Internet Question to ponder

[BarryBobPosthole]

I am fast coming to the realization that the internet has reached a tipping point: there are more untruths than truths on the internet. Sad but true in my opinion.

But that's not the question. What I'm wondering is if traditional (i.e. not on the onternet) cultural 'knowledge' or infomation or whatever you call it, is as unreliable as what we see on the internet.

BKB

[Thumper]

Interesting question ... but I'm not so sure I buy 100% of your statement ... ie; there are more untruths than truths on the internet."

The internet (IMO) is one of the greatest learning tools of modern times. BUT ... it all depends on what type of "neighborhood" you hang out in. If you hang out in certain "chat rooms" or read "blogs" all day ... chances are you'll be exposed to a ton of bulshit. (Good Hunting exempted of course) ;)

I think the absolute worst culprit in the world is these TOTAL BULLSHIT e-mails that make the rounds and we take them as the gospel and do as they always say at the bottom ... "please pass this on to everyone in your address book!" Sheeesh! The total crap I receive from people I've always considered highly intelligent ... who seem to buy the goofy shit ... astounds me! With just a little bit of effort, these people could find out the truth, but if their old buddy Joe Blow sent it to them, it MUST be true!

Here's my personal dilemma ... I will not read fiction. I did at a younger age ... but it became a problem with time. I think books and reading is one of the most educational tools known to mankind ... but when I used to read fiction, later on down the road I would quote something as fact, when it was not. The reason, I would absorb a certain amount of "knowledge" from a fictional book and it would lodge way back in my brain cells someplace. Then at a later date (even years later at times) I would be engaged in a conversation which would awaken those brain cells and I'd quote what I'd read as fact, because truthfully, I wouldn't realize where or how I'd learned it.

I know there are many readers here (you included) and it may not be a problem for you ... but if it's not something ridiculous that's waaaay out there in the ozones someplace ... and sounds reasonable, I don't remember if what I quote in conversation as fact, is really something I "LEARNED" previously ... or simply some bullshit I read in a fictional novel for example. On a related note, I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard people quote as fact, something I remember receiving in one of those total bullshit e-mails years ago.

[Captain]

If its not true they can't put it on the Internet....

Saw that on a Allstate commercial.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

This is the only website I actually post on, except for Facebook. I do have another site I read once in a while that is mainly a bunch of Sooner football fans but that gets way on my nerves after about five minutes.

And after years of receiving those blast emails, I finally have gotten it down to only a few people who send them to me but I hardly ever even open them.

But there is a ton of urban myth out there and I'm not sure if its caused by the internet or if its just always been there and the internet just makes it easier. Many years ago, before there even was an internet, there was a rumor that spread around Tulsa that gangs would drive around with their brights on and if you flashed yours at them then they would pull you over and kill you. It was some sort of gang initiation. It spread like wildfire here for about a week. It made me wonder then who'd make up such a story and anyone actually even did or if it grew on its own. Yesterday, there was a post by someone I know on Facebook extolling the virtues of egg whites for severe burns. Said it was a centuries old treatment. No its friggin not. The person who shared that (with her entire facebook friend list) is a nice person who'd never make up a viscious lie. But it made me want to slap her. Stupido.
Anyway, yes there is a lot of data on the internet but as for information, its still up to the individual to determine the veracity of something before we pass it on. I'm sure its a 'survival of the species' trait that's at the core of our need to pass along stuff to others. Which mushrooms are poison, where boogeymans are, etc. but it sure as hell is annoying.
BKB

[Chicken Dinner]

Barry, I like to think of the internet as the unfettered market place of ideas. Sure, there' a lot of crap like you mention above. However, that's always been out there. If anything it flames out quicker in the digital age. Because of the sheer numbers involved in the market, over time the truth will come out. I also know if my kid calls me up when he's doing his home work and asks about the communitvie property of multiplication, I can effort it up pretty quickly and sound like I know what I'm talking about.

[Buckrub]

We first called it a "Campfire Chat". I think that's what this is.

But hey, Jack. I agree with you, and I now think that the entire Internet is one big "Campfire Chat".

I post on four sites, mostly.......at least four sites that have interactive chat functions. Did you guys know that you are probably the most intelligent, the most well-thought-out, the most rational group around? The other groups are much bigger, so the sample size is huge.......but they have the guys who, I think, ORIGINATE these crazy emails. Day after day, I spend time chiding them for "Bearing False Witness". They won't stop, and to be very, very honest, they truly believe what they are posting. Tin Foil hats won't work for these guys, they need stainless steel pots on their heads. Seriously, you have no idea. And this isn't even the function of the site, it's a hunting and outdoor site!!! Like this one!! There are a ton of folks, usually less outspoken, that are rational and don't fall for that stuff. But my point is that there are a zillion of 'em that do!

They seriously believe that the Union is about to go to War, and that the government's goal is to enslave all of us. To prove this, they post made-up 'facts', crazy rumors, and every once in a while they pounce like chickens on a june bug when they find a real damaging piece of news. Truth is, I think there is more truth to SOME of their beliefs than you guys do, but I think that there is enough real proof of it without having to resort to lies and craziness. If challenged, they will post as 'proof' some guys blog about what he thinks..........and editorial piece. I love editorial pieces, especially from Thomas Sowell!!! :) I read 'em. Sometimes their opinions make sense and make me think. But they are not 'news' sources. Besides, he truly writes OPINIONS and says so. These guys are quoting people who write the wildest of opinions and claim that this stuff has happened, or will happen tomorrow. That's the difference.

Now, while I've given you the bad side of them, there are a lot of very good people there. I bought the pop up and mother's car from two of the greatest guys you'd ever want to meet. One guy drove to a store in Bastrop, LA and bought me .22 mag bullets and brought them to me. He's a traveling salesman, so he didn't drive there just for me, but he went out of his way to get what I'd said that I needed. I bought him lunch, and he's as straight a shooter as anyone on this board. I went to a get together 2 weeks ago with about 40 of 'em, and other than one loudmouth, there were great folks.

I ramble.......... but I agree with Posthole mostly. I don't think it's >50% though, I just think that nuts like me and him spend 83% of our time at those type sites for some reason. Heck, man.........the Encyclopedia Brittanica just closed their doors because there was no reason to publish books with info that can be found by going click click click three times. Real info is out there.

My LAST point is that I don't trust the "Traditional News Sources" either on TV or on the Internet!!! SO, if you want to avoid the Opinion Blogs and wild stuff, and only want 'real truth', I suspect that you'd end up on such sites as the traditional news agencies. Well, I am convinced they are in the entertainment business solely, and care not one whit for hard news. What happened is immaterial. What the politics and thoughts of the guy who made the news.......now that is important. SO, while you may think that the internet is overwhelmed with opinionated idiots, I'd caution against trying to utilize the major news agencies instead, because I believe them about zero point zero percent of the time. I don't watch them on TV, and I don't bother with them much on the internet. Yes, I get info about oil spills and space shuttle launches and weather from the internet. I trust that the COE is giving me accurate information about the hourly levels on Lake Nimrod. I will view the weather reports to see what the long term trend is. But that's about it. I've become a personal isolationist.

I get about as much 'news' from you guys as I do anywhere. Scary, huh?

[LJ3]

I think the interwebs facilitates ignorance at a faster pace, but that people who wish to apply criitcal thought and dig deeper for more realistic information can do so as they would before.

It think it just accelerates both sides of the equation.

Although... Facebook and other social media seems to be accepted as being accurate sources than any thinking human should assume.

So I'm amending my opinion. Ignorance is accelerating and sentient, critical thought is not keeping pace.

[BarryBobPosthole]

The one that pisses me off the most is the one that I see on Facebook almost once a month. Somebody will take a current sporting event and say something like 'but do people care that 31 Americans were killed in Afghanistan yesterday?'. Well, first off, no, 31 Americans weren't killed in Afghanistan yesterday. If you're that concerned about them, read their names, find out how many actually died or were wounded. Find out what their hometowns were. Its nowhere near doing enough for these souls, but at least it something more than hitting the 'share' button on a goddamned lie.
that one irks me. It does us all a disservice.

BKB

[BarryBobPosthole]

The other one I saw this week, and it actually made me laugh, was yet another 'did you know' type deal where it compared Obama to Hitler and went on to say that Hitler established universal health care and gun control in Nazi Germany.
BKB

[Thumper]

You're on a curmudgeonly roll P-hole! Keep 'em comin'! :D

[Captain]

But they had a picture of Hitler standing there with children and then a picture of Ding-Dong standing there with children! Don't that prove it!
Take Care, Captain

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

lol I reckon! If you like picture books!

BKB

[Buckrub]

I'm pretty sure that Hitler really did establish a whopping big control of guns in Germany...............

[BarryBobPosthole]

And you'd be pretty sure to be wrong. Study your damned history, not the crap you read on the internet. Germany's strictest gun laws came about as a result of WWI, not Hitler. All Hitler did was pass a law that made it legal for citizens only to own weapons and at the same time made Jews non-people/citizens. Hitler's gun laws were actually looser than the previous ones that follows WWI, assuming you were a German citizen.

He did a lot of things. Not all of them are parallels of what liberals or conservatives do. Unless maybe its deluge people with a bunch of bullshit propaganda.

BKB

[Buckrub]

Um, I stand by my statement, and I got NO info from the "internet". He took the guns away from Jews, pretty much 100%. That's pretty strict gun laws. He did that, not some Czar from WWI.

Sheesh.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Correct. He took the Jews guns away when he stripped them of their citizenship and made them 'non-persons'. I guess you could technically call that gun control, but in what shape it resembles what is happening today in our country I can't fathom. And you just repeated back what I said.

And if you have an interest in that time, read 'Paris-1919: Six Months That Changed The World'. Its an excellent history of the negotiations of the Versailles Treaty after WWI. Gun control aside, the decisions made in those negotiations had the most far reaching effects on today's world than any other thing in our world's history. And much of that concerned what is going on in the middle east today. Its a dang fine read for a history book. Woodrow Wilson spent six months in Versailles negotiating that treaty and when he got home, the Republicans wouldn't pass it. Sound familiar? But can you imagine a modern president spending six months abroad? It was a different time. I remember reading about one politician, from Croatia I think it was, that got his hand cut off and murdered for signing that treaty.

BKB

[Buckrub]

I technically call that Gun Control, big time. And it's what you just said BECAUSE I was agreeing with that part of what you said, but showing that it wasn't any 'proof' that Hitler didn't initiate Gun Control........he did. And why would he care if Aryan German Citizens owned guns? He only wanted his enemies disarmed!!!

So I guess you are right.....it doesn't resemble what he wants to do here. Here, he just wants to disarm Republicans. The guns Democrats own don't bother him much!! :)

[BarryBobPosthole]

ok, whatever.
BKB

[LJ3]

Correct. He took the Jews guns away when he stripped them of their citizenship and made them 'non-persons'. I guess you could technically call that gun control, but in what shape it resembles what is happening today in our country I can't fathom. And you just repeated back what I said.

And if you have an interest in that time, read 'Paris-1919: Six Months That Changed The World'. Its an excellent history of the negotiations of the Versailles Treaty after WWI. Gun control aside, the decisions made in those negotiations had the most far reaching effects on today's world than any other thing in our world's history. And much of that concerned what is going on in the middle east today. Its a dang fine read for a history book. Woodrow Wilson spent six months in Versailles negotiating that treaty and when he got home, the Republicans wouldn't pass it. Sound familiar? But can you imagine a modern president spending six months abroad? It was a different time. I remember reading about one politician, from Croatia I think it was, that got his hand cut off and murdered for signing that treaty.

BKB

That sounds like a great read!

[Captain]

Woodrow Wilson spent six months in Versailles negotiating that treaty and when he got home, the Republicans wouldn't pass it. Sound familiar?

So what you are saying is if a Democrat spends 6 months working on something everyone should go along with it?
No need for the Republicans to read it and get feedback from the citizens they represent?
Would that be the same if a Republican worked on something for 6 months....

I guess that's why the government is set up like it is.

Take Care, SD
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[BarryBobPosthole]

Well, in those days I suppose it was a little tougher to keep in synch on treaty stuff like that. There were a lot of times wither diplomats or representatives had to take it on themselves to commit us to stuff. I guess if you live in a nanny state, then you need to go ask nanny if its okay to do something.
And I'm not so sure they were wrong in not approving it either. The League of Nations, later the UN, came out of that treaty.
BKB

[Captain]

OK, cool just tugged on my short hairs the way it was worded against the evil-doers Republicans.
Since you said one must read history before making such statements, were there any Democrats that voted with the Republicans, or abstained from voting? Were there any Republicans that voted for the issue? What was the Republicans major sticking point that caused them from supporting it?
Take Care, Captain
Just wondering

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

Funny how you'd think that was similar to today. I'd say if the Republicans are truly the 'obstructionist' party, and stop stuff from getting done, then I may just send 'em some money!

And if they stopped the UN in any way, God Bless 'Em!!!

But hey.........Whatever.

[BarryBobPosthole]

Bucky, I didn't write the fucking history, I just told you what it was. And I never said the Republican party was obstructionist. What I was pointing out was that the president spent six months negotiating a treaty and then couldn't get the backing from his own countrymen to support it. Its the way we are. Americans have always been that way. Right or wrong, I don't make any judgements. And a hell of a lot of good it did not to approve it since there's that big ass UN building in New York.

Go read it for yourself. OR better yet, make it up as you go along, I could give a shit.
BKB

[Buckrub]

You're not really used to having anyone disagree with you very often, are you?

[Captain]

I'm out!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Buckrub]

I meant Posthole.

He isn't used to it.

I'm used to it. But not interested in it. I'm out now.

But in summary, I offer the following complete response to it all:

Whatever.

[LJ3]

We could have talked this all out on facebook.

[Buckrub]

No. "We" couldn't have.

Besides......sometimes folks don't really want to 'talk it out' anywhere.

Whatever.