“I am no man, I am dynamite.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
Farris joined on Aug 19th, 2014, since that has made 901 posts that are still accessible today, 3 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, Farris has given 1918 upvotes, and was last online on Mar 23rd, 2019.
Either this will go well, or it'll go to hell. Ha-ha... it rhymes.
@Destro Good, good.
Factually DC hasn't said anything untrue but I think the conclusions on what to do with the information are where we differ.
Then I suggest you do the same thing as I plan to do eventually, read the manifesto of the culprit, see what his explanation was for his actions. His manifesto should be a better source than any of the media he sought to provoke in order to spread his message. One of the man's idols is Anders Behring Breivik... That's a terrorist we're well familiar with here in Norway.
The thing is Two people can look at the same set of data and draw wildly different conclusions which is why its important to understand to what ends these conclusions are being made, be aware of them, and then be mindful of them while discussing the harder to interpret details regarding an event.
While this is true, it's also the case that one is more likely to reflect reality than the other. Both are not neccessarily equally true just because they are interpretations of the same data set. If it's difficult to say what the data sets actually mean, then you're rather making a hypothesis about the correlation between the data sets and reality, you can't really make a proper conclusion about them, further research is needed. The correlation between the data sets and the interpretations should be strong and scientifically undeniable.
In the specific case I had in mind with Hasan, he was talking about illegal immigration... more specifically the famous "wall"... Let's avoid getting into that further than this example as I have no interest in doing so for now. The point is that he only chose a specific part of the data in a survey which reflected his agenda on the topic. While it is true that the majority of illegal immigrants who come to the US come by plane and overstay their visa (as he said), one also has to take into account that in the same paper it points out that the % of illegal immigrants which are expelled from the country again is by a good margin higher for those who overstay their visa (this he didn't mention at all, I want to believe that he didn't know rather than the alternative).
The person Hasan doesn't seem like a bad guy, he seems like a very nice person. But, the political Hasan I can't take seriously at all, I do not trust him to present factors which may slightly contradict his opinion, this is by all means very common, and not unique to him.
Hasan is definetly far left (at least in the US) and is in favor of socialism if not outright communism which i don't think is as problematic as other people would try to lead you to believe.
While I would love it if humans were perfect enough to establish a marxist utopia (this I truly mean), I know that it will never happen, we're simply too flawed. Every attempt at establishing this utopia has gone incredibly wrong, and every attempt will go horribly wrong. It's important to note that not one of Marx's "prophecies" has been fufilled, in fact it's rather the other way around. Marx is not responsible for the perhaps faulty interpretations of his work, but it's incredibly unlikely that humans will ever become perfect enough for his utopia to come into existence. We're stuck with the perhaps sub-optimal, but at least relatively well-functioning captialism. Another note, I believe Marx's utopia goes too far to the left, just as Ayn Rand goes too far to the right with her ideology, both of them are impossible for humans, for the simple reason of what makes humans interesting, we're different.
As far as Destiny goes there are definitely times when you can tell he's being stubborn or obtuse on certain takes but his community can be very critical of him for it.
Wonderful if that's the case, that his community is critical of him, it's a very healthy sign that there are individuals listening, and not simply "followers".
@mizlily It's important to know what's making these events more frequent, isn't it? How else are we supposed to stop them, or at the very least make them less frequent? His manifesto provides insight in what problems he sees in society and what his reprehensible solutions are to these problems. There's no doubt at all that there are people who see things the same way as he does. If we're unable to come up with good solutions to these problems, or find reasons to why they're not actually problems, then we're not going to be able to stop it.
The manifesto is dangerous if the fallacies within it are not exposed. If our society has developed for the better in the last hundreds and thousands of years, then we should hold the real answers to the problems in the manifesto, rather than jumping to the extreme (and very little helpful) "solutions" like the writer did.
You won't stop "biggotry" by just calling it "biggotry", you won't stop "nazis" by simply calling them "nazis". It's important to have a proper conversation with people, respect them as fellow humans, and then have honest conversations asking why they think this and that, and why they do this and that.
I have never heard of a racist changing his way after being called a racist. But I have heard of racists and KKK members changing their ways after someone from the "group" they despised showed them respect, and treated them as equals. This is the reason I say it's time for discussions and conversation. If we can't treat another person as an equal even if they aren't treating us as an equal, then we'll never be able to progress past this, and the problem will remain or grow.
@Destro where do you get your news from if I may ask?
This was half-way genuine, and half-way "What makes you think that there's little (or no) truth to what both DC and I were saying", where's this golden source of information which is filled with the one "true truth".
Thank you for your answer, what I wrote was not meant to be an attack, nor an opportunity to "masturbate over how logical I seem to find myself." (Thanks, that made me laugh,) I know it sounds arrogant, and could most definitely have been worded better.
I sincerely believe that reasonable people who are interested in knowing the truth are able to filter through something and see it for what it is. My point was rather that if you're dependant on a chart to tell you what news source which contains the least amount of bias then you probably shouldn't be discussing these things.
As far as who i watch off the top of my head: Contrapoints, Hbomberguy, Shaun, Three arrows, Some More News, Destiny, Hasan Piker (not TYT) and i'm sure i'm forgetting some. All of them are left leaning in their analysis and opinions.
Thank you for your sincerity. I know of "Shaun", and I know of "The Three Arrows", I'm not very familiar with them. "Destiny" is a debater, I've gotten the impression multiple times that he doesn't care about the truth of the matter as long as he "wins the debate". Hasan Piker, last thing I heard he had gone full on adoring Marx? I'd be very careful with anything he says, especially since I've experienced him using flawed interpretations data before.
What i do is find whatever theyre talking about in objective as a source as possible and then watch some of these guys to hear their take on it.So the equation goes News sources+initial reaction+analysis from people i find entertaining= personal conclusion. Is it perfectly objective? no but noone is expected to have perfectly objective outlooks on life.
A person should not be expected to be perfectly objective, but a fact and a truth are.
I checked over the methodology they are using to create this chart, basically what it comes down to is: If you're capable of logical thought you shouldn't need this. www.adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/
During this project, we are performing ratings of nearly 2,000 individual articles and TV news shows, which are being conducted by 20 dedicated, trained analysts having political viewpoints from across the spectrum.
Each of the nearly 2000 individual articles and TV news shows will be rated by four analysts with different political views. This means each analyst will be analyzing about 370 articles and about 17 TV shows, and each analyst will be rating at least four articles from each of the 100 news sources on the chart. As a result, we will have nearly 8,000 individual ratings.
- What do they mean by "different poltical views"?
- How different?
- What do they do when their ratings differ a lot?
- Do they do an average?
One thing I found very unclear about it is what constitutes what they judge as facts? It seems to be more of a "is this statement repeated in several news sources of good reputation" which is something every person whose opinion is worth anything at all already checks.
You also didn't answer my question, unless the answer was: "I use several news sources in the center top and check that the story/facts is consistent between them".
As far as discussion around things that wouldn't normally be considered news such as sjws and internet culture i follow various youtube channels and communities around them.
What Youtube channels, and what communities around them? Are you aware of their bias? Are you aware of their political position? Are you aware of their agenda? Are you sure they're not making blanket statements and strawmen? Have you considered listening to what the other "side" has to say? It's important to put everything into the equation.
This is hugely important though, no matter how entertaining/ well thought out someone may seem theyre amateurs on the internet so while hearing their perspective can be helpful always be mindful that you arent just soaking everything up as gospel.
Funny how amateurs on the internet can be a shit ton better than the "professionals" at being "professional". There's no reason to take what another person says as gospel. I make up my own mind, based on what evidence I see, what's logical, and make a boundary between "what is true" and "what we can't know for sure".
- What do they mean by "different poltical views"?
@Destro where do you get your news from if I may ask?
@Destro We're not psychic, so it's impossible to tell exactly what went through his head while he wrote that... To me it just seemed like a "Oh well, wasn't that many, it's not a big deal".
Anyways, while I will never defend USA's bombing of civilians in their attempts to kill "terrorists" (which ironically fosters more terrorists), I do think there's a difference between civilian casualities, and a massacre. One is by some sort of law-enforcement which is aimed to kill individuals or a group of individuals but unfortunatly also killed civilians. The other one aims to raise hell against a "group" for whatever reasons deemed fit.
@mizlily While I find your questions to be of little worth of giving a well thought out answer, since it seems like you didn't properly read what I wrote, (or you were too busy thinking about what you consider the hypocrisy of the other side of the political spectrum,) I'll give you a small response:
@Farris What is the solution anyway?
See what I wrote:
it's time to discuss these issues we have different views on, and to come to a solution we can agree on.
I hardly think that I have enough knowledge to tell you the solution to this issue, it's rather complex. Possible solutions should be discussed, evaluated, and tested. Feelings do not belong when it comes to making laws, this is something we've got to be very careful about. Feelings should instead be left for mourning for those whose life were lost, and those who lost their loved ones.
If they all had a gun this wouldn’t have happened?
Who knows? It's a rather bizarre scenario you're describing. I don't see that happening in our world. But, I suspect it wouldn't be beneficial to anyone that everyone has the power to end another person's life on a whim. It's clear that there should be some restrictions.
But of those people that believe this, there are many who don’t feel too comfortable arming Muslims.
While the vast majority of muslims aren't terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are muslim. This doesn't mean that one should view muslims as terrorists... Far from it, talk to them just like you would talk to any other individuals. There is substantial danger of radicalization among muslim communities, that's a problem which muslims are combating, and I sure hope they can sort it out eventually, we should lend them a hand where they need it.
So then which comes first, their guns or their Islamphobia?
Depends what they view as the greater danger, doesn't it. Although I find Islam really interesting, and would love to learn more than I know about it, I can understand why some people are afraid of it. It's not entirely irrational fear considering some of the things which are written in the Quran, how those things are interpreted clearly varies, if not then these things wouldn't be a problem.
That being said, this massacre was not simply Islamophobia, it was a deliberate attempt to increase the tension and be a catalyst to what he, and a few others consider an inevitable and necessary war.
The media will of course pour out the gas cans he brought with him onto the fire, just as he planned. They'll do so through their milking of this massacre, and their misuse of whatever they consider to be ties to their political enemies. Don't fall for it... Double check, and tripple check, if their accusations actually reflect the reality we live in, and not just their political caricatures of their enemies. The one to blame, is the man who performed the action, not whoever gets thrown into the same "group" as him.
Those who say that they believe what he did was right, are few, if possible, they should be educated so that they might find a better path. If impossible, they should be kept under close attention.