Sailorsaint
Guest
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 14,327
- Reaction score
- 25,600
Offline
I’ve also noticed that on all the bills, the front used to be on the front, now it’s on the back.
90% of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory (1 Viewer)
- Thread starterOptimus Prime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Admin
- #857
Offline
Judging by my Facebook feed, it's more like half of the people believe 90% of the conspiracy theories out there. The rationale for going down those rabbit holes too often begins with, "I watched a video on YouTube/Instagram/X, etc. posted by an expert". Said expert usually turns out to be an expert at either grifting, spreading disinformation, or both.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jul 18, 1998
- Messages
- 25,266
- Reaction score
- 54,833
Offline
Offline
hit one of those in Arkansas, It was 55 in the mountain, but as soon as i got to the bottom to the town, it turned 35.
So i got a 55 in a 35 ticket. When i got home i called about the ticket. They said since i was from out of state, i had to come to court. I told them i lived over 8 hours away and tha it would be really hard for me to make it back up there. "no problem sir, for a $200 court surcharge, you can pay it my mail" So instead of sending them the $390 (something like that) i just said fork them and never paid it. That was in like 1998, and they never came knocking so i guess i'm good.
If i have a warrant, it must only be in Arkansas, because i've been pulled over a few time here in La...
- Moderator
- #860
Offline
I've had that happen once before. Might have been Bama or Miss when I was driving on a long trip many moons ago. Never paid, and never even got anything in the mail.
I wouldn't make that a habit tho, lol.
- Joined
- Aug 1, 1997
- Messages
- 24,709
- Reaction score
- 22,478
- Age
- 54
- Location
- The People's Republic of Indianastan
Offline
With interest, that $390 ballooned into Arkansas' roughly $5 billion debt. This is why we can't have nice things.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2003
- Messages
- 7,116
- Reaction score
- 9,520
- Age
- 40
Offline
I was watching a podcast with Josh Brolin the other day, who I don't know a lot about, but he seems like a perfectly reasonable person, until he started to seamlessly weave between 9/11 truthing, the JFK Junior plane crash conspiracy, among others, fancying himself a "researcher."
The host was shocked.It's like once you believe one you have to believe them all. But it seems to me, that you only need to debunk one conspiracy before you realize that its the same people pushing the other ones for equally dumb reasons.
I know the way the twin towers fell was perfectly reasonable since I understand building frames and fire resistance assemblies on a professional level (long story short, all structure and all fireproofing will eventually fail when engulfed in flames of any temperature). I don't know anything about JFK Jr, nor do I care, but if the same people that don't understand how buildings fall down also want me to believe that JFK Jr's crash was an inside job, I am inclined to believe the opposite.
Offline
that the real "woke" problem with people days. Its not the ones who question socal inequality type stuff, its the cray "everyting is a conspiracy" folk..thats the real Woke problemin the country..
Offline
I think I get what you’re saying but what are you saying?
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jul 18, 1998
- Messages
- 25,266
- Reaction score
- 54,833
Offline
I took it as the “problem” isn’t people saying “open your eyes and see the police brutality/racial inequality/corporate corruption!”
The problem is more the people saying “open your eyes and see baby eating celebrities, camouflaged lizard people and mind control nanites in the water supply!”
Last edited:
jboss
All-Pro
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 5,023
- Reaction score
- 6,082
Offline
The lightspeed turnaround of the definition of that word will be the subject of PhDs. It went from "consciousness of racial and social injustices" to "vaguely and comprehensively left thing I don't like" to "bad thing" in record time.
Offline
You hit the nail on the head.
OP
OP
- Joined
- Jul 18, 1998
- Messages
- 25,266
- Reaction score
- 54,833
Offline
guess this can go here
=============
The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.
While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.
The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.
This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.
“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”
Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.”
Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.
The mechanism is explored at length but, in short, false claims or other rumors often generate fewer hits on Google, meaning searchers are more likely to encounter unreliable information that aligns with their assumptions. (The paper is dense; Benton’s summary is useful.)...............
=============
The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.
While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.
The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.
This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.
“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”
Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.”
Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.
The mechanism is explored at length but, in short, false claims or other rumors often generate fewer hits on Google, meaning searchers are more likely to encounter unreliable information that aligns with their assumptions. (The paper is dense; Benton’s summary is useful.)...............
Last edited:
Yatman
threadkiller
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2000
- Messages
- 6,580
- Reaction score
- 6,896
Offline
two in two months seems excessive
Whistleblower Josh Dean of Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems has died
Whistleblower Josh Dean of Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems has died
- Joined
- Aug 1, 1997
- Messages
- 24,709
- Reaction score
- 22,478
- Age
- 54
- Location
- The People's Republic of Indianastan
Offline
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.