It's a Witch.... I'm sorry that's insensitive to witches. The more religiously inclined might see a Demon there.
Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
this sort of fits in here
ICYMI
She got a confirmation bias a mile long was my thinking....That seems like more of a biased juror issue than a news/propaganda issue.
One and the same army, just different divisions.That seems like more of a biased juror issue than a news/propaganda issue.
BREAKING: CRAZY EYES CLOUT-CHASING WICCAN THEATER KID THINKS SHE CAN TAKE DOWN TRUMP
Not an Onion headline
On today’s episode of Human Events Daily, Jack Posobiec breaks down Georgia Grand Jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs and her uncomfortable obsession with former President Donald Trump and her clout-chasing quest to see him indicted. Poso also dissects the latest from 9/11 lawyer who gave an ominous warning to the people afflicted by the ecological disaster in East Palestine. Poso then gives an unfiltered breakdown of recent polls that show a shocking lack of support for the war in Ukraine, despite what mainstream media reports - all this and more on today’s HUMAN EVENTS DAILY!
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/
Podcast Episode: So You Think You’re A Critical Thinker
... Alice Marwick ... says many people see conspiracy theories as participatory ways to be active in political and social systems from which they feel left out, building upon beliefs they already harbor to weave intricate and entirely false narratives.
Marwick speaks with EFF’s Cindy Cohn and Jason Kelley about finding ways to identify and leverage people’s commonalities to stem this flood of disinformation while ensuring that the most marginalized and vulnerable internet users are still empowered to speak out.
In this episode you’ll learn about:
- Why seemingly ludicrous conspiracy theories get so many views and followers
- How disinformation is tied to personal identity and feelings of marginalization and disenfranchisement
- When fact-checking does and doesn’t work
- Thinking about online privacy as a political and structural issue rather than something that can be solved by individual action
Alice Marwick is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and cofounder and Principal Researcher at the Center for Information, Technology and Public Life at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She researches the social, political, and cultural implications of popular social media technologies. In 2017, she co-authored Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online (Data & Society), a flagship report examining far-right online subcultures’ use of social media to spread disinformation, for which she was named one of Foreign Policy magazine’s 2017 Global Thinkers. She is the author of Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity and Branding in the Social Media Age (Yale 2013), an ethnographic study of the San Francisco tech scene which examines how people seek social status through online visibility, and co-editor of The Sage Handbook of Social Media (Sage 2017). Her forthcoming book, The Private is Political (Yale 2023), examines how the networked nature of online privacy disproportionately impacts marginalized individuals in terms of gender, race, and socio-economic status. She earned a political science and women's studies bachelor's degree from Wellesley College, a Master of Arts in communication from the University of Washington, and a PhD in media, culture and communication from New York University.
...
If you believe that Princess Diana was assassinated, you almost certainly do not also believe that she is secretly still alive.
That may sound obvious, but there are parts of the academy where it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. In 2012, a much-cited paper in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science seemed to show that people willing to reject the official story of Di's death—that she had been killed in a car accident—weren't very choosy about which alternative they embraced: "the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered." When the authors asked for opinions about the contradictory rumors surrounding the demise of Osama bin Laden, they got comparable results. So strong was the correlation, they concluded, that it seemed fair to say that "any conspiracy theory that stands in opposition to the official narrative will gain some degree of endorsement from someone who holds a conspiracist worldview, even if it directly contradicts other conspiracy theories that they also find credible." Or as they put it more pithily later in the paper: "Believing that Osama bin Laden is still alive is apparently no obstacle to believing that he has been dead for years."
The press couldn't resist the idea of a kook so divorced from common sense that he thinks someone could be both alive and dead. The study became a staple of pop-science pieces on conspiracy theories, and of pop-intellectual writing by figures such as Cass Sunstein. And when other experimenters followed up on the paper, they replicated its results.
"Journalists love it," declared Jan-Willem van Prooijen, a psychologist from VU Amsterdam, as he addressed the International Conspiracy Theory Symposium at the University of Miami this past weekend. "It's a cool finding. There's just one problem: It's not true."
...
...
That exchange between Nance and me was symbolic of a choice the network faced. They could either keep doing what reporters had done since the beginning of time, confining themselves to saying things they could prove. Or, they could adopt a new approach, in which you can say anything is true or confirmed, so long as a politician or intelligence official told you it was.
We know how that worked out. ...
... The latest focus of concern is misinformation generated by AI. This innovation could potentially make misinformation seem even more credible than previous technologies did!
In an insightful recent Bloomberg column (unfortunately paywalled), economist Tyler Cowen, my George Mason University colleague, suggests that concerns about AI misinformation may be overblown—not because voters can easily see through it, but because misinformation doesn't have to be very sophisticated to deceive those predisposed to believe it:
...
... The root of the problem of political misinformation is not that the deceptions are highly sophisticated or that a particular new technology (e.g.—social media) makes it easy to produce and spread it, but that voters have little incentive to seek out the truth and evaluate information objectively. Many instead act as biased "political fans," lapping up whatever ideas—including ridiculous conspiracy theories—support their preexisting views and prejudices.
I'm glad you asked.Joe.................serious question.
Do you have any viable proof of this that you can actually go public with or is this simply an opinion? If you have proof will you share it?
Is there anything else to respond with?............silence..........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?