Resolved Standards of evidence discussion.

[The Immortal WatchDog]

I'm gonna make a thread about it tomorrow. I say if we can't trust peer review then we might as well wipe our ass with any data and admit that really we don't know what we're talking about.

This is a place for informed political discussion and we need a standard of evidence especially if we're going to be stating controversial points.

The problem is whose standard of evidence?

A socialists? The wokesters? We have demonstrable proof that the scientific and medical communities are engaging in widespread fraud for ideological reasons and who trusts what?

Put the sources out in public and let people decide.

Don't force people to use only sources that you and the staff find respectable. Given some of your peers here I assure you, you will be dispensing witchcraft.

Edit- it's rather disturbing that you think you can only have knowledge on a subject if you cite information that other people approve of.

Knowledge doesn't work on consensus.

 

[Es_]

on the staff is qualified to determine what is a conspiracy and what isn't.

Its more galling when one factors in all modern governments are the result of successful conspiracy

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

I am proposing balance, order, and some semblance of structure so that both sides can coexist and share opinions freely.

I thought this was about an issue of information and news? Not discussion and opinions?

One is worth debating, the other I thought violated the spirit of the section?

Edit and I wholly agree with the words of your proposition.

My concern is your approach to vetting will actually inhibit that goal.

 

[Kronky’s New Groove]

This thread is better than the Cafe had been in years.

 

[Es_]

Ive laid low that majority before, taking on and more or less shattering the whole damn Cafe.

I did it, @Es_ Did it, Nostalgia fan and Tehchron did it.

They had to literally rewrite the rules of the forum to silence little old me then fabricate instances of hate speech to get me banned from it.

They have no such protections and power here.

Your section will succeed in doing nothing of the sort. Not against us, not against me.

So no, im.not afraid of that. It's never happened before.

If anything that made fucking certain types of vids and shit unable to be used if its on certain sites

 

[Makeoutparadise]

Now as for sources and places for evidence
Any news source will have it’s bias
But we should try to shoot for main stream media sources and those
We should be wary of both left and right extreme new sources.
We should avoid the communist news papers and the fascist Rags
Trust experts and scientists who both sides agree is trust worthy

Avoid grifters and those who claim to know “the real truth” and “something the MSM or ‘THEY’ don’t want you to know.”
For they are a sure sign of a conspiracy pusher

avoid those who would make you fear or distrustful of any racial, religious, or LGBTQ+ minotry groups

Avoid those who are Anti-science or who use pseudoscience and manipulated and falsified data to fit their narrative.
If something goes against Scientific consensus then be wary of it

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

Now as for sources and places for evidence
Any news source will have it’s bias
But we should try to shoot for main stream media sources and those
We should be wary of both left and right extreme new sources.
We should avoid the communist news papers and the fascist Rags
Trust experts and scientists who both sides agree is trust worthy

Avoid grifters and those who claim to know “the real truth” and “something the MSM or ‘THEY’ don’t want you to know.”
For they are a sure sign of a conspiracy pusher

avoid those who would make you fear or distrustful of any racial, religious, or LGBTQ+ minotry groups

Avoid those who are Anti-science or who use pseudoscience and manipulated and falsified data to fit their narrative.
If something goes against Scientific consensus then be wary of it

Translation: only information that conforms to my limited and childlike understanding of reality and my political views which alter by the hour.

No..hell no

 

[Es_]

Now as for sources and places for evidence
Any news source will have it’s bias
But we should try to shoot for main stream media sources and those
We should be wary of both left and right extreme new sources.
We should avoid the communist news papers and the fascist Rags
Trust experts and scientists who both sides agree is trust worthy

Avoid grifters and those who claim to know “the real truth” and “something the MSM or ‘THEY’ don’t want you to know.”
For they are a sure sign of a conspiracy pusher

avoid those who would make you fear or distrustful of any racial, religious, or LGBTQ+ minotry groups

Avoid those who are Anti-science or who use pseudoscience and manipulated and falsified data to fit their narrative.
If something goes against Scientific consensus then be wary of it

Your last sentence feels like religous screed

How is questioning something established anti science when the entire point of science is to question. If this worked as you wish we would still think iguanodons breathed fire

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

Your last sentence feels like religous screed

How is questioning something established anti science when the entire point of science is to question. If this worked as you wish we would still think iguanodons breathed fire

Socrates is seethe posting in paradise righy now.

Oliver Cromwell would be proud....well until he saw makeouts private life any way

 

[Es_]

I thought this was about an issue of information and news? Not discussion and opinions?

One is worth debating, the other I thought violated the spirit of the section?

Edit and I wholly agree with the words of your proposition.

My concern is your approach to vetting will actually inhibit that goal.

This pretty much Makeout wants a new boss same as the old one

 

[Nep Nep]

This is perhaps one of the most compelling arguments for why we must reject "accredited sources".

You don't sound like a human being with a soul, but a computer generated response from an AI that was programmed to simulate leftist Twitter users.

You're also monstrously misinformed.

It's a little frustrating to me that you're not willing to rise above the old partisan nonsense we accused them of.

Why dismiss him like this? Can't we disagree without dismissing someone outright?

You forget. MoP has disagreed with me countless times on NF, same for CTK, Pasta, etc. I am not some leftist beacon HOWEVER I dreamed of a cafe that isn't a censorship machine but I didn't want it to favor my opinions either. I want to be challenged and see other perspectices otherwise it doesn't matter how much I read because all of that reading is likely me finding info to justify opinions I already have.

 

[Es_]

Thats fair we just kinda fear shit going downhill at the sight of pressure as it did in the cafe call it old wounds. Many times people would use emotional appeals to get them to ban me while debating lol

 

[Makeoutparadise]

Translation: only information that conforms to my limited and childlike understanding of reality and my political views which alter by the hour.

No..hell no

Calling covid 19 “the kung flu”
And being Anti-trans becuase you’re against their life style
Makes you the childish one.

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

Calling covid 19 “the kung flu”
And being Anti-trans becuase you’re against their life style
Makes you the childish one.

One was said facetiously and the other is an objection to a human rights atrocity.

And you think that's childish? You again, sound like a person with arrested development or an NPC.

 

[Es_]

Calling covid 19 “the kung flu”
And being Anti-trans becuase you’re against their life style
Makes you the childish one.

I am not "anti trans" I dont give a shit what grown ass men do but influcting it on children grooming them and prepping them to self mutilate and cheering it on like with that Jazz kid like its not fucked up is beyond the pale.

 

[Es_]

Calling covid 19 “the kung flu”

Bro get a life seriously you are a griwn man getting irate over this just go out makeout

 

[Aurelian]

I am not planning on being particularly active here in general; as a regular user or as a staff member save for dire consequences. My main niche here is engagement in the convo thread and occasional random news threads. I am not particularly emotionally connected or invested in political diatribes from those who are super left leaning or super right leaning but I'm going to say this again: leave the past of the old Cafe's political and social anarchy behind. Stop dragging the corpse of the past into this, now. Or it's only going to get more vitriolic and heated in the worst ways possible.

Arguments and claims are buffed and amplified when scientific sources, academic resources, and analytical data are observed, tallied, and brought forth into the discussion. That is a fact. What Nep is asking of all you is we need to have a single universal standard in what is or isn't permissible as evidence and sources. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, AP/Reuters, aljaazera, etc...are credible sources.

Yes I am aware people on the further left do not like Fox News often out of emotional triggers and biases due to certain hot-topic issues but that doesn't invalidate their credibility regardless of how much Sean Hannity or Bill O'Riley are flagged with controversy. The same can be said about Rachel Maddow's obession with trying to link Russiagate with Trump for almost 2 years on her talk show on MSNBC and the public perception of the woman now being tarnished forever as a lunatic who tanked their ratings.

These are examples of both sides doing wrong.

Its either all or nothing.

The majority needs to find a consensus on this or the News section won't work.

 

[Aurelian]

And as a warning, do not take attacks on each other. For the sake of this thread, more leeway is allowed but keep the ad hominems to a minimum. Attack the argument, not the person arguing it.

 

[The Immortal WatchDog]

It's a little frustrating to me that you're not willing to rise above the old partisan nonsense we accused them of.

Why dismiss him like this? Can't we disagree without dismissing someone outright?

...did you not read his post? It was so ridiculous I thought it was a gimmick post.

That wasn't even an informed post, it was proven in court that Jones told people that the capitol riot was an FBI sting operation and to avoid it like the plague and be lawful.

There are numerous videos of it. Including his supporters chanting Fed! Fed! Fed!

Fox was entirely pro Bidens victory and did nothing but condemn the capitol riot with the only exception being the guy with the bow tie whose only objection was the treatment of prisoners and that he also believed it was a Fed sting operation.

In court, the DOJ has had to admit both men were correct.

If he was serious about calling for unbiased sources he wouldn't regurgitate 15 year old memes about Fox not being part of the leftist snobbery.

I am dismissing him, while addressing your posts because he is blatantly partisan to a degree where it's almost shitposting. whereas I think you're approaching what we both see as a very serious issue from a position that's naive.

I dont think there's any harm naivete at all, so I cast not pearl before swine when it comes to you.

 

[Blue (Mars)]

Here's the thing about science: It's not a bible, it's a continuously evolving understanding based on data and, importantly, the general understanding people have.

This 'general understanding' can often be patently insane. You mention the Kung Flu; We - and by we I mean people who can think - have known that Covid was made in the Wuhan Virology Institute since like February of 2020 when the genome was published and there were obvious telltales of artificiality. The fact that this was dismissed as a conspiracy theory for well over a year despite all evidence being strongly against the animal market hypothesis is, sadly, par for the course. The data was dismissed and scientists' general understanding - much of which was based on statements by the largely Beijing-controlled WHO - triumphed.

Nevertheless, science is the final arbiter of what we know to be true and not. It can be questioned, but never dismissed.

So here's how you address this: If you don't like a particular study that says a particular thing, you should be able to read the study and point out where the data was misinterpreted. Misinterpretation of data is, frankly, more the rule than the exception in science studies, but falsification of the data is vanishingly rare, because when you falsify data you leave yourself open to other scientists being unable to replicate your study and thus being discredited.

If you can't understand a study well enough to point out how it should be questioned, frankly, you don't deserve to dismiss it. Pointing at something from The Apocalypse Institute of Climate Crisis or The National Socialist Racial Studies Institute and saying "this has to be bullshit" is fine and all, and you're probably even right, but you have absolutely no right to frame a debate on your inability to accept what factually is, despite all the imperfections, science.

If you can point out where they took valid data and ran into the bathroom with it, then by all means, hit them with it.

 

[Es_]

Ok