America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Nordberg]

RT is a Russian government-owned and operated news. Russia controls the media. RT is just another propaganda outlet. The people in Russia are subjected to the same slant. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

 

[saltydancin]

I certainly didn't quote it, but I believe I got the gist of what they meant. As you yourself quoted, the Wikipedia article starts off with the following:

**
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
How you came to believe that this could be synonymous with ideological opponents, I have no idea.

After some 22 years of those ideological opponents not so more perfect union of Christiananality pedophilia & Islamidiotocracy pedophilia in SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 Freudian slip granting standing to Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement of thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists malice aforethought attempt of nuke Temple Mount malfeasance to eliminate & exterminate their beyond the pleasure principle Peter Principle pyramid scheme business economics political pseudoscience making "man is God" synonymous with "one nation under God with equal justice under law" as despicable & vile as WW II Mengele 'Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations pedophilia idea as Klues Klucks duh Klans perpetual suicidal super ego way too dang lily brilliant white under color of law crusade - jihad....

 

[Nordberg]

After some 22 years of those ideological opponents not so more perfect union of Christiananality pedophilia & Islamidiotocracy pedophilia in SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 Freudian slip granting standing to Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement of thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists malice aforethought attempt of nuke Temple Mount malfeasance to eliminate & exterminate their beyond the pleasure principle Peter Principle pyramid scheme business economics political pseudoscience making "man is God" synonymous with "one nation under God with equal justice under law" as despicable & vile as WW II Mengele 'Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations pedophilia idea as Klues Klucks duh Klans perpetual suicidal super ego way too dang lily brilliant white under color of law crusade - jihad....

Still writing in a stream of unconsciousness.

 

[saltydancin]

Still writing in a stream of unconsciousness.

For those cross conditioned way beyond the pleasure principle consciousness of Islamidiotocracy Christiananality pedophilia seems would take a flood to wash away suicidal super egos instead of a stream for the national religion of SCOTUS Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory - old testament - absentee voting ballots arsonists malfeasance.

 

[Scott]

I certainly didn't quote it, but I believe I got the gist of what they meant. As you yourself quoted, the Wikipedia article starts off with the following:

**
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

How you came to believe that this could be synonymous with ideological opponents, I have no idea.

From the article you linked:

It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not. And once they read the information you have read or experienced what you have experienced, they will change their mind.

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

Now compare and contrast with the Dunning-Kruger effect: "a cognitive bias whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge."
or the converse: "a cognitive bias whereby highly educated people with high ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to assume the person they're talking has no knowledge or unable to understand the areas they are discusing."

Both of them are the same. It is a cognitive bias that assumes that one knows more or the others doesn't.

To repeat the quote from the article: It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not."

Now do you see it?

I think I see how you got mixed up. Mary Ekaete is referring to how one can make false assumptions concerning one's ideological opponent. That can certainly include assuming that that one's ideological opponent is experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, or that one oneself is experiencing it. That's completely separate from the definition of an ideological opponent.

 

[AProudLefty]

I think I see how you got mixed up. Mary Ekaete is referring to how one can make false assumptions concerning one's ideological opponent. That can certainly include assuming that that one's ideological opponent is experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, or that one oneself is experiencing it. That's completely separate from the definition of an ideological opponent.

You're getting so close and yet so far.

Both Dunning-Kruger effect and ideological opponent "effect" both are a cognitive bias where one assumes the others does not know or does not understand the information present.

Here's an example from the article you linked to:

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

The person assumes (or has a cognitive bias) that "they" did not read the package inserts or have any knowledge or understand the effects they have on them.

You are getting closer and closer. I am proud of you.

 

[Scott]

RT is a Russian government-owned and operated news. Russia controls the media. RT is just another propaganda outlet. The people in Russia are subjected to the same slant. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

I've found that people tend to rely on mediabiasfactcheck way too much in various sites I've been on. On another site, I made a thread on the site to avoid having to repeat myself on its flaws. I just made one here:
mediabiasfactcheck.com bias | justplainpolitics.com

yes, RT is Russian government owned. That doesn't mean that the articles on it have to be false. If you can find any objections to the article in the opening post, by all means bring them up. So far, the only real complaint I've gotten is that they only focused on the leaked documents, rather than all the documents. The source article, from an American publication, does the same in the subtitle of its article, but it does get into other documents in the text itself.

 

[Scott]

I think I see how you got mixed up. Mary Ekaete is referring to how one can make false assumptions concerning one's ideological opponent. That can certainly include assuming that that one's ideological opponent is experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, or that one oneself is experiencing it. That's completely separate from the definition of an ideological opponent.

You're getting so close and yet so far.

Both Dunning-Kruger effect and ideological opponent "effect" both are a cognitive bias where one assumes the others does not know or does not understand the information present.

An ideological opponent is not an "effect". It's a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

 

[AProudLefty]

An ideological opponent is not an "effect". It's a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

I put quotation marks around it for a reason. It is clear English is not your first language.

And it is not about the disagreement, it's about the ASSUMPTION that the opponent has no knowledge of understanding of the topic. See the examples given in the article.

 

[Scott]

Both Dunning-Kruger effect and ideological opponent "effect" both are a cognitive bias [snip]

An ideological opponent is not an "effect". It's a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

I put quotation marks around it for a reason.

Doesn't change the fact that an ideological opponent isn't an effect, but a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

 

[AProudLefty]

Doesn't change the fact that an ideological opponent isn't an effect, but a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

One more time, it is not about disagreement, it is about ASSUMPTION on what the opponent knows or understands.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

 

[AProudLefty]

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

Musings on the “Other Side”: Why Your Ideological Opponents Don’t Think Like You Do | cerebralistic.com

Questioning your sources does not make you my ideological opponent. At the very least it makes you suspect.

 

[Scott]

Doesn't change the fact that an ideological opponent isn't an effect, but a person with whom one disagrees on a given subject.

One more time, it is not about disagreement, it is about ASSUMPTION on what the opponent knows or understands.

I'm beginning to suspect that we're not going to be able to agree on the definition of an ideological opponent. That's alright. As far as I know, the term isn't in any dictionary, so I'm thinking perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

 

[Scott]

I have no "ideological opponent".

Yes, you do. I would be one such individual, at least when it comes to RT. I just read a very interesting article on the subject of ideological opponents that you may find interesting:

Musings on the “Other Side”: Why Your Ideological Opponents Don’t Think Like You Do | cerebralistic.com

Questioning your sources does not make you my ideological opponent.

True, but I think your view of RT is far enough from mine to make us ideological opponents on the subject of RT.

At the very least it makes you suspect.

Suspect of what?

 

[AProudLefty]

I'm beginning to suspect that we're not going to be able to agree on the definition of an ideological opponent. That's alright. As far as I know, the term isn't in any dictionary, so I'm thinking perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

Look, you linked to an article that defines "ideological opponent". So I am using the article's OWN DEFINITION.

The Possibly Incorrect Assumption You Make About Your Ideological Opponent

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, specifically about the third assumption. It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not. And once they read the information you have read or experienced what you have experienced, they will change their mind.

Now tell me what does that mean.

Having a disagreement with someone does not make that person your ideological opponent. It is just simply an opponent or the other side of discussion.

Here's an example (I cannot believe you kept ignoring that one):

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

See that? The person makes an assumption that they haven't read the package inserts.

 

[AProudLefty]

True, but I think your view of RT is far enough from mine to make us ideological opponents on the subject of RT.

Nope. It only make your analysis of RT suspect.

Here's an example that you might understand: I tell you that the CCP has not been torturing and killing Muslims in their country and I give you CCP source of it, would you accept that source as legitimate?

Suspect of what?

See above.

 

[Scott]

I'm beginning to suspect that we're not going to be able to agree on the definition of an ideological opponent. That's alright. As far as I know, the term isn't in any dictionary, so I'm thinking perhaps we can just agree to disagree.

Look, you linked to an article that defines "ideological opponent".

It actually has multiple definitions of the term, but I think anyone who knows what "ideological" and "opponent" mean can figure out what they mean together.

So I am using the article's OWN DEFINITION.

The Possibly Incorrect Assumption You Make About Your Ideological Opponent

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately, specifically about the third assumption. It’s usually predicated on the idea that you know or have experienced something they have not. And once they read the information you have read or experienced what you have experienced, they will change their mind.

Now tell me what does that mean.

I think most people would prefer not having the text size jump up and down, but I'll take it over insults. I think we both understand what it means. Your mistake is in thinking that the above Mary Ekaete's definition of an ideological opponent. It's not.

Having a disagreement with someone does not make that person your ideological opponent. It is just simply an opponent or the other side of discussion.

Here's an example (I cannot believe you kept ignoring that one):

If only they actually read the package inserts of vaccines. Then they’d know the dangerous chemicals they contain and vaccinate their kids. Like, who in their right mind knowingly allows their child to be injected with poison like mercury, says the anti-vaxxer.

See that? The person makes an assumption that they haven't read the package inserts.

Agreed. What you don't seem to understand is the above is in fact one of Mary Ekaete's examples of an ideological opponent, in this case, on the subject of vaccines.

 

[Scott]

True, but I think your view of RT is far enough from mine to make us ideological opponents on the subject of RT.

Nope. It only make your analysis of RT suspect.

You're actually currently guilty of doing something mentioned in Mary Ekaete's article. Specifically, this part:

**
We’ve all been here before. We see them, our ideological opponents. People whose brain cells are so obviously depleted to the point that they believe insanities. The olodos.

Or perhaps their intelligence isn’t the issue. Maybe they have stones where their hearts should be, completely devoid of empathy and compassion. Evil rules their moral compass and it shows in their erroneous opinions.

Or maybe they are just ignorant, their eyes never reading information that you are certain would change their minds. Their lives without the experience that would shift their perspective.

Whatever the case may be, they are wrong. And you know it.
**

Source:
Musings on the “Other Side”: Why Your Ideological Opponents Don’t Think Like You Do | cerebralistic.com

Here's an example that you might understand: I tell you that the CCP has not been torturing and killing Muslims in their country and I give you CCP source of it, would you accept that source as legitimate?

No, because it's understandable that they would want to obfuscate the truth here. Also, there are articles from other sources that contradict that stance. This one, for example:

15 things You Need To Know About China’s Torture of Uyghur Muslims | muslimmatters.org

 

[AProudLefty]

It actually has multiple definitions of the term, but I think anyone who knows what "ideological" and "opponent" mean can figure out what they mean together.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun
noun: ideology; plural noun: ideologies

1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

So how does that make us both "ideological opponents" of each other? It makes no sense. You and I are just two guys having a discussion/debate.

It all comes back to the legitimacy of your source. Me asking you for a better source and you accused me of treating you as my ideological opponent, which you are not. Maybe you have been playing victim the whole time.

I think most people would prefer not having the text size jump up and down, but I'll take it over insults. I think we both understand what it means. Your mistake is in thinking that the above Mary Ekaete's definition of an ideological opponent. It's not.

I have re pasted and re pasted and re pasted the same part from the source YOU linked to and yet you continue to ignore the relevant parts. So I felt it is needed to highlight the parts so you can SEE them and not miss them.

Then you are saying there is no definition of "ideological opponent"? You just wanted to link me to an article that is pretty much about Dunning-Kruger effect? Why?

Agreed. What you don't seem to understand is the above is in fact one of Mary Ekaete's examples of an ideological opponent, in this case, on the subject of vaccines.

Then again that is Dunning-Kruger effect. We are going in circles and circles.

So let's stop using the retarded term, "ideological opponent", because it makes zero sense. You and I both are just two guys having a discussion and we keep coming back to the reliability of the source you linked.

 

[AProudLefty]

You're actually currently guilty of doing something mentioned in Mary Ekaete's article. Specifically, this part:

**
We’ve all been here before. We see them, our ideological opponents. People whose brain cells are so obviously depleted to the point that they believe insanities. The olodos.

Or perhaps their intelligence isn’t the issue. Maybe they have stones where their hearts should be, completely devoid of empathy and compassion. Evil rules their moral compass and it shows in their erroneous opinions.

Or maybe they are just ignorant, their eyes never reading information that you are certain would change their minds. Their lives without the experience that would shift their perspective.

Whatever the case may be, they are wrong. And you know it.
**

Source:
Musings on the “Other Side”: Why Your Ideological Opponents Don’t Think Like You Do | cerebralistic.com



No, because it's understandable that they would want to obfuscate the truth here. Also, there are articles from other sources that contradict that stance. This one, for example:

15 things You Need To Know About China’s Torture of Uyghur Muslims | muslimmatters.org

Then again you are saying that your action is suspect if you are really not "unaware".

Either you are unaware of the questionable nature of the source or you DO know the nature but keep doubling down. That is how gaslighting works. It's a propaganda tool.