We don't even really get that. Occasionally a journalist will sputter out a rebuttal but since these clowns refuse to acknowledge it, the attempt at fact checking goes nowhere.
Journalistic integrity should demand hard stances. If your guest lies, call them out with the correct information. If they refuse to acknowledge it or continue to lie, end the interview and remove them from your show.
I had to look up Peterson. Found this from The Atlantic.
The pop-psych/self-help angle is a bit annoying. But he seems on to something.
But frankly, my own critique is more informed by Sokal.
I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them.
I'm a Fourth Internationalist myself, having read the "Manifesto" as an aspiring petty-bourgeois intellectual in while in HS in rural Delmarva. Deeply interested in "the Russian Question," I trained as an historian of Soviet industrialization, as the Union was destroyed by the IMF,
So while in the humanities, I share his believe in an external world, and that truths about it can be known. Having dabbled in classical antiquity, I am well aware of the epistemological problems, and am confident in the profession's techniques.
I'm not a big Chomsky fan (even after he dropped his usual abstentionism in face of Trump, calling the GOP an existential threat to humanity due to their climate policies), but I like this quote from Rationalwiki's piece on Sokal.
“ALL of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.”
Postmodernism, with its dense prose and arcane jargon, always struck me as more a signifier of an academic "cool kid" and substantially less than a progressive critique or strategy. One that could dis the presently existing working class and class politics, while still playing at radicalism.
It may be wild, but I don't think it an oversimplification.
Isn't "question" merely a more polite and euphemistic word than "discredit"?
If facts are merely an agreed, semi-arbitrary, subjective concept, than they are in fact malleable. Isn't that why one wishes to question them?
I very carefully spoke of enabling. That surely does not imply direct causality. The right were already well into "alternative facts" back in the Birch Society/McCarthyite days.
I'm sure no progressive has ever misused any of the info from any 200 level class, in any discipline.
My case is simply this -- the academically fashionable notions of subjective facts weakens the ability of the left to fight rightist disinformation. And to my ear, it makes many of the jabs at "Faux News" ring hollow.
I think that is an wild oversimplification/misunderstanding of post-modernism that smacks of Jordan B. Peterson-type thinking; in addition, not all post-modernists were lefty (though I grant most were), nor was their work, in the main, intended to discredit the idea that facts are whatever you want them to be. It was intended to question / not take for granted the universality and transparency of some notions that are presented as universal truths about society.
If some Fox producers or presenters came away from a 200-level undergrad philosophy class with an idea that facts are malleable things, well, that’s unfortunate, but a little learning can sometimes be a dangerous thing. Certainly there is plenty of resentment on the right for academia, despite the fact that many leading “lights” have impressive degrees from impressive places. But if you’re trying to make out that one thing is a direct response to the other, I’d say you have not proved your thesis.
The post-modernists were enablers. Fox's viewers may not know Foucault from a pendulum, but some of their talent and producers surely do.
The left said "We can have our own facts." And so the right said, "We'll see your voluntarism, and raise you an obscurantism. Gerrymander, distort. Call."
As for Rudi, he knows, to a dead certainty, that Trump will lie his ass off the first chance he gets, without any undue prodding from Mueller. Rudi is terrified of that. Trump is too stupid/narcissistic to be terrified.
But then the State was not charged with perjury, was it, just because you chose to believe the defendant?
Rudy may be concerned that Mueller will believe Comey over Trump (for obvious reasons) but why would he be worried about perjury charges, unless he want us to think Mueller is a big ball of Prosecutorial misconduct waiting to explode.
Foucault, Derrida, their grad school followers. I forgot to through rationality in there, too.
I had a close friend who succumbed to deconstructionism back in the early 80's, and I later endured a seminar on Nietzsche and Foucault in grad school. I always liked the former, despite being a card-carrying red since my teens.
The partisans of the latter suggested I leave "their" seminar so that they could get they wanted from it. It seems ll metanarratives and subject positions aren't equivalent and equally valid after all.
So I didn't go to the last session. But I heard that the prof liked my paper, composed of Nietzschean style aphorisms, well enough to read it to the class.
That's the first time someone explained the whole belief-in-fake-news phenomena in a way that makes sense to me. I think their conclusions are illogical, but then, I'm a libtard.
If you know they are going to lie you can prepare your rebuttals and instead of using them against the liar you use a news ticker at the bottom of the screen to show them. Preferably ending with a "oh god, you are so predictable"but that may be too much.
We don't even really get that. Occasionally a journalist will sputter out a rebuttal but since these clowns refuse to acknowledge it, the attempt at fact checking goes nowhere.
Journalistic integrity should demand hard stances. If your guest lies, call them out with the correct information. If they refuse to acknowledge it or continue to lie, end the interview and remove them from your show.
I had to look up Peterson. Found this from The Atlantic.
The pop-psych/self-help angle is a bit annoying. But he seems on to something.
But frankly, my own critique is more informed by Sokal.
I'm an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class. And I'm a stodgy old scientist who believes, naively, that there exists an external world, that there exist objective truths about that world, and that my job is to discover some of them.
I'm a Fourth Internationalist myself, having read the "Manifesto" as an aspiring petty-bourgeois intellectual in while in HS in rural Delmarva. Deeply interested in "the Russian Question," I trained as an historian of Soviet industrialization, as the Union was destroyed by the IMF,
So while in the humanities, I share his believe in an external world, and that truths about it can be known. Having dabbled in classical antiquity, I am well aware of the epistemological problems, and am confident in the profession's techniques.
I'm not a big Chomsky fan (even after he dropped his usual abstentionism in face of Trump, calling the GOP an existential threat to humanity due to their climate policies), but I like this quote from Rationalwiki's piece on Sokal.
“ALL of this can be described literally in monosyllables, and it turns out to be truisms. On the other hand, you don’t get to be a respected intellectual by presenting truisms in monosyllables.”
Postmodernism, with its dense prose and arcane jargon, always struck me as more a signifier of an academic "cool kid" and substantially less than a progressive critique or strategy. One that could dis the presently existing working class and class politics, while still playing at radicalism.
Myself, proudly on the outs with the "in" crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
It may be wild, but I don't think it an oversimplification.
Isn't "question" merely a more polite and euphemistic word than "discredit"?
If facts are merely an agreed, semi-arbitrary, subjective concept, than they are in fact malleable. Isn't that why one wishes to question them?
I very carefully spoke of enabling. That surely does not imply direct causality. The right were already well into "alternative facts" back in the Birch Society/McCarthyite days.
I'm sure no progressive has ever misused any of the info from any 200 level class, in any discipline.
My case is simply this -- the academically fashionable notions of subjective facts weakens the ability of the left to fight rightist disinformation. And to my ear, it makes many of the jabs at "Faux News" ring hollow.
I think that is an wild oversimplification/misunderstanding of post-modernism that smacks of Jordan B. Peterson-type thinking; in addition, not all post-modernists were lefty (though I grant most were), nor was their work, in the main, intended to discredit the idea that facts are whatever you want them to be. It was intended to question / not take for granted the universality and transparency of some notions that are presented as universal truths about society.
If some Fox producers or presenters came away from a 200-level undergrad philosophy class with an idea that facts are malleable things, well, that’s unfortunate, but a little learning can sometimes be a dangerous thing. Certainly there is plenty of resentment on the right for academia, despite the fact that many leading “lights” have impressive degrees from impressive places. But if you’re trying to make out that one thing is a direct response to the other, I’d say you have not proved your thesis.
The post-modernists were enablers. Fox's viewers may not know Foucault from a pendulum, but some of their talent and producers surely do.
The left said "We can have our own facts." And so the right said, "We'll see your voluntarism, and raise you an obscurantism. Gerrymander, distort. Call."
The Handmaid's Tale likewise.
As for Rudi, he knows, to a dead certainty, that Trump will lie his ass off the first chance he gets, without any undue prodding from Mueller. Rudi is terrified of that. Trump is too stupid/narcissistic to be terrified.
"That gif, not so much."
Try the director's cut.
But then the State was not charged with perjury, was it, just because you chose to believe the defendant?
Rudy may be concerned that Mueller will believe Comey over Trump (for obvious reasons) but why would he be worried about perjury charges, unless he want us to think Mueller is a big ball of Prosecutorial misconduct waiting to explode.
I think you’re laying blame on too lofty a bunch of shoulders. Fox News is far more to blame. Most people couldn’t pick Derrida out of a line up.
Foucault, Derrida, their grad school followers. I forgot to through rationality in there, too.
I had a close friend who succumbed to deconstructionism back in the early 80's, and I later endured a seminar on Nietzsche and Foucault in grad school. I always liked the former, despite being a card-carrying red since my teens.
The partisans of the latter suggested I leave "their" seminar so that they could get they wanted from it. It seems ll metanarratives and subject positions aren't equivalent and equally valid after all.
So I didn't go to the last session. But I heard that the prof liked my paper, composed of Nietzschean style aphorisms, well enough to read it to the class.
Which post-modernists would those be?
That's the first time someone explained the whole belief-in-fake-news phenomena in a way that makes sense to me. I think their conclusions are illogical, but then, I'm a libtard.
If you know they are going to lie you can prepare your rebuttals and instead of using them against the liar you use a news ticker at the bottom of the screen to show them. Preferably ending with a "oh god, you are so predictable"but that may be too much.
https://i.gifer.com/XbWm.mp4
A Few Good Men is one of my favorite movies. That gif, not so much.