Yes, let the "professional fact-checkers" do all of the thinking for you. They come up with shit like this to explain away domestic terrorism when it's performed by one of their heroes:
"In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism.""
I agree with some of what he's saying, but not most. Every once in a while I see something on here and think "Come on, man. Two seconds of research would show you this is bullshit." In that sense, you can quickly disregard some stuff and it will give you more time to consume better resources on a subject.
The main flaw of his article is that he advises people to trust Google, NYTs, "fact checkers," and scholarly articles blindly as arbiters of truth without even hinting at all the potential issues that exist within those structures/mediums. I do a lot of research in my job and can tell you that some scholarly articles are absolute bullshit who cite other bullshit articles to prove their validity. It's a compromised network, essentially, where cancer is allowed to grow if it's the "right kind of cancer." So yeah, all that to say, people should definitely question things and go down rabbit holes from time to time, but there are instances where bullshit is bullshit and a waste of time.
Yes, let the "professional fact-checkers" do all of the thinking for you. They come up with shit like this to explain away domestic terrorism when it's performed by one of their heroes:
"In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism.""
https://archive.is/wrEXO
I agree with some of what he's saying, but not most. Every once in a while I see something on here and think "Come on, man. Two seconds of research would show you this is bullshit." In that sense, you can quickly disregard some stuff and it will give you more time to consume better resources on a subject.
The main flaw of his article is that he advises people to trust Google, NYTs, "fact checkers," and scholarly articles blindly as arbiters of truth without even hinting at all the potential issues that exist within those structures/mediums. I do a lot of research in my job and can tell you that some scholarly articles are absolute bullshit who cite other bullshit articles to prove their validity. It's a compromised network, essentially, where cancer is allowed to grow if it's the "right kind of cancer." So yeah, all that to say, people should definitely question things and go down rabbit holes from time to time, but there are instances where bullshit is bullshit and a waste of time.