There is also a lot of "Mal-information". Meaning, an inconvenient truth. I'm much more concerned about mal-information being censored in violation of our 1st Amendment rights.
You're a bit off there. Mal means bad/wrong Mal-information is usually spread by the uninformed and/or by those who haven't kept up to current changes to available information. Dis means opposite of Dis-information is intentional, deliberate, knowingful spreading of lies and incorrect information. Both are protected by the 1st Amendment, albeit where as one is accidental, the other is malicious.
@@LiberPater777 I’ve also been censored repeatedly for just stating verifiable facts. We are speaking on a platform that is owned by the biggest democrat donator. Given what has happened in the last election with censorship on social media, it’s not unreasonable to suspect the same thing is happening again.
@@fortigan2174 My comments get censored all the time and I'm more inclined to give the progressive viewpoint than the other. Don't let YT's flippant and seemingly random comment censoring lead you to feel persecuted.
You cannot make distinctions between disinformation, misinformation, and just plain information if you cannot be honest intellectually. I think that the founding fathers understood this, and made the first amendment with this in mind. I can only hope that more people realize this.
The problem isn't so much a lack of logic. This young lady is out of her depth and falling back on the feelings she knows she felt when she formed her opinions, but that doesn't mean she didn't think logically when she formed them, just that the mind takes such shortcuts under pressure. The problem is that each side operates with a completely different set of facts that can't be reconciled. The guys behind the desk reeled off several assertions which, if you trust the authoritative information, are not factually correct or are otherwise unprovable. If the facts are not shared facts then the logical conclusions reached on each side will never align.
@deegee7133 logic can not become opinion because it is based on cold hard facts that have occured pertaining to the situation at hand. More or less it leads down the same roads
@@asaashara2592 Not when neither side can agree on the facts. Logical process leads down different roads when the two sides live in parallel realities. And I can't go into details here because YT keeps deleting my comments if I mention certain topics, but the guys behind the desk, as well as MrLBoyd and the right in general seem to mislabel several opinions and unverifiable opinions as facts.
@@deegee7133 notice how I said different roads the same path notice how in this election people want different sizes seem to be drawing the same conclusion at the end for the most part
'Misinformation,' like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. That's why juries decide guilt, not judges. And why peer review of scientific papers is essential. And why a theory MUST be falsifiable, at least in principle, in order to semantically qualify as scientific. Truth is subjective. And that includes the preceding sentence. See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Thomas Kuhn,) and also "The Retreat to Commitment" (William Bartley,) and finally Quine's "Web of Belief."
Truth is not subjective,even based on the literature you provided. By old definition in dictionaries 20 years ago, you would probably find truth to be defined as "genuine, factual, verified principle, etc" which is more than likely a better way to define this word than using post modernist phrases to allow subjectivity. Misinformation is not in the eye the of the beholder. Those that choose the type of information are beholden to their subjectivity, which is different than your assertion. There are methods that you even mentioned to limit misinformation, bias, etc. That is how we can approach some semblance of the idealistic truth, but definitely the more realistic fact. Those methods are not subjective any more than the methods used in sciences, which requires observations, record keeping, notes, peer review, testing and so forth. Are the methods perfect? Not by a long shot, Are they subjective? Not by a long shot. If you argue that the methods are subjective, then you would deny the objective benefits of modern technology and human advancements.
@@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 Agreed, what does that have to do with my response with Grumpy's statement? I am responding to the statement of Truth being subjective. Not whether Speech should be suppressed.
My brain hurts. I need a drink after that. The 1st Amendment is rather absolute: "Congress shall make no law..." so yes it protects both individuals and corporations. As opposed to the 2nd, which explicitly forbids infringing on the rights of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, it doesn't prevent restrictions on other entities (i.e. corporations) keeping arms.
Well even with your example the constitution hasn’t stopped congress from themselves infringing on many of those rights and not just the second amendment with things such as the NFA or the 4th amendment with the Patriot Act. We could even get in the weeds as far as the 1st amendment with the anti communist amendments in the 50s and 60s. At this point it is on we the people to actually listen to those running for office and listen when they say they are gonna do something and if they say they will vote to restrict any of the rights in the bill of rights we should make sure they don’t get in office.
The tenth amendment says that the powers not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the Sates. That means Congress shall make no law, but the states can. Fortunately most, if not all, State Constitutions also have freedom of speech protections as well. But the US constitution does allow for the states to regulate speech. Just not Congress.
@@RaymondSwanson-u9y I'm well aware of this, unlike most people- even most Constitutional Lawyers- I've actually read the Journal of Congress. Back when the 1st was three separate amendments, the Senate amended it to change the wording from "there shall be no law" to "Congress shall make no law" regarding religion. Paraphrasing the argument, "It would be unjust for the Protestants of Massachusetts to legislate the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or vice-versa, but each should be free to regulate their own." However, I need to point out that the INTENT was only to allow regulation of religion at the State level, no argument was ever presented to enable States to limit Speech, the Press, assembly, etc. That gets conflated, because three amendments were later combined into one, to give us our current 1st.
i ask chatgpt on where did the virus started and when I said that its in a lab it still says that its conspiracy also I check google too it just label it as conspiracy or theory haven't read the wiki article about it yet
Her opinion that it wasn't from a lab is perfectly valid, even if it might not be true. She's informed herself with the available information and, so far as it is possible for her and almost anyone else to know, hers is the most reasonable and educated conclusion. I personally suspect it came from a lab, but I have to accept I can never KNOW that it came from a lab. I also have to accept that the experts concluded it was natural and that there are no more qualified experts around to contradict them. The politician and the influencer behind the desk don't know either and are just choosing to weigh the lab leak hypothesis higher because of their own worldview.
@@deegee7133 the thing is the lab leak is actually been the first to come out for the possible theory because the experts who first got to china are the one who are relaying the information and right now we know that before the nature published the article about the cause is likely to be natural they have email conversations amongst expert that the lab leak is the prevailing theory when they are emailing each other but when they publish the nature article they said that it could not have been man made also I don't think its being weigh higher because of their own worldview because we do know that the wuhan lab did have the capability to engineer it and we also know about the research paper that come from their about the specific mechanism of the virus for spreading rapidly on humans so the origin of it being natural or lab leak are both theoretical because we don't know the animal host and china are not releasing their research paper past 2016
Yeah this young women is incredibly biased. She seems to only care about what information says for her side. Facts don't care about your feelings or your political leanings.
There was one where charlie just had a conversation with a kid, and once he had to admit kamala did a bad job at the border, he looked like he was about to cry.
It can be said as easy as this, freedoms of speech protects misinformation and disinformation when it happens, what people fail to realize is freedom of speech is also the freedom to be free of that misinformation and disinformation . So in a sense, freedom of speech allows you to turn off or not listen to aspects of speech that you do not agree with. Just because it is said doesn't mean you have to hear it
I was always told not to be part of an political party and to vote who you think is the lesser of two evils. Aka vote who will do you the less harm. Or who supports something you value. Right now its really an vote of who can keep the country together for the next 4 years. And I ask myself can either one of them do it?
that was painful. Ive been telling family and friends since before the 2016 election that i feel bad for anyone waking up to the lies we have been told going forward because prior to TDS is was hard enough to do your own research (time wise) but going forward it will be near impossible due to the acceleration of information and the tendency to skim headlines rather read in depth from multiple opposing sources. Ive watched numerous people close to me get energetically caught up in 'misinformation' from both sides this past decade to the point they will end a friendship with someone with whom they actually agree with. the singularity has melted peoples brains. also. vote Trump. he is the best chance to break the broken system that has spawned what we are seeing today, as imperfect as he is
One of the most important liberties and responsibilities we have as Americans is to be able to take in all information available and makes choices as individuals.
Dude I love in new mexico and they are literally running ads that are playing trattoria mexican music and day, on electron day, go out and vote for those who can't vote.... so they want me to give my, an American born citizen, vote to an most likely illegal person of foreign origin? Wtf is this nonsense
Some stereotypes exist for a reason. I was hoping one of them can say you cannot be saved with our party so you go and you vote for Kamala if you want to we we can't help you
I can say you'd probably have more views if you were less pretentious, covered more relevant things like this at the time they are relevant, and if you stopped using the same old thumbnails that don't really represent your overall character at all.
MrLBoyd, I don't accept you lecturing your audience about disinformation and bias when you're clearly biased and influenced by right-bubble interpretations of the available information.
@@kaylahensley1581 Long time viewer, once-upon-a-time subscriber and sometimes financial supporter, I'm still comfortable expressing what I'd like to see and not see on the channel.
"A lie can travel half way around the world before the truth can even lace its boots"
"It's a small club and you ain't in it." -- George Carlin
"They Diddyfied!" --Jaguar Wright
"It's all bull💩, and it's bad for ya." - George Carlin
There is also a lot of "Mal-information". Meaning, an inconvenient truth. I'm much more concerned about mal-information being censored in violation of our 1st Amendment rights.
You're a bit off there.
Mal means bad/wrong
Mal-information is usually spread by the uninformed and/or by those who haven't kept up to current changes to available information.
Dis means opposite of
Dis-information is intentional, deliberate, knowingful spreading of lies and incorrect information.
Both are protected by the 1st Amendment, albeit where as one is accidental, the other is malicious.
Fun fact: I was censored for giving definitions.
Change to "Newest Comments" to see the truth being hidden here.
@@LiberPater777 I’ve also been censored repeatedly for just stating verifiable facts. We are speaking on a platform that is owned by the biggest democrat donator. Given what has happened in the last election with censorship on social media, it’s not unreasonable to suspect the same thing is happening again.
But still, who decides what misinformation is? Is the hunter biden laptop misinformation?
@@fortigan2174 My comments get censored all the time and I'm more inclined to give the progressive viewpoint than the other. Don't let YT's flippant and seemingly random comment censoring lead you to feel persecuted.
Malinformation is a ridiculous term too.
……..this is Misinformation🫡
Malinformation: While it may be true, it's inconvenient for me.
You cannot make distinctions between disinformation, misinformation, and just plain information if you cannot be honest intellectually. I think that the founding fathers understood this, and made the first amendment with this in mind. I can only hope that more people realize this.
This right here.
100%
Please people "F" your feelings we need people to use pure logic for at least a few years so we can get back on track
The problem isn't so much a lack of logic. This young lady is out of her depth and falling back on the feelings she knows she felt when she formed her opinions, but that doesn't mean she didn't think logically when she formed them, just that the mind takes such shortcuts under pressure. The problem is that each side operates with a completely different set of facts that can't be reconciled. The guys behind the desk reeled off several assertions which, if you trust the authoritative information, are not factually correct or are otherwise unprovable. If the facts are not shared facts then the logical conclusions reached on each side will never align.
@deegee7133 logic can not become opinion because it is based on cold hard facts that have occured pertaining to the situation at hand. More or less it leads down the same roads
@@asaashara2592 Not when neither side can agree on the facts. Logical process leads down different roads when the two sides live in parallel realities. And I can't go into details here because YT keeps deleting my comments if I mention certain topics, but the guys behind the desk, as well as MrLBoyd and the right in general seem to mislabel several opinions and unverifiable opinions as facts.
@@deegee7133 notice how I said different roads the same path notice how in this election people want different sizes seem to be drawing the same conclusion at the end for the most part
@deegee7133 which ones? Maybe the issue is that one side is using facts and the other side just refuses to recognize facts.
Section 230 should be enforced. Lies aren't illegal. Sarcasm and humor aren't illegal.
'Misinformation,' like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. That's why juries decide guilt, not judges. And why peer review of scientific papers is essential. And why a theory MUST be falsifiable, at least in principle, in order to semantically qualify as scientific.
Truth is subjective. And that includes the preceding sentence. See "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Thomas Kuhn,) and also "The Retreat to Commitment" (William Bartley,) and finally Quine's "Web of Belief."
Top comment. Keep cooking.
Truth is not subjective,even based on the literature you provided. By old definition in dictionaries 20 years ago, you would probably find truth to be defined as "genuine, factual, verified principle, etc" which is more than likely a better way to define this word than using post modernist phrases to allow subjectivity. Misinformation is not in the eye the of the beholder. Those that choose the type of information are beholden to their subjectivity, which is different than your assertion. There are methods that you even mentioned to limit misinformation, bias, etc. That is how we can approach some semblance of the idealistic truth, but definitely the more realistic fact. Those methods are not subjective any more than the methods used in sciences, which requires observations, record keeping, notes, peer review, testing and so forth. Are the methods perfect? Not by a long shot, Are they subjective? Not by a long shot. If you argue that the methods are subjective, then you would deny the objective benefits of modern technology and human advancements.
@kennycho4322, Misinformation is free speech. Full stop. The proper way to combat it is with factual speech, not suppression.
@@brawndothethirstmutilator9848 Agreed, what does that have to do with my response with Grumpy's statement? I am responding to the statement of Truth being subjective. Not whether Speech should be suppressed.
@kennycho4322, Simply expanding on your comment with a statement I assumed you probably agreed with.
My brain hurts. I need a drink after that.
The 1st Amendment is rather absolute: "Congress shall make no law..." so yes it protects both individuals and corporations. As opposed to the 2nd, which explicitly forbids infringing on the rights of PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, it doesn't prevent restrictions on other entities (i.e. corporations) keeping arms.
Well even with your example the constitution hasn’t stopped congress from themselves infringing on many of those rights and not just the second amendment with things such as the NFA or the 4th amendment with the Patriot Act. We could even get in the weeds as far as the 1st amendment with the anti communist amendments in the 50s and 60s. At this point it is on we the people to actually listen to those running for office and listen when they say they are gonna do something and if they say they will vote to restrict any of the rights in the bill of rights we should make sure they don’t get in office.
The tenth amendment says that the powers not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the Sates. That means Congress shall make no law, but the states can. Fortunately most, if not all, State Constitutions also have freedom of speech protections as well. But the US constitution does allow for the states to regulate speech. Just not Congress.
@@RaymondSwanson-u9y I'm well aware of this, unlike most people- even most Constitutional Lawyers- I've actually read the Journal of Congress.
Back when the 1st was three separate amendments, the Senate amended it to change the wording from "there shall be no law" to "Congress shall make no law" regarding religion. Paraphrasing the argument, "It would be unjust for the Protestants of Massachusetts to legislate the Quakers of Pennsylvania, or vice-versa, but each should be free to regulate their own."
However, I need to point out that the INTENT was only to allow regulation of religion at the State level, no argument was ever presented to enable States to limit Speech, the Press, assembly, etc. That gets conflated, because three amendments were later combined into one, to give us our current 1st.
This just shows how poor our education system is and why the government wants people to be ignorant,its easier to take their rights
This young lady is a prime example of indoctrination.
Kellogg's last words were "Trust the Science!!!!"
Before dying from a scientifically approved Opium enema.
i ask chatgpt on where did the virus started and when I said that its in a lab it still says that its conspiracy also I check google too it just label it as conspiracy or theory haven't read the wiki article about it yet
Google has astroturfed the results to that topic.
Her opinion that it wasn't from a lab is perfectly valid, even if it might not be true. She's informed herself with the available information and, so far as it is possible for her and almost anyone else to know, hers is the most reasonable and educated conclusion. I personally suspect it came from a lab, but I have to accept I can never KNOW that it came from a lab. I also have to accept that the experts concluded it was natural and that there are no more qualified experts around to contradict them. The politician and the influencer behind the desk don't know either and are just choosing to weigh the lab leak hypothesis higher because of their own worldview.
@@deegee7133 the thing is the lab leak is actually been the first to come out for the possible theory because the experts who first got to china are the one who are relaying the information and right now we know that before the nature published the article about the cause is likely to be natural they have email conversations amongst expert that the lab leak is the prevailing theory when they are emailing each other but when they publish the nature article they said that it could not have been man made also I don't think its being weigh higher because of their own worldview because we do know that the wuhan lab did have the capability to engineer it and we also know about the research paper that come from their about the specific mechanism of the virus for spreading rapidly on humans so the origin of it being natural or lab leak are both theoretical because we don't know the animal host and china are not releasing their research paper past 2016
Who Decides Misinformation? The most untrustworthy people on the planet.
8:59 Dude, your soul left your body when she responded "if they transition"
Yeah this young women is incredibly biased. She seems to only care about what information says for her side. Facts don't care about your feelings or your political leanings.
When i first started watching you you did strike me as a trump guy. Good for you man. We need more educated americans
There was one where charlie just had a conversation with a kid, and once he had to admit kamala did a bad job at the border, he looked like he was about to cry.
I say schools should be shut down perminately we just proved it's obsolete and educating kids can be done at home
She really trying to argue science with Vivek? Hilarious.
You have on the left CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, most every prominent newspapers. On the right Fox news.
there's still hope for people that think like her.... just not right now... a lot of learning left to do.
There’s the scientific method which requires….testing and validation by others
It can be said as easy as this, freedoms of speech protects misinformation and disinformation when it happens, what people fail to realize is freedom of speech is also the freedom to be free of that misinformation and disinformation . So in a sense, freedom of speech allows you to turn off or not listen to aspects of speech that you do not agree with. Just because it is said doesn't mean you have to hear it
A person trying to sell you hope and dreams is just swindling you out of something, in this case its a vote.
I was always told not to be part of an political party and to vote who you think is the lesser of two evils. Aka vote who will do you the less harm. Or who supports something you value.
Right now its really an vote of who can keep the country together for the next 4 years. And I ask myself can either one of them do it?
I am on this train. I've been riding for a few years now.
What’s important for the country? Not wearing merch of bands you don’t listen to.
that was painful. Ive been telling family and friends since before the 2016 election that i feel bad for anyone waking up to the lies we have been told going forward because prior to TDS is was hard enough to do your own research (time wise) but going forward it will be near impossible due to the acceleration of information and the tendency to skim headlines rather read in depth from multiple opposing sources. Ive watched numerous people close to me get energetically caught up in 'misinformation' from both sides this past decade to the point they will end a friendship with someone with whom they actually agree with. the singularity has melted peoples brains.
also. vote Trump. he is the best chance to break the broken system that has spawned what we are seeing today, as imperfect as he is
One of the most important liberties and responsibilities we have as Americans is to be able to take in all information available and makes choices as individuals.
This is def her voters smfh🤦🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️🤦🏾♀️I just had the same convo with one of her supporters and they don’t know anything
Purposely ignorant. It’s crazy
I lost a few brain cells watching this lady speak
Dis/misinformation means “opposed to my beliefs”
Or said on cnn/the view
This is why I fear the possibility of civil w*r. Because of actual people who actually believe these arguments. This is literally horrifying.
We need to repeal the Smith-Mundt modernization act.
Simple case of the epidemic of “I feel” 1+1=7
She was trolling a little too. Attempting to get them to crash out
I don’t think she was smart enough to be trolling😂
Shes a smart woman, just blinded by her emotions.
This was painful, I was cringing 😬
Information Technology.
Dude I love in new mexico and they are literally running ads that are playing trattoria mexican music and day, on electron day, go out and vote for those who can't vote.... so they want me to give my, an American born citizen, vote to an most likely illegal person of foreign origin? Wtf is this nonsense
If Harris wins I will be laughing at these poor people when shshh hits the fan and ill be there saying "told you so!" 😂😂😂
I lost IQ points listening to her.
She's lost.
Spoiled.
You can't live with and can't live without them. But they have the right to Vote.
Is this person in college, she sound a little ignorant and extremely uneducated.
She learned absolutely nothing
I call her the exclamation point ⚫️
This reminds me of the Milgrim experiments... 😕 ... like wtaf.
So should woman have to vote? Seems to much for some to handle most nowadays if I'm being honest.
She is being super disingenuous and arguing in bad faith.
Some stereotypes exist for a reason. I was hoping one of them can say you cannot be saved with our party so you go and you vote for Kamala if you want to we we can't help you
freedom of speech....unless i dont like what you are saying lol
Propaganda
I feel sorry for her future wife.
FOX is one network vs all the others.
That was painful to watch.
Ladies and gentlemen and nonbinaries of all ages! I present to you; the smartest Harris voter.
This was physically painful.
I can say you'd probably have more views if you were less pretentious, covered more relevant things like this at the time they are relevant, and if you stopped using the same old thumbnails that don't really represent your overall character at all.
MrLBoyd, I don't accept you lecturing your audience about disinformation and bias when you're clearly biased and influenced by right-bubble interpretations of the available information.
Then don’t watch his videos. It’s his TH-cam channel he can make the content he wants and support whatever political party he wants.
@@kaylahensley1581 Long time viewer, once-upon-a-time subscriber and sometimes financial supporter, I'm still comfortable expressing what I'd like to see and not see on the channel.
Leftists are lunatics. Brainwashed against reality.
Such lovely hair covering a smooth brain😂