How does one determine whether one is watching fake news or real news?

How does one determine whether one is watching fake news or real news?

Other urls found in this thread:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/#NegTruFun
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Observe conflicting sources on the same topic and examine the differences.

MAINSTREEM METEOR IS FAYKE MEEDIER

INFOWAAZ IS REAL PROPHECY

That actually wouldn't help you make a definite determination, since they could all be fake.

Google the person who owns that media and see if his name ends with *berg or starts with Gold*

checkud

...

than this forced meme please die, thanks

If you agree with it and it confirms all your biases = real news

Otherwise it's fake

dont worry lad, google facebook and twitter will let us know what's real and what's fake :^)

All news is fake. These are not the people the events happened to.

What you want is news that fits your narrative.

>Blumstein
looks like I'm fine :^)

If the news isn't covering crimes against whites then it's fake.

Unless you have first hand accounts of what happened take everything with a grain of salt.

You're digits ring true, but that is still a way to determine what's more likely to be true.

You can take your thought down to zero where it becomes an existential question. How can you be certain about anything?

Its actually pretty easy for the most part if you play video games all day

How Can News Be Real If Their Sources Aren't Real?

>Conceived by Andrew Breitbart during a visit to Israel in summer 2007, with the aim of founding a site "that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel",[

Close enuf

>Pro-trump = true
>Anti-trump = false

stupid sven faggot. you are 2nd only to canada, i hope you are proud

i'd like to think that at least france and germany are more cucked than leafland, but not as cucked as sweden

It's fake news if the kikes are behind it.

I was here.
Anyway, use primary sources.

Some real news are fake and some fake news are real

1+1=2 is necessarily true.
"Thoughts exist" is necessarily true.
"Either some proposition is true or else it is not-true" is necessarily true.

There are certain, absolute necessary truths in the world.

STEP 1
1)Are you watching news?
STEP 2
2)They are fake

why haven't you gone back to rebbit yet tripcuck

>real news
that's a good joke
I had a hearty laugh

I've never been there, and I've been here way longer than you senpai.

If liberals like it, it's real

What if kikes create fake news?

>1+1=2 is necessarily true.
1+1= is not a truth, it's a definition. i can name myself yosef, that doesn't mean anything, it's not knowledge.

Watch RT news and cspan. I won't lie RT can seem pretentious, but they have staff from multiple opposing political institutions. Progressive conservatives, if you will, and rampant hipster liberals. They all work together, so it's neat to watch Multiple RT show hosts and analysts from different shows with opposing partisan and geo political views sit down and have a serious, mature debate. They don't talk over each other

>you are 2nd only to canada
that is what the fake meteor wants you to believe, real news says we are number 1st

You have to trust what CNN and MSNBC says on the subject. That's how.

It is knowledge - there are necessary connections between certain concepts.

You can also say "thoughts exist" is a definition-dependent statement in that the only way to articulate it is via some language, but that doesn't in any way take away from the sheer truth value of the statement corresponds to.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Potion seller

Nice was a total false flag
Hoax actually.
The truck didn't hit anyone
That's fake news.
inb4 some cgi truck not actually hitting anyone and some shit sound effects and 100x80 pixel phone footage

CHECK'D

quints reveal to me another tripfag that goes into my filter

checkin quints and praising kek for revealing to me yet another attention whore whose posts i will never have to read ever again

>there are necessary connections between certain concepts.
what do you mean by that?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/negation/#NegTruFun
Like negations in language. If I have an x, there is a necessary logical instantiation accompanying that x - not-x.

It is all fake news and in a state of superposition until it is observed. At the time that you watch it, it becomes real.

Why do people force this meme so much? I mean, he's British, it's not like he WASN'T gonna have an accent like this.

This is just one of those questions...
How do we know the romans were real and not made up?
How do we know what the government is lying about and what it's not lying about?
How do I know this photo is real?
What is "truth"?
Without sounding like a high schooler who just took philosophy 101, it's a really hard question to answer imo.

...

i don't think that's really truth.
those axioms come from intuition. everyone can already do simple logic automatically inside their head without being needed to be taught classic logic. nearly everyone has the same kind of philosophical intuition they agree on axioms, you and i don't have to explain to each other why something can either be or not-be, we take that for granted, but those intuitions come from human nature, which is arbitrary, and subject to being changed. if someone has a damaged frontal lobe, they might not accept things that we consider basic and logical, and there would be no way to persuade such a person to agree with you without appealing to those intuitions which they don't have.

obviously if someone decides to deny their own intuition they're just being contrarian, but i wouldn't sanctify those intuitions.

Simple. Just install the new Google Chrome extension, and all your fake news worries will go away.

That's *necessarily* truth.
A priori truth.
There's literally *NOTHING* you can articulate *MORE* true than a priori, necessarily true statements.

use unbiased fact-checking websites

The news is always real. What you want to determine is the AGENDA behind the news. If the agenda aligns with your core values, watch.

Consistently falsified claims that serve a known worldview.
Junk reasoning.
Lots of emotionalistic porn rather than facts.
Dishonest language.
Listen to Steve Inskeep for an hour, note what you hear, then look out for that sort of thing.

that's not true. if someone asked you justify a priory truth you would still have to do it by appealing to their intuition.

Tell me in what circumstance "either x or not-x" is a false statement.

i'm not saying it's false, i'm saying it's not automatic. you act like if someone would disagree with "either x or not-x" then their head should explode, but their heads don't explode.

>Using sources.
>Not witnessing the truth with your own eyes.

If there's no circumstance under which a proposition is never false, it's necessarily true.

It *doesn't matter* what people think about the statement. You can think 1-12=7 - you'd just be *WRONG*.

if there's no circumstance under which a proposition is ever* false (obviously)

Quantum superpositions.

>if there's no circumstance under which a proposition is ever* false
truth and persuasion go hand in hand. if you can't demonstrate how something is true to others, you can't demonstrate it to yourself. there might be a person who lacks the philosophical intuition to find "either x or not-x" agreeable. how would you prove that they're wrong? why wouldn't you be wrong, just because you intuitively find that statement agreeable?

"Quantum superpositions" doesn't change the logical necessity of either there being a thing or else that thing's negation.

>truth and persuasion go hand in hand
???????????????????????????
No?
They don't?
Truth has *nothing* to do with persuasion.

truth has everything to do with persuasion.
consider every single thing that you hold true. you arrived at that position because you were persuaded, one way or the other, to believe that this thing is true. in the future you might end up changing your mind, and decide that something you once thought to be true wasn't actually true. why did you think that thing was true in the past? because you were persuaded.

not everything that persuades is true, but everything that you hold to be true, had to be persuasive, otherwise you'd never come to believe in it. truth is persuasive by nature, while fallacy is persuasive by accident.

How doesn't it? Something can be both X and not-X if it's in a quantum superposition of X or not-X.

No *it doesn't*. Whether you get or understand that "thoughts exist" is a necessarily true statement is irrelevant to the *OBJECTIVE FACT* that it *IS TRUE*.

You can think square circles exist as much as you'd like - you're just false insofar as that belief is concerned.

Logic doesn't care about your opinion.

No it can't.
"Quantum superposition" does not instantiate square circles.

but you don't understand that truth means. maybe you should read that article you linked me, they talked about justification there. in order to know what the definition of any word is, you have to look at the situations in which people use it. everything that a person finds persuasive, they will call truth. that's what the word means.

you can't stop people from calling things they find persuasive "true", even if you disagree with them, that is the definition of the word. the only way to make someone stop believing in something is to persuade them otherwise. the only way to discover what is true or not is by considering how something persuades.

why is it that you think you believe that "thoughts exist" is a necessarily true statement? you believe that only because you've been persuaded to. the way in which you investigated what truth is, and the manner in which you became persuaded, are intertwined. if you were more easily persuaded by tricks you would have vastly different beliefs.

No; *you don't*. Truth isn't relative - it's absolute.
If you were the only human on earth, "thoughts exist" would *STILL BE TRUE*. Its truth has *NOTHING* to do with people's opinions - it's a necessarily true statement.

CHECKED

You can call whatever you want "truth", but unless we're talking about the same thing it's irrelevant. You can call camels bananas. You can call apples oranges. It doesn't change what you're actually referencing *at all*. Whether you refer to an apple as an apple or as an orange, it's the *same thing* - you're referring to exactly the same object. It's the exact same with any other language reference - when I talk about *TRUTH*, I'm talking about *THAT WHICH IS NECESSARILY CORRECT/THAT WHICH IS FALSE UNDER NO CONDITIONS/THAT WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FACTUALLY THE CASE*. Whether you want to use the same definition is *IRRELEVANT* to the fact that what is being articulated has necessary and perfect logical correspondences in regard to propositions about states of affairs and logical relations.

It has *nothing* to do with the irrelevant opinions of humans, which are incapable of changing the necessary logical correspondences of the world they inhabit. They're law-like and not dependent on relativity, just like no matter how much someone might wish gravity would relinquish its grasp them, it doesn't change that gravity functions on them nonetheless as what most people see as a law-like force.

i didn't say that truth is relative, when i said that truth and persuasion are intricately connected i didn't mean that everything that persuades me is therefore truth, only that i would *call* it truth. supposing you were tricked and made to believe in a lie, you would still call it truth because you wouldn't know any better. "truth" is first of all a word in English.

No, there's *no* connection between truth and persuasion.
Zero.

You could be persuaded to believe square circles exist despite being existentially incapable of even conceiving an instantiation of a square circle - you'd just be wrong (and an idiot). You being persuaded or unpersuaded has NOTHING to do with truth.

if you're being persuaded of believe in a certain proposition, you will call that proposition true. how can that immediate relationship escape you?

SOCIAUL JAUTUCE WARRIOS safe spaaaces GEOURGE SORRROWS

WHAT YOU CALL IT IS IRRELEVANT IF YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

>You can call camels bananas. You can call apples oranges. It doesn't change what you're actually referencing *at all*. Whether you refer to an apple as an apple or as an orange, it's the *same thing* - you're referring to exactly the same object. It's the exact same with any other language reference - when I talk about *TRUTH*, I'm talking about *THAT WHICH IS NECESSARILY CORRECT/THAT WHICH IS FALSE UNDER NO CONDITIONS/THAT WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY FACTUALLY THE CASE*. Whether you want to use the same definition is *IRRELEVANT* to the fact that what is being articulated has necessary and perfect logical correspondences in regard to propositions about states of affairs and logical relations.

Jesus Christ.

when someone is persuaded to believe in a given proposition, they believe that it's necessarily correct, just like you do. the word truth is used in the same way as you use it, it's just that someone else might make a mistake and call true a proposition that doesn't reflect the state of affairs in reality. why? because they were persuaded. so how can you tell that when you believe that something is true, that you haven't been tricked? by examining the manner in which you've been persuaded. if someone supports his proposition using an argument that is bad, then it would ordinarily not be persuasive, or it will be persuasive only to those who can't see the trick in the argument. the persuasiveness of a given argument is directly related to it's quality.


why can't you be calm like me

>they believe that it's necessarily correct
Alright, we're going to take this one stupid thing at a time.
I am of the opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Does that mean I believe that the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow?

well, do you believe "the sun will rise tomorrow" to be a true statement in this scenario?

If you see FOX or Infowars on the bottom right either kill yourself or close the window.

I just find the meme visually and phonetically hilarious

No.

Truth gets people ____. The trick is to escape the relationship without the ____ realizing.

Fill the blanks! There may be multiple correct solutions.

then why did you tell me that the sun will rise tomorrow if you don't believe that "the sun will rise tomorrow" is true? are you just halfway convinced?

there's a jew joke inside that i'm missing isn't there

Because I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow rather than that it will not.
The fact that I *BELIEVE* something does not mean that I believe that something is *NECESSARILY CORRECT*, which is what you said - absolutely mistakenly - here:
>when someone is persuaded to believe in a given proposition, they believe that it's necessarily correct

>when someone is persuaded to believe in a given proposition [to be true], they believe that it's necessarily correct
fiixed*

well i should be forgiven for making that mistake since i was just borrowing your definition of truth in order to avoid having to define truth on my own and derailing this even further.

Rude.

why do you believe that something will happen even though you know it has a chance of not happening? do you like taking risks with assumptions?

i'm sorry

Your statement now amounts to "people who believe something is true believe something is true".

Which is a non-point. It has no meaning whatsoever in this conversation, since no one is rejecting fucking identity statements.

that's not true, my statement is very important and deserving of respect. by investigating the nature of how people come to be persuaded, what is persuasive and what isn't, i'm able to arrive at truth and answer any philosophical probloem. why, i've unlocked the mysteries of the universe, one can only expect that my writings on the matter will forever destroy and recreate philosophy as we know it

>Deserving respect

You aren't entitled to anything. Also you can be persuade to a lie which is intentional misinformation. Stop trying to jew people here you retarded kike.

>that's not true, my statement is very important and deserving of respect
Apples are apples.
Thoughts are thoughts.
Camels are camels.
Swans are swans.

Yeah. So revelatory, and *obviously* something that was ever contested in this conversation by the other party. Yep.

the solution to lies is very simple, don't believe anyone. i would argue that when a confidant is giving you (mis)information, you aren't really being persuaded, you're just taking their word for it.

what anime is that dog from

Sometimes it is as easy as watching the source video. The article might claim "Trump hates Mexicans and thinks they are rapists" but in the source video he was talking only about illegal immigrants and actually was only talking about a portion of them not all of them.

>Persuasion - the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something
You see what's missing here?
Here; I'll help you.
The above is different from
>Persuasion - the action or fact of persuading someone or of being persuaded to do or believe something as being absolutely true

Boku no Pico

well it appears this conversation has reached it's final stages. maybe i need more preparation before sharing my revelations with the world, i certainly could've phrased myself better, but my powers of improvisational articulation aren't very strong, i need to take my time and figure things out.

The fact that you're trying to conflate belief and perceptions with truth (which is independent of human belief and perceptions) is fundamentally flawed to begin with. It literally doesn't make it out of square one.

All those shit posts