Maybe you're missing the big picture here. Ever read 1984 or look into George Orwell's history? These books were written as a warning of this type of censorship and Orwell himself was targeted by the CIA and FBI for some of these thoughts. Thought-police comes to mind.
Ever heard of the Polish Pink Files? How about the Stasi? In every instance where this type of policing happens, it leads to major disaster.
The snide comment was cute but totally unwarranted, as conspiracies do occur.
Who needs the memory-hole when we can simply ignore context which is only pixels away:
"This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."
"These books were written as a warning of this type of censorship" (emphasis in the original)
> "This is little more than an attempt to sanitize information so that all that remains is the pre-approved 'least problematic' truth (fact-checked, of course)."
is equivalent to:
> politicians being fact-checked by independent organizations.
I'm beginning to believe the basic left/right divide is founded on the inability to handle context.
Though it's probably just a secondary effect of defending the indefensible, which makes context, like facts, inconvenient.
The post was clearly attacking "fact-checking" as a partisan activity. Snopes and Politifact type sites are under attack by the right wing, because fake news is a right-wing problem.
There's no point parsing into exactly how "fake" each bit of news is. Nothing made up by Macedonian teenagers is any crazier than stuff Trump has repeated on camera. As soon as you bring objectivity into things then it's going to make Trump look bad.
They've elected a brazen liar, who lies about stupid stuff he doesn't even need to lie about, and instead of owning that, they're now telling us that 1984 is a warning about people not accepting lies from their government.
Even in the twisted world we now live in, that is shocking.
As other posters have pointed out, 'problematic' is code for 'acceptable by left politics'. This is generally pretty well known. Narrowing things down to 'acceptable by left and fact checked' (adding fact checking to claim legitimacy) is very different from 'fact checked'.
I agree, but add that 'down with big brother' would be considered problematic. Additionally fact checking, while a meritorious idea that should be more common, is deliberately used inconsistently as a political tool.
This comment is poorly parsed, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you've not only completely misunderstood me but are also redirecting the argument elsewhere by misrepresenting my comment.
I replied to a comment that was attacking fact-checking of news by non-governmental organization as being a conspiracy to suppress right-wing views.
You said, 1984 was "written as a warning of this type of censorship".
If you didn't mean to defend the grand-parent post, then you're the one that's expressing yourself poorly.
What's Orwellian here is the number of people who believe things contrary to fact because politicians repeatedly and brazenly lie on those topics and when fact checked, they attack the whole edifice of Science, the free press, the CBO, what people have seen with their own eyes etc.
>Russian backed troll teams
Is there any hard evidence whatsoever that this is the case, and may you point me to it? I'm fully aware that Russians never "hacked the election" as many news outlets will have us believe (low confidence from the intelligence community, the previous president, and others) but I would believe that claim with hard evidence.
Ever heard of the Polish Pink Files? How about the Stasi? In every instance where this type of policing happens, it leads to major disaster.
The snide comment was cute but totally unwarranted, as conspiracies do occur.