45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
La Liga said:
cqueen said:
I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
Your post seems so silly I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It's reporting on a psychological theory proposed by people who are experts in the field. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
How can that be "fake news"?
Funkycoldribena said:
turbobloke said:
Be fair - after all, incessant name calling in the election campaign worked well and it's still a surefire winner 
Shocked expressions and abuse from Trump's opponents helped Hillary.....to an ignominious defeat, but will defeat Trump easily now he's in office.
It is funny,even when its pointed out they still don't get it and carry on. Shocked expressions and abuse from Trump's opponents helped Hillary.....to an ignominious defeat, but will defeat Trump easily now he's in office.turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
cqueen said:
I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
Your post seems so silly I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It's reporting on a psychological theory proposed by people who are experts in the field. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
How can that be "fake news"?
turbobloke said:
t's opinon, so how is it "news" at all - as for the expertariat, they've got a miserable track record with regard to recent politics and politicians. Carp opinion looks to be a better fit than fake news.
You don't think the Brexit and Republican camps used any experts in their campaigns then? Clearly some experts did rather well.The ultimate decision as to whether a person decides to "believe" whether a fact is genuine or fake is down to their own preconceived prejudices.
This doesn't mean that there is no genuine news. It just means that there are many people out there who are willing to allow their preconceived mindsets to decide which items of news to believe or not believe.
Trump is playing on that mental process - which if left unchecked, will destroy western society.
I firmly believe that.
This doesn't mean that there is no genuine news. It just means that there are many people out there who are willing to allow their preconceived mindsets to decide which items of news to believe or not believe.
Trump is playing on that mental process - which if left unchecked, will destroy western society.
I firmly believe that.
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
cqueen said:
I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
Your post seems so silly I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It's reporting on a psychological theory proposed by people who are experts in the field. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
How can that be "fake news"?
Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
People need to apply some basic critical thinking to what they're reading rather than being simpletons and dismissing something based on the source alone.
Whenever someone posts something from the Mail which is likely to be misleading / wrong, I'd never dream of simply saying the Mail is "fake news". I'd always go at the content.
Whenever someone posts something from the Mail which is likely to be misleading / wrong, I'd never dream of simply saying the Mail is "fake news". I'd always go at the content.
turbobloke said:
the expertariat
Is this the new favourite word for those who prefer knee jerk uninformed reactions over considered evidence based opinions (the answer is yes, BTW, for those not yet in the know)?The inverted snobbery directed towards the intelligentsia/the experts/the elite (take your pick, depending on the context) hasn't ended well historically. Thus, the evidence suggests it won't end well this time.
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
the expertariat
Is this the new favourite word for those who prefer knee jerk uninformed reactions over considered evidence based opinions (the answer is yes, BTW, for those not yet in the know)? HTH
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?turbobloke said:
The research is flawed.
Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
Perhaps the experimental models are better than that. They've had a bit longer than an hour to think of something, after all. Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
jmorgan said:
Greg66 said:
Funkycoldribena said:
He banned the BBC,that's good enough for me.
Why?With £zillions of a deficit pension invested in failing green blob ventures, and a staff stuffed with liberals for whom global warming is the last straw to clutch at (as pointed out by Labour's Lord Donoughue) it's best not to inhale around the BBC's information pollution, and definitely not a good idea to swallow it.
turbobloke said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
the expertariat
Is this the new favourite word for those who prefer knee jerk uninformed reactions over considered evidence based opinions (the answer is yes, BTW, for those not yet in the know)? SAD!
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
cqueen said:
I don't think you can blame the Trump administration for banning certain media. Look what the BBC are publishing now, absolute tosh, non story, theory, some douche bags opinion. Thus confirming what Trump says all the time about fake news stories...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
Your post seems so silly I can't tell if you're being serious or not. It's reporting on a psychological theory proposed by people who are experts in the field. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39082465
How can that be "fake news"?
Nobody can re-run a presidential election with names in a different order on the ballot paper. That's nonsensical and quite clearly will never happen. So, we don't know what difference a change in order would make.
If researchers stage a fake ballot then sample-size volunteer groups won't be asked to mark two versions of the ballot paper, and if they were, the change in order would be so obvious as to render the exercise pointless. Volunteers are just as likely to norm to whatever perceived expectation they had of the researchers' perceived motive. Equivalence is once again lost.
Also with nothing whatsoever hanging on the outcome, any fake ballot staged in any controlled manner fails to replicate the psychology a genuine presidential election vote, and equivalence is lost.
Carp opinion, not fake news.
You state the research is flaws, looking at 'Google scholar' there's a lot of papers by lots of different people. I presume you've read it all and are such an expert as to be able to conclude "the research is flawed".
turbobloke said:
La Liga said:
People need to apply some basic critical thinking to what they're reading rather than being simpletons and dismissing something based on the source alone.
Deep irony.That's what just happened, but you had already dismissed it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff