NPR is a PUBLICLY FUNDED organization. X is NOT. A little difference that you’ve decided to ignore. Publicly paid CEOs like her should not be biased, is this a crazy thing to ask for?
Frankly, NPR would be better described as "Corporate underwritten" media. The necessary change in funding mechanisms has very much affected the reporting and it's now much cozier alignment with a fairly solid establishment perspective, little different that of the New York Times.
I don't understand how one could care about truth without also caring about verifiability. If I noticed that something I believed wasn't verifiable, that would at least weaken that belief
"I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done" This is a complete statement, to hide that she simply doesn't believe in telling the truth. Sorry, no excuse for this statement. Fairy's do not exist, but in a child's imagination, so let's try to make others believe that they do exist. That's basically what she is saying.
She said "Free and Open is a way of looking at the world that is Inherently limited..." What? what the hell does that even mean?, how can "open" be in any way limited?, seems to me it only means "I reject free and open because it is inherently not aligning with my political views".
I am neither far right or far left, BUT, here we are again...I wish NPR would get back to its roots, and just be what they once were, an authentic newsworthy platform. Why spend hours defending or setting the record straight for the CEO? The ratings have obviously fallen drastically, because activism ---> Will NEVER BE EQUAL TO TRUE JOURNALISM. The stories have become repetitive, catering to a trendy media that doesn't want to offend anyone. BTW, I am so beyond sick of the right against left - left against right culture, cancel culture, blah, blah, blah The CEO is in a position to lead NPR to a better place, but sadly I see NPR heading to a place where it will end up canceling itself.
Commenting on this excellent video for positive engagement reasons. Making sure the comment is long enough that it's considered for that type of thing. Great work as always Molly
Deeply frustrating how many supposedly serious outlets are doing Rufo's dirty work for him by both amplifying his claims and treating him like a good-faith actor. Thanks for putting this video together Molly. Really enjoyed your recent TF appearance as well!
Really well said. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills seeing how this has been covered. I'm so done with news outlets treating Chris Rufo like a reliable source or anything more than a vicious troll. He's really no better than James O'Keefe, that guy who did the ACORN scandal in 2009. Anyway, thanks!
It appears as if Kathrine Maher became a convenient target when the Uri Berliner left NPR - because she is the CEO of the organization that Berliner criticized. Most of this is now moths ago and - not surprisingly - it has gotten rather quiet around this issue and Mr Rufo seems to zero in on other targets. Maher was then just in her new job at NPR and lets see how she will deal with the obvious issues at an organization that has lost a lot of trust. We used to give new appointees 100 days to show their colors. They are up. Thanks Molly for your coverage and for putting the hype and the quotes into context. That is the way to go - and perhaps even NPR will look at that and remember what good journalism looks like.
this attack on media that is not payed by conservative money, is not limited on the us. Europe has the same problem and the awareness of the danger is on the same level as the awareness of the danger of climate change. I think this is a generational problem, in that a large percentage of the people in control of anything today are unable to grasp the existence of actual danger to society. Maybe because most of them grew up in times that felt like they were hard, but always improving, getting better. but as they were all children back then, they didn't notice the fights many adults fought at the time for things to get better. and just assumed things would always magically improve and never get worse.
I think "verifiability, not truth" is also a great model for journalists! They're supposed to investigate with an open mind, question sources, decide which information is more reliable, but still report multiple points of view.
Wich story is "most" verifiable tho :P? Isn't it a cop-out referral/outsourcing to "expert" institutions to do the sensemaking in terms of relevance? Instead of letting all perspectives w/ some kind of notable proof~verifiability join the convo~wikipage, and the intro/summary; the truth of the matter: sums up each and points out discrepancies in land conquered in opinion-space; a neat popularity metric for each perspective, and hilighting core differences in interpretation and its rationales (like ground.news or "kialo edu") but not just for right/left/factuality etc, but an open idea-market of steelmanability; able to yield logical champions irregardless of popularity... Transcending "verification" of data points, and reaching - in full and continuous competition - for the pinnacle of reason; grasping for Logos. Don't needlessly lower ur ambitions
And what you get is circular verification with an echo-chamber individuals verifying each other to make "Truth" out of Crap invented from Whole Cloth. THAT is what the Democrat Marxist-Commies have been doing for decades.
It's something very striking in anglo culture that past statements or opinions matter so much to the present. It's clear it was taken out of context but it was also... in the past ! In France we tend to try very hard to defend the right of people to change their mind, or getting better ! At least we're really afraid of american-influenced tendencies to dig out 20yo mono sentences and use them as random categorizing arguments. But all these are old tricks in rhetorics, and have been used for centuries. If you can associate anyone to being a fascist, a thief, a sexual deviant with a tenuous link and convince the crowd, you won the argument for cheap and... well that's kinda the game sometimes. Love the hair btw 😂
It's just shocking to me that Rufo has any standing. It's pretty clear he is a bad actor, and centrist/mainstream news organizations should be better about even acknowledging any information he presents.
English struggles here because there is "truth" which is things that are probable, reproducible, and testable and then "Truth" which is divine, unassailable, and immutable. This really needs to be two words, because scientists look for truth, but people like rufo are concerned with Truth and they're totally different things.
NPR perceived to be liberal leading?? Not perceived, it definitely is. Even a lifelong liberal editor wrote about that last week. You mentioned the need for verifiable versus what is true, OK that made sense to me. However, Maher specifically stated she was against free and open and that Wikipedia 'rebuilt this idea of knowledge as whole around Western canon", then goes further say Wikipedia ignores communities of language because of the way Wikipedia is based on reliable sources & some cultures don't have a written tradition. And finally of course she brings up "white male westernized construct" clearly this woman is on the far-left. With trust in the media at an all-time low with clear biases and agendas Public media especially should strive to put a balanced face forward rather than have a CEO whose views are outside the majority of their potential listening audience's Overton window.NPR should want to lose their extreme left viewers in exchange for gaining viewers ranging from moderate right to moderate left with a focus on US perception of that range.
I saw Swedish right wingers claiming Maher has caused the death of Wikipedia and went straight to your youtube channel. Thanks a lot for as always providing a factual and concise summary ☺️
Thank you, forever! My feeling is that Wikipedia fulfills Kant's desire for universal history, spoken in every language, all mutually challenged to cohere with verifiably mutual authorship. I can respond to this further, regarding the development of science since the American 1850s. Creationist "intelligent design" is as intuitively rationalized as Herbert Spencer's plagiarized Darwin's evolution "survival of the fittest." What challenge is there for today's millionaires, that after seeking education to perform such particular jobs as Foreign Service like Rufo, manages to only construct a mockery of religious idolatry? Who plagiarizes the speech of other leaders whom they intend to defeat, purely for the sake of ego other than dictators? The ego dictators, thieves of nations, want their own versions. Nevermind how they feel, they spite their own feelings, incapable of explaining much that isn't easily challenged by science and more efficient people. What more, they need their ego to be on stage, more and more. They need controversy, like Reality Tv.
I'm not what you would call a Wikipedia editor, but I did some editing and happened to witness the problem of verifiability vs truth first hand. Sometimes there is wrong information in a reputable source, I know the correct information, but there is no reliable source for it. I think in that case the best we can do is not mention that information or to phrase it in such a vague way that it allows both the verifiable and the correct answer.
In such circumstances your best course of action is to try to get a reliable source, just as a news outlet or peer-reviewed journal, to publish the correct information which with luck you can then use to correct the Wikipedia article.
Yes, I'd love to wach a vido where you discuss people's inability to correct information on Wikipedia about themselves (or others) that they know is untrue and could prove it, but do not have a "reliable source" for this. I've experienced this myself, trying to correct biographical information on people where I even have the birth certificate of the person in my possession and cannot correct something on wikipedia because a "reliable" source made an error a long ago.
This was a very thoughtful summary -- much appreciated, Molly. I regret that one of our most famous dust-ups on Twitter centered on a Wikimedia Foundation survey that found (supposedly) that 25% to 30% of the people who felt harassed on Wikipedia said that the harassment came in the form of revenge porn. I had common-sense doubts that the problem was anywhere near that prevalent, but I didn't wisely contain my disagreement in scientific terms, where I should have. We live and learn, I suppose.
Well, "personal grudges" on the line of sayin that "[...] most of the written knowledge today has been written by white colonial european and north american men.." like Maher did, or you mean something more?
Spoken like a true reality denying, post-modernist indoctrinated leftist. There is only ONE truth and it's objective. To deny that is to deny reality. You're distorted perceptions of it are not truth, they're delusions.
Something about these grifters fascinates me. I keep thinking of the Ann Coulter episode of the Boondocks. What is it like to live your whole life trolling people with stuff you probably know is bullshit. What must that feel like.
NPR used to be very good but they have fallen a long way. They are still falling. Spacex happily released their photos to a GFDL license when I asked for wikipedia, a long time ago.
Back in like “2020” then constantly references statements from 2022. Completely incongruent arguments. This is exactly the depth and breadth of today 20 somethings. Whataboutism about mean people in a pointless diatribe. Find something you are good at.
14:00 The second statement where she on the news show calls navigating the 2nd amendment "tricky" there ur right tho; THOSE statements shudnt be controversial
12:00 telling people not to seek truth IS radical; the context did NOT make it much better... realpolitik is about focusing on nothing but the truths we can agree on; not STOPPING the truth-striving; thats literally insane; Musk was right on that... what is insanity if not the deprioritizing of truth??
@@OldDistantHermit im inclined to agree about the "cringe"-assessment xD but hey; should i rly have left out the positive part?? also: how much are u enjoying chillin on that high horse? would u care to at least offer a modicum of disproving/counterarguments instead of just labeling me "unhinged"?? or should we just have two polarized sides fully convinced they're right and screaming at each other..?
@@OldDistantHermit and hey "cute" is making it worse i was being perfectly platonic u added that part xD also i pointed out how she was right in the previous comments too! :P thers no grudge or simpin here im just sensemaking; please join me
@@OldDistantHermit also i didnt rly "tell" her she's wrong; i explained how she was/asked how she could not be in light of the importance of truth and the seeming fact that its a fallacy to think u have to bump down truth in order to be able to write a wiki-page whatsoever... There could be more admiting truth isnt obvious; humility and inclusion of debate-formats instead of just editorializing and forcing quasi-objectivity in the name of "authoritativeness"/volume/lack of confusion etc; the price we payed for it is people givin up their trust in the site... the old corruption of power has seeped in thru the "gatekeeping"/"labeling"-process... "peer-review" suffers equally... The Royal Society and the enlightenment would have gotten nowhere if it had gatekept what arguments were even able to be heard! or mudslung sound arguments into oblivion cuz it didnt align w/ the opinions of some power-bloc... Throwing out hecklers is one thing; the indirect censoring power of economic interests is another... hardcore focus on truth is the only antidote... lest the "verifying bodies" take over; Only the scientific method has the power to verify! Sunlight disinfects better than Authority...
16:30 do u think media atm deserves praise? do u think it could not be any better?? cuz if it can but it wont, n it still holds alot of sway? then we DO need some Teddy Roosevelt-style trust-busting...
9:50 FALSE! a Wikipedia article should obviously outline the best arguments of every side w/o judging; let the evidence speak for itself instead of editorializing....
There aren't "sides" to facts. If you write a Wikipedia page on the American Revolution, would you add a section that states that the rebels lost and the US remained a British colony just to have that "side"? Should an article about the US Civil War be written from the viewpoint of the Lost Cause southern-pride revisionists, with a sentence about how the Yankees disagree?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Facts can get disproven, and depending on what unavoidable assumptions u make u get different facts; perspectivism. But obviously to disprove facts u need even better facts; so indeed only "good" facts~proof should be wiki-admitted; if thers good proof for something and its notable then obv it deserves an wiki-mentioning! And occasionally even blatantly incorrect stuff; by virtue of getting popular~notable, deserves a mention; if a notable chunk of southern-pride revisionists disagree then indeed people deserve to know about that event in the world; but not that they're right or anything; just that its happening/happened; people actually believe this stuff w/o proof; IF that itself is true then report it just like other popular delusions. But then in cases like Intelligent Design or Climate Change-models etc etc there needs to be proper steelmanning and diggin deep into the actual heart of the disagreements instead of just labeling one side "pseudoscience" cuz some boards of "experts" said so etc... truth is neither ipse dixit nor a popularity contest; Nullius in verba
Worst take I've seen from you. "verifiable" = able to be checked or demonstrated to be true... (sure or "accurate"/"justified", but accur8 2 what if not truth xD?? n justified by what if not truth xD???? ""truth can vary"" ehh yeah that doesnt mean w abandon it n stop strivin 4 it!!!! it just means w dont make definitive claims prematurely! report what ppl think cuz its true that they think it; not cuz their opinions ARE the truth... "works pretty well", eh?? wikipedia has been turned in2 a leftist shitshow the last few yrs :/ throwin around attempts at discrediting people by tarring them as "conspiracy theorist" etc w/o being able to back it up...
NPR is a PUBLICLY FUNDED organization. X is NOT. A little difference that you’ve decided to ignore.
Publicly paid CEOs like her should not be biased, is this a crazy thing to ask for?
Frankly, NPR would be better described as "Corporate underwritten" media. The necessary change in funding mechanisms has very much affected the reporting and it's now much cozier alignment with a fairly solid establishment perspective, little different that of the New York Times.
I don't understand how one could care about truth without also caring about verifiability. If I noticed that something I believed wasn't verifiable, that would at least weaken that belief
"I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done" This is a complete statement, to hide that she simply doesn't believe in telling the truth. Sorry, no excuse for this statement. Fairy's do not exist, but in a child's imagination, so let's try to make others believe that they do exist. That's basically what she is saying.
She said "Free and Open is a way of looking at the world that is Inherently limited..." What? what the hell does that even mean?, how can "open" be in any way limited?, seems to me it only means "I reject free and open because it is inherently not aligning with my political views".
Claudine Gay resigned so it’s not like there wasn’t any merit for criticism against her
I am neither far right or far left, BUT, here we are again...I wish NPR would get back to its roots, and just be what they once were, an authentic newsworthy platform. Why spend hours defending or setting the record straight for the CEO? The ratings have obviously fallen drastically, because activism ---> Will NEVER BE EQUAL TO TRUE JOURNALISM. The stories have become repetitive, catering to a trendy media that doesn't want to offend anyone. BTW, I am so beyond sick of the right against left - left against right culture, cancel culture, blah, blah, blah The CEO is in a position to lead NPR to a better place, but sadly I see NPR heading to a place where it will end up canceling itself.
Commenting on this excellent video for positive engagement reasons. Making sure the comment is long enough that it's considered for that type of thing.
Great work as always Molly
Deeply frustrating how many supposedly serious outlets are doing Rufo's dirty work for him by both amplifying his claims and treating him like a good-faith actor. Thanks for putting this video together Molly. Really enjoyed your recent TF appearance as well!
If she is such a genius why not just post her entire truth talk? Let people hear her complete thought.
love Rufo, trying to go up against the most unhinged extremist activists of our time
It's not what is verified that matters, it's who does the verification. "trusted sources"/" trusted experts" is a subjective term. Trusted by whom?
Really well said. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills seeing how this has been covered. I'm so done with news outlets treating Chris Rufo like a reliable source or anything more than a vicious troll. He's really no better than James O'Keefe, that guy who did the ACORN scandal in 2009. Anyway, thanks!
It appears as if Kathrine Maher became a convenient target when the Uri Berliner left NPR - because she is the CEO of the organization that Berliner criticized. Most of this is now moths ago and - not surprisingly - it has gotten rather quiet around this issue and Mr Rufo seems to zero in on other targets. Maher was then just in her new job at NPR and lets see how she will deal with the obvious issues at an organization that has lost a lot of trust. We used to give new appointees 100 days to show their colors. They are up.
Thanks Molly for your coverage and for putting the hype and the quotes into context. That is the way to go - and perhaps even NPR will look at that and remember what good journalism looks like.
Engagement for the engagement god!
this attack on media that is not payed by conservative money, is not limited on the us.
Europe has the same problem and the awareness of the danger is on the same level as the awareness of the danger of climate change.
I think this is a generational problem, in that a large percentage of the people in control of anything today are unable to grasp the existence of actual danger to society.
Maybe because most of them grew up in times that felt like they were hard, but always improving, getting better.
but as they were all children back then, they didn't notice the fights many adults fought at the time for things to get better.
and just assumed things would always magically improve and never get worse.
Thanks for breaking this down for us! I saw a news headline about this, but I suspected that there was more to the story.
I think "verifiability, not truth" is also a great model for journalists! They're supposed to investigate with an open mind, question sources, decide which information is more reliable, but still report multiple points of view.
Wich story is "most" verifiable tho :P? Isn't it a cop-out referral/outsourcing to "expert" institutions to do the sensemaking in terms of relevance? Instead of letting all perspectives w/ some kind of notable proof~verifiability join the convo~wikipage, and the intro/summary; the truth of the matter: sums up each and points out discrepancies in land conquered in opinion-space; a neat popularity metric for each perspective, and hilighting core differences in interpretation and its rationales (like ground.news or "kialo edu") but not just for right/left/factuality etc, but an open idea-market of steelmanability; able to yield logical champions irregardless of popularity... Transcending "verification" of data points, and reaching - in full and continuous competition - for the pinnacle of reason; grasping for Logos. Don't needlessly lower ur ambitions
Also why not help out like-minded and create an organisation! - "Journalists Against Truth"
And what you get is circular verification with an echo-chamber individuals verifying each other to make "Truth" out of Crap invented from Whole Cloth. THAT is what the Democrat Marxist-Commies have been doing for decades.
It's something very striking in anglo culture that past statements or opinions matter so much to the present. It's clear it was taken out of context but it was also... in the past ! In France we tend to try very hard to defend the right of people to change their mind, or getting better ! At least we're really afraid of american-influenced tendencies to dig out 20yo mono sentences and use them as random categorizing arguments.
But all these are old tricks in rhetorics, and have been used for centuries. If you can associate anyone to being a fascist, a thief, a sexual deviant with a tenuous link and convince the crowd, you won the argument for cheap and... well that's kinda the game sometimes.
Love the hair btw 😂
how did the context change it? LOVE that u "defend the right of people to change their mind, or getting better"
@ypierro hmm it wont let me tag
Why should American tax dollars support a One Sided channel like NPR ?
"If you can bear to have the truths you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools . . . ."
I do love the poem. Good reference.
great video! please make one on wikipedia parts you think need improvement.
Great explainer as always. I hope this educates people who are actually willing to listen and learn about how and why Wikipedia works.
Right wing culture warrior invents scenario to get outraged about? Colour me shocked.
Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
Rufo did with CRT, DEI, and now he wants to do it to NPR.
That's what wokeness is. Pushing CRT, DEI unscientific, divisive garbage.
I would be very interested in your views on wikipedia and what you would change to improve it
Why does "cancel culture" never seem to be important to elitist intellectuals whenever people on the right (who claim to be against it) then do it?
Great video! And thanks for bringing out the trolls, I really needed a good laugh this morning.
Wikipedia deals in fact, not truth. If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
Omg katherine is NPR CEO!? that is actually amazing!!!
I was delighted when I first heard, too!
Thanks, Molly
waiting for more!
Great video Molly! I didn't know any of this before. Thanks for the explanation!
Its not what you know, its what you can prove. A concept that's too complicated for journalists writing about this.
I need more Molly White videos please
Me too!
It's just shocking to me that Rufo has any standing. It's pretty clear he is a bad actor, and centrist/mainstream news organizations should be better about even acknowledging any information he presents.
Thanks for doing this Molly, really important there is some sensible response to this stuff.
English struggles here because there is "truth" which is things that are probable, reproducible, and testable and then "Truth" which is divine, unassailable, and immutable. This really needs to be two words, because scientists look for truth, but people like rufo are concerned with Truth and they're totally different things.
Interesting vid, thanks
NPR perceived to be liberal leading?? Not perceived, it definitely is. Even a lifelong liberal editor wrote about that last week. You mentioned the need for verifiable versus what is true, OK that made sense to me. However, Maher specifically stated she was against free and open and that Wikipedia 'rebuilt this idea of knowledge as whole around Western canon", then goes further say Wikipedia ignores communities of language because of the way Wikipedia is based on reliable sources & some cultures don't have a written tradition. And finally of course she brings up "white male westernized construct" clearly this woman is on the far-left.
With trust in the media at an all-time low with clear biases and agendas Public media especially should strive to put a balanced face forward rather than have a CEO whose views are outside the majority of their potential listening audience's Overton window.NPR should want to lose their extreme left viewers in exchange for gaining viewers ranging from moderate right to moderate left with a focus on US perception of that range.
So NPR is liberal leaning but not perceived to be so?
I saw Swedish right wingers claiming Maher has caused the death of Wikipedia and went straight to your youtube channel. Thanks a lot for as always providing a factual and concise summary ☺️
Thank you, forever!
My feeling is that Wikipedia fulfills Kant's desire for universal history, spoken in every language, all mutually challenged to cohere with verifiably mutual authorship. I can respond to this further, regarding the development of science since the American 1850s. Creationist "intelligent design" is as intuitively rationalized as Herbert Spencer's plagiarized Darwin's evolution "survival of the fittest."
What challenge is there for today's millionaires, that after seeking education to perform such particular jobs as Foreign Service like Rufo, manages to only construct a mockery of religious idolatry? Who plagiarizes the speech of other leaders whom they intend to defeat, purely for the sake of ego other than dictators?
The ego dictators, thieves of nations, want their own versions. Nevermind how they feel, they spite their own feelings, incapable of explaining much that isn't easily challenged by science and more efficient people. What more, they need their ego to be on stage, more and more. They need controversy, like Reality Tv.
I'm not what you would call a Wikipedia editor, but I did some editing and happened to witness the problem of verifiability vs truth first hand. Sometimes there is wrong information in a reputable source, I know the correct information, but there is no reliable source for it. I think in that case the best we can do is not mention that information or to phrase it in such a vague way that it allows both the verifiable and the correct answer.
In such circumstances your best course of action is to try to get a reliable source, just as a news outlet or peer-reviewed journal, to publish the correct information which with luck you can then use to correct the Wikipedia article.
So normal Chris Rufo bullshit.
Yes, I'd love to wach a vido where you discuss people's inability to correct information on Wikipedia about themselves (or others) that they know is untrue and could prove it, but do not have a "reliable source" for this. I've experienced this myself, trying to correct biographical information on people where I even have the birth certificate of the person in my possession and cannot correct something on wikipedia because a "reliable" source made an error a long ago.
Thumbs down for lies
okay this is an awesome fediverse surprise. instant subscribe!
Why not just play her entire talk on truth? Let people listen to her and make up their own minds?
Her Ted talk is awful. She is exchanging the word truth with perspective.
Wait? NPR has a THRONE?
Strange that a video ostensibly talking about the female CEO of NPR opens with several minutes of discussion about right-wing male CEOs...
This was a very thoughtful summary -- much appreciated, Molly. I regret that one of our most famous dust-ups on Twitter centered on a Wikimedia Foundation survey that found (supposedly) that 25% to 30% of the people who felt harassed on Wikipedia said that the harassment came in the form of revenge porn. I had common-sense doubts that the problem was anywhere near that prevalent, but I didn't wisely contain my disagreement in scientific terms, where I should have. We live and learn, I suppose.
Well, "personal grudges" on the line of sayin that "[...] most of the written knowledge today has been written by white colonial european and north american men.." like Maher did, or you mean something more?
Facts are objective. Truth is subjective.
Spoken like a true reality denying, post-modernist indoctrinated leftist. There is only ONE truth and it's objective. To deny that is to deny reality. You're distorted perceptions of it are not truth, they're delusions.
Something about these grifters fascinates me. I keep thinking of the Ann Coulter episode of the Boondocks. What is it like to live your whole life trolling people with stuff you probably know is bullshit. What must that feel like.
Beliefs are not considered "truths".. they are ASSumptions
Exactly. I'm really surprised all this is coming out of Molly.
@@TomNook. I am not surprised.
The point is that to the believer, they do consider it "true". And that debating it is fruitless, for the purpose of writing a Wikipedia article.
Oh my god y'all are extreme idiots or are intentionally going way out of your way to pretend to not understand what she's talking about.
NPR used to be very good but they have fallen a long way. They are still falling.
Spacex happily released their photos to a GFDL license when I asked for wikipedia, a long time ago.
What has changed from when NPR was very good? Why are they getting worse?
Comparing NPR with pure private media companies is... pure wikipedian manipulation.
Back in like “2020” then constantly references statements from 2022. Completely incongruent arguments. This is exactly the depth and breadth of today 20 somethings. Whataboutism about mean people in a pointless diatribe. Find something you are good at.
Every needs to stop donating to NPR immediately. She is making statements only fascists would make.
She is far left though
In what framework? Where things have drifted so far right that Jesus would be considered a Commie?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen how about in one where she says deprioritizing truth is ok :P? postmodern up the wazoo :P
14:00 The second statement where she on the news show calls navigating the 2nd amendment "tricky" there ur right tho; THOSE statements shudnt be controversial
12:00 telling people not to seek truth IS radical; the context did NOT make it much better... realpolitik is about focusing on nothing but the truths we can agree on; not STOPPING the truth-striving; thats literally insane; Musk was right on that... what is insanity if not the deprioritizing of truth??
hehe also i like this new hairdo of yours :) and please keep fighting the good fight! ^^
Congratulations, writing 7 unhinged comments telling her she's wrong followed by "hehe ur cute" is the cringiest thing I've read all year.
@@OldDistantHermit im inclined to agree about the "cringe"-assessment xD but hey; should i rly have left out the positive part??
also: how much are u enjoying chillin on that high horse? would u care to at least offer a modicum of disproving/counterarguments instead of just labeling me "unhinged"?? or should we just have two polarized sides fully convinced they're right and screaming at each other..?
@@OldDistantHermit and hey "cute" is making it worse i was being perfectly platonic u added that part xD
also i pointed out how she was right in the previous comments too! :P thers no grudge or simpin here im just sensemaking; please join me
@@OldDistantHermit also i didnt rly "tell" her she's wrong; i explained how she was/asked how she could not be in light of the importance of truth and the seeming fact that its a fallacy to think u have to bump down truth in order to be able to write a wiki-page whatsoever... There could be more admiting truth isnt obvious; humility and inclusion of debate-formats instead of just editorializing and forcing quasi-objectivity in the name of "authoritativeness"/volume/lack of confusion etc; the price we payed for it is people givin up their trust in the site... the old corruption of power has seeped in thru the "gatekeeping"/"labeling"-process... "peer-review" suffers equally... The Royal Society and the enlightenment would have gotten nowhere if it had gatekept what arguments were even able to be heard! or mudslung sound arguments into oblivion cuz it didnt align w/ the opinions of some power-bloc... Throwing out hecklers is one thing; the indirect censoring power of economic interests is another... hardcore focus on truth is the only antidote... lest the "verifying bodies" take over;
Only the scientific method has the power to verify!
Sunlight disinfects better than Authority...
16:30 do u think media atm deserves praise? do u think it could not be any better?? cuz if it can but it wont, n it still holds alot of sway? then we DO need some Teddy Roosevelt-style trust-busting...
There is only one truth. Everything else is opinion.
16:00 dont the media keep reporting lies tho :/? shudnt anything be done about that???
9:50 FALSE! a Wikipedia article should obviously outline the best arguments of every side w/o judging; let the evidence speak for itself instead of editorializing....
There aren't "sides" to facts. If you write a Wikipedia page on the American Revolution, would you add a section that states that the rebels lost and the US remained a British colony just to have that "side"? Should an article about the US Civil War be written from the viewpoint of the Lost Cause southern-pride revisionists, with a sentence about how the Yankees disagree?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Facts can get disproven, and depending on what unavoidable assumptions u make u get different facts; perspectivism.
But obviously to disprove facts u need even better facts; so indeed only "good" facts~proof should be wiki-admitted; if thers good proof for something and its notable then obv it deserves an wiki-mentioning!
And occasionally even blatantly incorrect stuff; by virtue of getting popular~notable, deserves a mention; if a notable chunk of southern-pride revisionists disagree then indeed people deserve to know about that event in the world; but not that they're right or anything; just that its happening/happened; people actually believe this stuff w/o proof; IF that itself is true then report it just like other popular delusions.
But then in cases like Intelligent Design or Climate Change-models etc etc there needs to be proper steelmanning and diggin deep into the actual heart of the disagreements instead of just labeling one side "pseudoscience" cuz some boards of "experts" said so etc... truth is neither ipse dixit nor a popularity contest; Nullius in verba
@@TorIverWilhelmsen There are tho :P Facts are a form of truth that isn't absolute; don't get it twisted
16:35 why in gods name would we "need" an information-institution w/ leaders that doesn't prioritize truth???? the truth shall set us free...
Worst take I've seen from you.
"verifiable" = able to be checked or demonstrated to be true...
(sure or "accurate"/"justified", but accur8 2 what if not truth xD?? n justified by what if not truth xD????
""truth can vary"" ehh yeah that doesnt mean w abandon it n stop strivin 4 it!!!! it just means w dont make definitive claims prematurely! report what ppl think cuz its true that they think it; not cuz their opinions ARE the truth...
"works pretty well", eh?? wikipedia has been turned in2 a leftist shitshow the last few yrs :/ throwin around attempts at discrediting people by tarring them as "conspiracy theorist" etc w/o being able to back it up...
Stick to your right-wing sewage pipes, lad. Also, reality has a liberal bias.