Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> writes: > Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
> > Think about this example for a second: suppose you were told by a > > friend of yours that some third friend was cheating on their spouse. > > You listen for a few minutes, finally ask "How do you know this?", and > > the answer is "overheard some people talking on the elevator". I think > > most of us would be able at that point to put the thing aside > > consciously: it is an unproven accusation.
> Right. And even in a case where evidence builds until there's little > doubt, why would I want to start telling the tale to others?
> > But can you fully put aside > > the credence you were giving the story while listening? Can you put > > aside the emotional reaction you had when you were listening? The next > > time you see the person the gossip was about, could you be 100% sure > > that you wouldn't think of the accusation at all? Maybe Mr Spock could > > do it, but I have my doubts that the rest of us could really 100% erase > > those things from our minds.
> Aristotle said something like - It is the mark of an educated mind to be > able to entertain a thought without agreeing with it.
> Aristotle's standards included folks with less emotional control than > Spock but he's definitely not discussing the majority of the population > when he mentions "an educated mind".
> > One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often enough > > becomes the truth."
> I thought that was Goebells. If so then they both likely learned it > from someone a generation before that.
I've seen this quote attributed to Lenin. I've seen similar, but more nuanced ideas attributed to Goebbels. And I've seen another similar idea (also more nuanced than the supposed Lenin quote) attributed to William James, which presumably would predate the Lenin and Goebbels versions, thus justifying your "generation before that."
I've never seen a proper source for any of these quotes, and for various reasons I kind of doubt that Goebbels actually said the quote attributed to him.
My favorite forged dead Nazi quote is the one attributed to Goering (which he probably also didn't say): "Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver." Hard to use considering its supposed source (though again, Goering appears not to be the actual source) but an often apt sentiment.
> It's the basis of propaganda and > part of why the open flow of ideas on the Internet is such a mixed > blessing - It allows statements to be checked for accuracy but it also > supplies a channel for unlimited propaganda. Telling the difference > between the true and the false is a matter of who elitist you think > Aristotle was!
I wonder if the internet makes false information more problematic than it used to be, or not. One doesn't have to look very hard to find widely accepted and very damaging false information before the internet. My guess is that some of this is human nature and based on the desire to believe certain false things in the first place (hence my caveat that the supposed Lenin quote is more accurate if modifided to "A lie that people would like to believe told often enough become the truth."
>>> One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often >>> enough becomes the truth."
>> (If I say he got it from George Orwell, will that become the >> truth?)
>>> Internally, that means that if you listen to the >>> gossip now, when you hear it again it'll seem more plausible to >>> you. You may not remember where you heard it before, but >>> somewhere in your head you will remember hearing it before, and >>> that will make it seem more believable, even if it shouldn't be >>> believed. And externally, it means that if you repeat gossip >>> -- even if you put "if it's true" on the front -- then you are >>> contributing to the problem. Repeated often enough, even by >>> people saying "I don't know for sure", a lie will become one of >>> those things that "everybody knows".
>> Not to knock Lenin, who clearly understood propoganda, but I >> don't actually think his maxim works. I think it works only in >> so far as people have some desire to believe the particular lie.
>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death >> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It >> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it > could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be > true.
> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the > truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point > that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or > even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet > false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no > matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American > President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > true.
"Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd and its followers).
>>> One of my quotes is from Vladimir Lenin: "A lie told often >>> enough becomes the truth."
>> (If I say he got it from George Orwell, will that become the >> truth?)
>>> Internally, that means that if you listen to the >>> gossip now, when you hear it again it'll seem more plausible to >>> you. You may not remember where you heard it before, but >>> somewhere in your head you will remember hearing it before, and >>> that will make it seem more believable, even if it shouldn't be >>> believed. And externally, it means that if you repeat gossip >>> -- even if you put "if it's true" on the front -- then you are >>> contributing to the problem. Repeated often enough, even by >>> people saying "I don't know for sure", a lie will become one of >>> those things that "everybody knows".
>> Not to knock Lenin, who clearly understood propoganda, but I >> don't actually think his maxim works. I think it works only in >> so far as people have some desire to believe the particular lie.
>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death >> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It >> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it > could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be > true.
> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the > truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point > that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or > even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet > false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no > matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American > President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > true.
"Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest??
I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is not American, and want to see his birth certificate (the moronic and apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd, and its followers).
Come to think of it, have we ever had a non-American President?
Bill in Co wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused:
>>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death >>> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It >>> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
>> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it >> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be >> true.
It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to put people on life support. There was a time when the medical technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such an unlimited fanancial drain.
>> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the >> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point >> that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or >> even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet >> false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
>> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no >> matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American >> President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be >> true.
> "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
Playing the straight man in a joke? I think the point was a lot simpler and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political mesihah.
> I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he is > not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and > apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd and its > followers).
Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true.
Doug Freyburger wrote: > Bill in Co wrote: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused:
>>>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death >>>> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It >>>> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
>>> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it >>> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be >>> true.
> It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and > people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited > funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to > put people on life support. There was a time when the medical > technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology > advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds > available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting > "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such an > unlimited fanancial drain.
>>> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the >>> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point >>> that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or >>> even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet >>> false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
>>> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no >>> matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American >>> President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be >>> true.
>> "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
> Playing the straight man in a joke?
If that's directed to me, it wasn't a joke. I was trying to understand what was written, as written. And it makes no sense. More on this below.
> I think the point was a lot simpler > and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up > something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it > remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political > mesihah.
>> I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he >> is >> not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and >> apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd >> and its followers).
> Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with > me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow > you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true.
Whose attempt, Doug?? I didn't try to turn it into a joke, so I guess you mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I just find this whole thing a really sad commentary on us, as a society.
> Doug Freyburger wrote: > > Bill in Co wrote: > >> AllYou! wrote: > >>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused:
> >>>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death > >>>> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It > >>>> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
> >>> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it > >>> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be > >>> true.
> > It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and > > people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited > > funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to > > put people on life support. There was a time when the medical > > technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology > > advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds > > available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting > > "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such an > > unlimited fanancial drain.
> >>> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the > >>> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point > >>> that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or > >>> even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet > >>> false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
> >>> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no > >>> matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American > >>> President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > >>> true.
> >> "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
> > Playing the straight man in a joke?
> If that's directed to me, it wasn't a joke. I was trying to understand > what was written, as written. And it makes no sense. More on this below.
> > I think the point was a lot simpler > > and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up > > something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it > > remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political > > mesihah.
> >> I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say he > >> is > >> not American, and want to see his birth certificate. (the moronic and > >> apparently illiterate, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd > >> and its followers).
> > Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with > > me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow > > you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true.
> Whose attempt, Doug?? I didn't try to turn it into a joke, so I guess you > mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I just find this whole > thing a really sad commentary on us, as a society.
Not sure, Beams. As a society, we're probably remarkably similar to as a society 100 years ago. (I think this may have been addressed in a discussion previously about movies) Had we polled the population in 1909, probably just as many ppl would not know when Columbus sailed to "america"--
phelbooth wrote: > On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > wrote: >> Doug Freyburger wrote: >>> Bill in Co wrote: >>>> AllYou! wrote: >>>>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused:
>>>>>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death >>>>>> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It >>>>>> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
>>>>> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it >>>>> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be >>>>> true.
>>> It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and >>> people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited >>> funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to >>> put people on life support. There was a time when the medical >>> technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology >>> advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds >>> available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting >>> "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such >>> an unlimited fanancial drain.
>>>>> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the >>>>> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point >>>>> that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or >>>>> even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet >>>>> false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
>>>>> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no >>>>> matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American >>>>> President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be >>>>> true.
>>>> "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
>>> Playing the straight man in a joke?
>> If that's directed to me, it wasn't a joke. I was trying to understand >> what was written, as written. And it makes no sense. More on this below.
>>> I think the point was a lot simpler >>> and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up >>> something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it >>> remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political >>> mesihah.
>>>> I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say >>>> he is >>>> not American, and want to see his birth certificate (the moronic and >>>> evidently illiterate Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd >>>> and its followers).
>>> Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with >>> me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow >>> you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true.
>> Whose attempt, Doug?? I didn't try to turn it into a joke, so I guess >> you mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I find this whole >> thing a really sad commentary on us as a society.
> Not sure, Beams. As a society, we're probably remarkably similar to as > a society 100 years ago.
Ummm, I don't think so!!! Well, let's go a bit more recent than that (more on that below).
> (I think this may have been addressed in a > discussion previously about movies) Had we polled the population in > 1909, probably just as many ppl would not know when Columbus sailed > to "america"--
But today there is NO excuse for such rampant illiteracy.
As for comparing periods, I'm not sure if I would choose 1909 as a pivotal moment in our history, either. Let's try around, say, the 1940's, instead, the Era of the "Greatest Generation", which just barely preceded me (although I share most of its core values). :-)
> phelbooth wrote: > > On Oct 29, 1:10 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> > > wrote: > >> Doug Freyburger wrote: > >>> Bill in Co wrote: > >>>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>> Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> mused:
> >>>>>> For example, the story about the health care bill including death > >>>>>> panels didn't acquire weight simply because it was repeated. It > >>>>>> acquired weight because people wanted to believe it.
> >>>>> It think that's an oversimplification. Even in your example, it > >>>>> could be that it's not so much believed as feared that it *could* be > >>>>> true.
> >>> It unfortunately is already true. Insurance companies deny claims and > >>> people die. No matter how unpleasant the idea there are not unlimited > >>> funds for medical care. If there were we would all be impoverished to > >>> put people on life support. There was a time when the medical > >>> technology simply did not exist to extend life. As the technology > >>> advances more and more it is a matter of having unlimited funds > >>> available. I have long considered spending my 70th birthday getting > >>> "DNR" tatooed on my chest to tell folks that I do not want to be such > >>> an unlimited fanancial drain.
> >>>>> But to the larger issue of "A lie told often enough becomes the > >>>>> truth.", I think that's a piss poor way of trying to make the point > >>>>> that a lie told often enough, and loudly enough so as to diminish or > >>>>> even eliminate the real truth, can create a very believable, yet > >>>>> false, perception of reality in the minds of the victims of the lie.
> >>>>> In that sense, that maxim does work. In the more literal sense, no > >>>>> matter how many times I claim that Obama was the 1st American > >>>>> President, or how much someone believes it, it will never, ever be > >>>>> true.
> >>>> "Obama was the 1st American President"??? What were all the rest?
> >>> Playing the straight man in a joke?
> >> If that's directed to me, it wasn't a joke. I was trying to understand > >> what was written, as written. And it makes no sense. More on this below.
> >>> I think the point was a lot simpler > >>> and a lot more clear when not treated as a joke. When you make up > >>> something that's false, no matter how many times you repeat it it > >>> remains false. Not even if it's about someone treated as a political > >>> mesihah.
> >>>> I think you're talking about some of those right-winger nuts who say > >>>> he is > >>>> not American, and want to see his birth certificate (the moronic and > >>>> evidently illiterate Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Glenn Beck crowd > >>>> and its followers).
> >>> Your attempt to turn a simple example into a joke failed to work with > >>> me. The example was of a statement very obviously false and somehow > >>> you tried to twist it into someone actually trying to assert it's true.
> >> Whose attempt, Doug?? I didn't try to turn it into a joke, so I guess > >> you mean AY, because I don't find it funny *at all*. I find this whole > >> thing a really sad commentary on us as a society.
> > Not sure, Beams. As a society, we're probably remarkably similar to as > > a society 100 years ago.
> Ummm, I don't think so!!! > Well, let's go a bit more recent than that (more on that below).
> > (I think this may have been addressed in a > > discussion previously about movies) Had we polled the population in > > 1909, probably just as many ppl would not know when Columbus sailed > > to "america"--
> But today there is NO excuse for such rampant illiteracy.
This is persuasive. With the ease of information (which can be remarkably different from knowledge or, probably, even literacy)--I would have to agree, that today, it's so easy to find info compared to when I was my students age.
Yet, there ARE excuses, I suspect, and I'd probably accept most of them.
> As for comparing periods, I'm not sure if I would choose 1909 as a pivotal > moment in our history, either. Let's try around, say, the 1940's, instead, > the Era of the "Greatest Generation", which just barely preceded me > (although I share most of its core values). :-)
|
