General Discussion

The2ndWheel

(7,947 posts)

19. Yeah, I'm not sure we'll ever figure that one out

Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:33 AM

Jun 2016

Everything gets seen through our own subjective eyes. Two people can agree(as long as they speak the same language, and have the same number system, etc) that there are 3 rocks in front of them. That's a fact. Where the trouble starts is those same people can think of different reasons why there are only 3 rocks. Why shouldn't there be 2? Why can't there be 4? Who decided on 3? What were their motives? Was there anyone that decided on it? Is it 3 because it's always been 3? Or is it 3 because that's just how it randomly happened? Should we allow 3? Should only 1 rock be legal? Should we take the rocks? Can we take the rocks? Do they already belong to someone else? What if they come around looking for their stuff? If we take the rocks, should we both get 1.5 rocks? If I carry 2, should I get to keep 2? One of the rocks is bigger than the other 2, so what does that mean?

Now multiply that by a few billion people, and we can see why we can't agree on much.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I don't trust the major TV networks.... [View all] ehrnst Jun 2016 OP

We do need to bust up the media oligarchy and stop the propaganda that can Dustlawyer Jun 2016 #1

This is why I support public radio and television. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2016 #2

NPR and Post Bush PBS? o.k. nt merrily Jun 2016 #5

Yes. Far more reliable than random YouTube channels and twitter. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2016 #7

Luckily, we don't have to limit the sources from which we get info. merrily Jun 2016 #10

Even many Dems enjoy Koch bros programming. Mika Jun 2016 #23

Why wouldn't they? merrily Jun 2016 #26

As well as comedians posing as journalists on youtube, apparently. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2016 #29

Republicans put Trump on their ticket, years of concerted efforts lead to candidate Trump Bluenorthwest Jun 2016 #3

Very true, but msm certainly did all they possibly could for the cause. merrily Jun 2016 #6

I think that it's more a critique of people who rely on Youtube channels ehrnst Jun 2016 #9

I understood the cartoon. It wasn't that deep. Way too pro establishment, but not at all deep. merrily Jun 2016 #11

If you don't have critical thinking skills, you're just choosing a different source ehrnst Jun 2016 #14

If you don't have critical thinking skills, you'd probably be better off not watching the networks merrily Jun 2016 #18

By 'variety' you mean cat videos, the foil hat basement brigade, and videos of people gaming. ehrnst Jun 2016 #27

Poster, please. My meaning is patently not that. merrily Jun 2016 #28

Then what patently is it? ehrnst Jun 2016 #30

Yes, we're all biased. That is still no reason to trust 4 or 5 establishment, very wealthy sources. merrily Jun 2016 #4

I think that it's more a statement on random YouTube channels than the major media ehrnst Jun 2016 #8

I don't think a criticism of A is equitable to praise of B. LanternWaste Jun 2016 #21

Did you mean not the "equivalent" of? merrily Jun 2016 #24

Sigh. Been dealing with this so much lately. (nt) ehrnst Jun 2016 #33

Especially in the last 20 years or so, since the Telecommunication act of 1996. floriduck Jun 2016 #38

To clarify: the point of this is not praising network TV, ehrnst Jun 2016 #12

I listen to DemocracyNow! Javaman Jun 2016 #13

You can find a lot of Democracy Now on youtube. merrily Jun 2016 #25

Democracy now is a journalism source that also posts on youtube, and isn't 'random.' ehrnst Jun 2016 #34

Please remind me which network produces and airs Democracy Now? merrily Jun 2016 #37

Well that's a stupid meme that appears to be outraged at...hmmm....what exactly? nt ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #15

Learning to think critically is far more important than simply rejecting the mainstream. ehrnst Jun 2016 #16

I understand what you're saying but I don't think there exists an epidemic of critically... ChisolmTrailDem Jun 2016 #17

I think there is. I've seen quite a bit of 'evidence' and 'proof' of something being presented ehrnst Jun 2016 #31

What specifically leads you perceive outrage? LanternWaste Jun 2016 #22

What 'outrage' are you seeing? (nt) ehrnst Jun 2016 #32

Yeah, I'm not sure we'll ever figure that one out The2ndWheel Jun 2016 #19

I always look for the source that says "three rocks," even if I really wanted it to be four rocks. ehrnst Jun 2016 #35

We don't need no stinkin' critical thinking skills. Our candidate will tell us what to do! n/t leeroysphitz Jun 2016 #20

? You can trust them to distribute and repeat propaganda. ffr Jun 2016 #36

I trust YouTube channels like TRNN and TYT far more than I trust any mainstream "news" outlet. PoliticalPothead Jun 2016 #39

"But they won't have dedicated propaganda arms in most cases, nor enough funding to... Shandris Jun 2016 #40