(02-13-2018, 09:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote:

(02-13-2018, 08:25 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...rner-texts

"Information is evaluated based not on conformity to common standards of evidence or correspondence to a common understanding of the world, but on whether it supports the tribe’s values and goals and is vouchsafed by tribal leaders. “Good for our side” and “true” begin to blur into one."

"This is the logic of alternative facts, which is a strategy of base mobilization rather than persuasion. You don’t need to win the argument. You don’t need to even have the facts. All you need is to offer your side an alternative story in which to believe, a story that makes you sound trustworthy and your enemies untrustworthy."

Sounds like the mission statement of the MSM for the last 30 years.

How do you decide what is the truth?   Is it based on who you think is trustworthy?  How do you decide who is trustworthy?  Most people decide what they want to believe, and then they decide that the source that is trustworthy is whoever is supporting what they want to believe.  That's the problem.  Deciding what is or is not true is based on the sources you choose, and the sources you choose are based on what you already believe.

---