One hundred percent, a great article... There's a saying - The truth welcomes questions a lie does not like challenges - obviously not a direct quote here, but along those lines... The west has slowly lost what remains of free speech, debate is no longer allowed, a group of (frequently incompetent or corrupt) experts will tell you the truth and how to think. Funny how a large chunk of society swallowed this bullsh!t, when there were enough evidence that a lot of the "truth" they were peddling was plainly lies. Even science was proving them wrong, yet you "went against community standards " if you shared unfavorable research on social media that went against the narrative. I mean it went so far that Facebook"fact checked" the British Medical Journal !! Now they need a conference on restoring trust stopping the spread of misinformation? It's a total joke (a joke that isn't funny).
“Asked what is the key thing poor countries should do, Cowperthwaite once remarked: "They should abolish the Office of National Statistics." In Hong Kong, he refused to collect all but the most superficial statistics, believing that statistics were dangerous: they would lead the state to to fiddle about remedying perceived ills, simultaneously hindering the ability of the market economy to work. - When he became Financial Secretary, the average Hong Kong resident earned about a quarter of someone living in Britain. By the early 90s, average incomes were higher than Britain's. Cowperthwaite made Hong Kong the most economically free economy in the world...”
The "people don't trust us because of misinformation" narrative is psychotic. Reading independent journalists is sort of a pain in the ass. I would love to wake up in the morning, have my coffee, and read the New York Times like in the good ol' days. After my morning NYT read, I would love to think to myself "oh, so that's what's going on in the world today." I would love to share a consensus reality with everyone around me.
But there came a point when the lies and propaganda just became to brazen to bear anymore. So now I read alternative media, aka "misinformation," as my primary news sources. These eminent intellectuals who blame "misinformation" for causing distrust have fallen for the third-cause fallacy. My distrust of establishment information was never caused by my consumption of "misinformation." Rather, the underlying cause of both my distrust of establishment information and my consumption of "misinformation" is the fact that establishment institutions lie, flagrantly, over and over again, and always in predictable directions. The lack of self-awareness by these people is astounding.
One great thing to come out of all this has been the public conversation (on Substack especially) between censored experts and regular people, either non-academic experts or experts in other fields, or people who are simply curious, non-credentialed critical thinkers.
For far too long, information has been kept behind paywalls, siloed, compartmentalized, barricaded. Now, it is coming out. But the most beautiful thing has been the dialogues that are happening in public view on platforms such as this, which did not happen to such a degree before. People in different fields are connecting, information is being shared, debated, and the playing field has been enlarged and somewhat leveled.
We can all participate if we choose to have something to say. We can all teach what we know and learn from one another.
I've learned a ton in the past couple years that previously I would have had to pursue a higher degree to even gain access. This is a wonderful direction.
Now, the remaining walls of the fortress of our institutions need to be bulldozed. Let the information out so that we can all sort through the data and decide for ourselves.
Screw the institutions-save the ideals they were built on and start over without baseless opportunists and posturing sycophants.
The definition of "institutionalized" isn't limited to residence in a locked facility; institutionalized is a matter of perception, an inability to understand outside a given context, now obviously at the expense of the individual said institution claims to protect and support.
Gotta be real careful with an exception for PII. I understand why some allowance like that would be needed, but it would be the most likely wedge used to prop the door open so the data rats can escape out the back.
Global warming, sorry ‘climate change’, is an industrial scale case of data retroactive manipulation to a political end. We should also insist on a mechanism whereby all changes to released data are documented and accounted for.
Well see nobody is ever happy when them peasants eat from the Tree and their eyes are opened and won't close back down again obediently as demanded.
It's been a great natural experiment, seeing all the vicious slashing and burning in the Garden of Info done even by very smart people purportedly on the side of free knowledge and resistance to The Bad Guys, so I don't want anyone putting their hands on the freeflowing River of Everything and trying to bend its course to their will.
Everyone has human weaknesses, biases, fits of temper, the tender places that set them off if touched, and we always did need and shall always need forever to do our own research, finding those who seem to demonstrate their trustworthiness and compare what they say against others who seem to demonstrate the same, and share what we find within our own communities, wherever we find them. That's it. Dreamtime over and done with. Teach yer kids well.
As a former employee who was fired (from a board that included a study on misinformation in its portfolio) for refusing to be vaccinated, I can say from experience that the National Academies of Sciences have almost nothing to do with science. It is a non-profit that gets most of its funding from three letter agencies (like NSF) to push political narratives. Committee members are chosen to serve based on their politics (after that, the criteria becomes ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation). Projects often arise from Directors' political leanings (and they only lean one way). Within the organization, none of this is secret.
One hundred percent, a great article... There's a saying - The truth welcomes questions a lie does not like challenges - obviously not a direct quote here, but along those lines... The west has slowly lost what remains of free speech, debate is no longer allowed, a group of (frequently incompetent or corrupt) experts will tell you the truth and how to think. Funny how a large chunk of society swallowed this bullsh!t, when there were enough evidence that a lot of the "truth" they were peddling was plainly lies. Even science was proving them wrong, yet you "went against community standards " if you shared unfavorable research on social media that went against the narrative. I mean it went so far that Facebook"fact checked" the British Medical Journal !! Now they need a conference on restoring trust stopping the spread of misinformation? It's a total joke (a joke that isn't funny).
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
If public institutions want our trust, maybe they could try not lying so much?
I know, that's crazy talk.
Here’s how. Stop the counting!
“Asked what is the key thing poor countries should do, Cowperthwaite once remarked: "They should abolish the Office of National Statistics." In Hong Kong, he refused to collect all but the most superficial statistics, believing that statistics were dangerous: they would lead the state to to fiddle about remedying perceived ills, simultaneously hindering the ability of the market economy to work. - When he became Financial Secretary, the average Hong Kong resident earned about a quarter of someone living in Britain. By the early 90s, average incomes were higher than Britain's. Cowperthwaite made Hong Kong the most economically free economy in the world...”
The "people don't trust us because of misinformation" narrative is psychotic. Reading independent journalists is sort of a pain in the ass. I would love to wake up in the morning, have my coffee, and read the New York Times like in the good ol' days. After my morning NYT read, I would love to think to myself "oh, so that's what's going on in the world today." I would love to share a consensus reality with everyone around me.
But there came a point when the lies and propaganda just became to brazen to bear anymore. So now I read alternative media, aka "misinformation," as my primary news sources. These eminent intellectuals who blame "misinformation" for causing distrust have fallen for the third-cause fallacy. My distrust of establishment information was never caused by my consumption of "misinformation." Rather, the underlying cause of both my distrust of establishment information and my consumption of "misinformation" is the fact that establishment institutions lie, flagrantly, over and over again, and always in predictable directions. The lack of self-awareness by these people is astounding.
We need more agencies and commissions to discover what went wrong and how to fix it......!
They always use that excuse. No solutions come from it and accountability is never an objective.
The true objective is to allow enough time to go by so the public loses interest.
Coffee shot out of my nose when I read this line: “hey, what if we just stopped lying all the fricking time?”
Seriously? A three-day conference on misinformation run by the same people who have been running a three-year three-card Monte scam on us? GMAFB.
One great thing to come out of all this has been the public conversation (on Substack especially) between censored experts and regular people, either non-academic experts or experts in other fields, or people who are simply curious, non-credentialed critical thinkers.
For far too long, information has been kept behind paywalls, siloed, compartmentalized, barricaded. Now, it is coming out. But the most beautiful thing has been the dialogues that are happening in public view on platforms such as this, which did not happen to such a degree before. People in different fields are connecting, information is being shared, debated, and the playing field has been enlarged and somewhat leveled.
We can all participate if we choose to have something to say. We can all teach what we know and learn from one another.
I've learned a ton in the past couple years that previously I would have had to pursue a higher degree to even gain access. This is a wonderful direction.
Now, the remaining walls of the fortress of our institutions need to be bulldozed. Let the information out so that we can all sort through the data and decide for ourselves.
Just assume everything pushed by the lying MSM and gubmint is bad for you.
Easy.
august assemblage of academic info-assassins...🤣🤣🤣
Screw the institutions-save the ideals they were built on and start over without baseless opportunists and posturing sycophants.
The definition of "institutionalized" isn't limited to residence in a locked facility; institutionalized is a matter of perception, an inability to understand outside a given context, now obviously at the expense of the individual said institution claims to protect and support.
Gotta be real careful with an exception for PII. I understand why some allowance like that would be needed, but it would be the most likely wedge used to prop the door open so the data rats can escape out the back.
Global warming, sorry ‘climate change’, is an industrial scale case of data retroactive manipulation to a political end. We should also insist on a mechanism whereby all changes to released data are documented and accounted for.
Well see nobody is ever happy when them peasants eat from the Tree and their eyes are opened and won't close back down again obediently as demanded.
It's been a great natural experiment, seeing all the vicious slashing and burning in the Garden of Info done even by very smart people purportedly on the side of free knowledge and resistance to The Bad Guys, so I don't want anyone putting their hands on the freeflowing River of Everything and trying to bend its course to their will.
Everyone has human weaknesses, biases, fits of temper, the tender places that set them off if touched, and we always did need and shall always need forever to do our own research, finding those who seem to demonstrate their trustworthiness and compare what they say against others who seem to demonstrate the same, and share what we find within our own communities, wherever we find them. That's it. Dreamtime over and done with. Teach yer kids well.
edited for spelling
As a former employee who was fired (from a board that included a study on misinformation in its portfolio) for refusing to be vaccinated, I can say from experience that the National Academies of Sciences have almost nothing to do with science. It is a non-profit that gets most of its funding from three letter agencies (like NSF) to push political narratives. Committee members are chosen to serve based on their politics (after that, the criteria becomes ethnicity, sex and sexual orientation). Projects often arise from Directors' political leanings (and they only lean one way). Within the organization, none of this is secret.
This is the ONLY road back to credibility.
These are not State secrets, this is information that has a immediate, material impact on our lives--plus, as you said, we paid for it. Cough it up.
I would much rather their offices become condos, but these institutions are too entrenched at this point.
Spot on!