chuckv97 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  13:26:50

I would guess because Vermont is mostly rural, with lots of hunting tradition. Also it has no big cities where a lot of gun violence occurs.

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  13:35:00

Getting back to the OP - my point. It was not to start a gun thread, but rather about purposefully putting out false information in order to support your point. The Elementary episode was an example of this, others have been made. Also, it was not intended to refer to every little white lie about your wife's dress, but intentionally misleading the public at large in order to put forth a point of view.

Another example, getting false surveys over the telephone or by mail. Although these are often political in nature, they aren't always, and this example is NOT intended to be political. The very nature of the survey questions is there to try and put an idea into your head about the subject of the survey. Usually you can read right through these. The questions are also worded to direct you to only answer a certain way or put a negative idea into your head that may not be true. "Are you aware that candidate X has adopted children from ?" Candidate X may not have any adopted children at all, but it puts the idea out there. A few years ago a politician was caught intentionally falsifying information about a candidate in the other party. When called to task by the press his response was "Well we won, didn't we?"

waystation - Posted - 07/28/2019:  13:54:11

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Getting back to the OP - my point. It was not to start a gun thread, but rather about purposefully putting out false information in order to support your point...

Another example, getting false surveys over the telephone or by mail. Although these are often political in nature, they aren't always, and this example is NOT intended to be political. The very nature of the survey questions is there to try and put an idea into your head about the subject of the survey.... A few years ago a politician was caught intentionally falsifying information about a candidate in the other party. When called to task by the press his response was "Well we won, didn't we?"

---

The classic example of this was a push poll conducted just before the South Carolina presidential primary in 2000 by the GW Bush campaign. It asked "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Of course, McCain had done no such thing, but he had adopted a child from Bangladesh and was campaigning with his dark-skinned, adopted daughter in a very close South Carolina primary that he was expected to win. The tactic worked. Bush narrowly won the primary helped by this complete falsehood engineered by Karl Rove. The loss broke the back of the McCain campaign, gave Bush the momentum he needed to win the Republican nomination. We know the rest of that story.

So, a well-placed lie helped make Bush the 44th president of the United States. I wonder if he made his daddy proud? Or his mother?

DC5 - Posted - 07/28/2019:  13:58:21

That was what I was alluding to, but didn't want to name names and drift into real politics.

waystation - Posted - 07/28/2019:  14:00:16

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

That was what I was alluding to, but didn't want to name names and drift into real politics.

---

It's just an example. It's easier to understand the lie if you can read it.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 07/28/2019:  17:18:56

Even more sneaky, there was no lie in the Bush “survey” question. It’s a hypothetical, worded so the typical unthinking voter would perceive it as fact. Says as much about the voters as about Rove, et.al. 

Edited by - Bill Rogers on 07/28/2019 17:22:12

BanjoLink - Posted - 07/28/2019:  20:09:22

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

Even more sneaky, there was no lie in the Bush “survey” question. It’s a hypothetical, worded so the typical unthinking voter would perceive it as fact. Says as much about the voters as about Rove, et.al. 

---

Bill that is indeed correct.  Earlier I had started to post that the people who believe or are influenced by this kind of garbage have to bear some sort of responsibility.  I am always irritated by people who send me emails that are blatant lies or otherwise information designed to mislead others about another person, event, etc.  We have some obligation to fact check these things and an obligation not to pass on erroneous or misleading information.  There are some people that just want to believe these things and are too lazy to look them up to see if they are factual.

waystation - Posted - 07/28/2019:  20:38:57

Many people are simply overwhelmed by the volume of stuff (polite word) that inundates them every day, and simply find it easier to outsource the job of filtering to someone they trust. Often that is a news outlet with an agenda or an AI-driven news source like Google or Facebook who has a commercial interest in hooking them with ever more extreme stories that feed their perceived bias. Liberals get outrageous stories about conservatives; conservatives get outrageous stories about liberals. The stories feed the bias the user demonstrated by picking previous stories, and everyone sinks into a bubble of stories that confirm what they already believed.

The only thing that can break this cycle is the ability and desire to distinguish between what is and is not true. Hard to do when everyone is shouting about truth being irrelevant if it goes against your point of view. And that brings us back around to the original reason for this thread.

Bill Rogers - Posted - 07/28/2019:  21:00:30

Stephan Pastis dealt with this in today’s “Pearls Before Swine.”

gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2019/07/28

 

mike gregory - Posted - 07/29/2019:  01:59:04

Thanks for posting the link to Pearls Before Swine.
I tried, but couldn't find it.

DC5 - Posted - 07/29/2019:  06:43:36

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Rogers

Even more sneaky, there was no lie in the Bush “survey” question. It’s a hypothetical, worded so the typical unthinking voter would perceive it as fact. Says as much about the voters as about Rove, et.al. 

---

Bill that is indeed correct.  Earlier I had started to post that the people who believe or are influenced by this kind of garbage have to bear some sort of responsibility.  I am always irritated by people who send me emails that are blatant lies or otherwise information designed to mislead others about another person, event, etc.  We have some obligation to fact check these things and an obligation not to pass on erroneous or misleading information.  There are some people that just want to believe these things and are too lazy to look them up to see if they are factual.

---

To borrow from Mark Twain, a lie will travel half way around the world before the truth has finished tying it's shoes.  

Shortly after the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11 a rumor quickly spread about a person who was eating in a Middle East restaurant in Worcester, MA and when the story broke the owner started cheering and acting as if he had prior knowledge.  Two little problems with the story, that spread and almost destroyed the business, the restaurant was not open in the morning, it opened at 11:30 for lunch, and the owner was in Europe on vacation at the time.  

Propaganda has always been a powerful tool in warfare.  Not all wars involve shooting, or armies.  

It recently has been reported that the Russians did indeed interfere with the 2016 elections, and are already interfering with the 2020 elections.  The question is, is this true, or is it what they want us to believe.  

Richard Hauser - Posted - 07/29/2019:  08:13:39

Vermont is not a typical state. The population in the largest city is a little more that 42 thousand. In addition, the state is rural and largely conservative.
I don't think Vermont would have as many large scale social problems as heavily populated areas.

This is not a derogatory post. I wouldn't mind living in Vermont. I recently read an article that mentioned the state governments efforts to increase the population.

cb56 - Posted - 07/29/2019:  08:24:36

"What is truth"? (Pontius Pilate)

DC5 - Posted - 07/29/2019:  08:30:27

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Hauser

Vermont is not a typical state. The population in the largest city is a little more that 42 thousand. In addition, the state is rural and largely conservative.

I don't think Vermont would have as many large scale social problems as heavily populated areas.



This is not a derogatory post. I wouldn't mind living in Vermont. I recently read an article that mentioned the state governments efforts to increase the population.

---

Agreed, but they are also not responsible for NYC's gun violence problems.  Outside the metropolitan area, the state of New York is similar to Vermont in population density, and they also do not have the issues with gun violence.  Either way, it was irresponsible for the writers of Elementary to disparage VT by spreading falsehoods about their "lax" gun laws.  

Old Hickory - Posted - 07/29/2019:  09:07:57

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Getting back to the OP - my point. It was not to start a gun thread, but rather about purposefully putting out false information in order to support your point. The Elementary episode was an example of this . . .

---

You don't know that to have been the writer's intent.

The writer might well have known of Vermont's previously less restrictive gun purchase laws but might not have known the laws had changed. His intent may have been simply to advance the story. His opinion on Vermont's gun laws may have nothing to do with what he wrote. Did any characters go on to bemoan the state's lax gun laws or lecture on how access to guns should be even more restricted? Was there any voicing of opinion at all?

Should the writer have done more research to be sure the laws were still what he thought they were? Sure.

But so what?  Even though the episode was new, who's to say that the fictional world of the TV show is 2019 or 2018 or any time after the law changed?  And even if it is, what about artistic license? For the sake of the story, maybe the law never changed.



Seems to me all we know for a fact is that the script writer of a detective show used a factual inaccuracy as a plot device. I haven't seen anything in this discussion that proves the writer intentionally misrepresented fact -- "lied" -- to support his point.



Of course stating untrue things or outright lies to support one's point does happen. I don't think I can post any examples, because they'd probably be deemed political and either be deleted or lead to the discussion being locked.

Old Hickory - Posted - 07/29/2019:  09:23:39

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

It recently has been reported that the Russians did indeed interfere with the 2016 elections, and are already interfering with the 2020 elections.  The question is, is this true, or is it what they want us to believe.  

---

It "has been reported" because it's US intelligence and law enforcement officials who are saying so.  These agencies, whose job it is to find out about and alert us to such things, uncovered exactly what the Russians did in 2016 and are seeing signs that they're at it again.

For a detailed description of what the Russians did in 2016, I refer you to the criminal indictment filed against a dozen Russian nationals just over a year ago.  Not a news story. Not a report. The actual charges with description of the actions, means and methods.



It's an eye-opening read, especially for people who get their "news" from unknown organizations whose stories pop up in their Facebook feed.

Old Hickory - Posted - 07/29/2019:  09:28:36

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

it was irresponsible for the writers of Elementary to disparage VT by spreading falsehoods about their "lax" gun laws.  

---

A useful construction, don't you think?

It was irresponsible for _____________ to disparage __________ by spreading falsehoods about their _________________.

I can think of many ways to fill in those blanks.

Gutbucket - Posted - 07/29/2019:  09:33:53

quote:

---

Originally posted by waystation

quote:

---

Originally posted by DC5

Getting back to the OP - my point. It was not to start a gun thread, but rather about purposefully putting out false information in order to support your point...

Another example, getting false surveys over the telephone or by mail. Although these are often political in nature, they aren't always, and this example is NOT intended to be political. The very nature of the survey questions is there to try and put an idea into your head about the subject of the survey.... A few years ago a politician was caught intentionally falsifying information about a candidate in the other party. When called to task by the press his response was "Well we won, didn't we?"

---

The classic example of this was a push poll conducted just before the South Carolina presidential primary in 2000 by the GW Bush campaign. It asked "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" Of course, McCain had done no such thing, but he had adopted a child from Bangladesh and was campaigning with his dark-skinned, adopted daughter in a very close South Carolina primary that he was expected to win. The tactic worked. Bush narrowly won the primary helped by this complete falsehood engineered by Karl Rove. The loss broke the back of the McCain campaign, gave Bush the momentum he needed to win the Republican nomination. We know the rest of that story.

So, a well-placed lie helped make Bush the 44th president of the United States. I wonder if he made his daddy proud? Or his mother?

---

Must be a political tactic that works.  Harry Reid broadcast the statement that Mitt Romney never paid his income taxes many times during the 2008 election.  After the election when Reid was proven wrong, his only comment was, "It Worked, Didn't it".   Sleaze has no party afiliation,