are not.

The media has, for a long time, been trying to pretend that reality has a liberal bias and they are just reporting a national environment where conservatives are fighting an uphill battle because the world just naturally favors the left because that's the way of "progress" and the "right side of history". Trump wouldn't be able to do this if the media hadn't already sacrificed its credibility.

Everyone knows Trump is loose with the facts. People don't give a **** because he's not even trying to hide it. He says the stuff and it's like "ok, you're a bullshitter, but there is something here."

Hell, for years whenever some leftist cause celebre' gets caught making up a bullshit story and then screaming about it - the UVA Rape story for example - when it's shown that the story is nonsense we instantly get a barrage of "well yes, but it's not important that this was a total lie, because it highlight the larger issue of blah blah blah".

The left is so worried about Trump's lies because they hold up a mirror.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

[snark]They're just "starting an important discussion", doing a valuable public service. We should appreciate their patriotism. [/snark]

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Exhibit C:


http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... o-midnight

NPR is really doing a marvelous job of keeping their finger on the nuclear pulse. If anything, the US relationship with Russia has arguably improved and I'd say the relationships with other nations in the nuclear weapons club hasn't changed significantly. I wonder what happened to the clock when Iran insisted it has the right to proliferate and Obama refused to allow them... oh, wait... eh, to be honest, they may have pushed it forward then, it's a meaningless indicator of no importance.

Their basis of making the change is "TRUMP!!!". Liberal logic or stoking fears, either way, it's fake news. Unless, of course, by the time you read this (WE ONLY HAVE 2 1/2 MINUTES!!!! DUCK AND COVER!) we're all ash. In that case, I apologize and retract my criticism.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Next one:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/jos ... -resigned/

vs


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/ ... index.html

One of these is not like the other... pick the fake news and win a ... well, you're not going to win. Nobody is.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

One of those is a news article (CNN), one's an opinion piece (WaPo).

To compare apples to apples, here's WaPo's news article on the matter.

Ah... interesting. The link is to an opinion piece by Josh Rogan... I see the "opinion" on the top now

Thank you FarSky.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Just to do my due diligence I have been searching for a bit to figure out what was the reason behind the state department senior staff leaving...

If you want to see fake news, try figuring that out for yourself. That WoPo opinion piece? One of the top hits on google. The WaPo news link to the event contradicts the opinion piece, but the opinion piece info is repeated more than how the news piece characterizes the event.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The game is called King of the Hill. You win by pushing everyone else down.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones