The paper Metro uploaded a video about source-criticism that got viral with 3 million views.
Let's do a summary.
(Left field is "WITH CRITICISM" and right is "WITHOUT CRITICISM")
Left: Is it true? Right: What? Muslims destroy shit for us?
Left: googles "christmas lighting department of traffic" Right: FUCKING MUSLIMS
Left: "The poles can't sustain christmas decorations"
Left: IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF MUSLIMS
I agree, that's a good method which I personally use. When I read FriaTider, for example.
I was surprised by how keen they are with reality.
So many times I've seen articles that appear too crazy to be true,
but then you google around and reach the Flashback-thread, where someone has a link to court documents,
and it turns out it was true! Here's a few examples!
"Black dick is expensive!" he shouted while raping the 12-year old. Then he got 22 days of community service.
Expressens partner, who got a journalist award, tried to beat up a cab driver.
Girl was raped by negro while unconscious, and when witnesses called the cops she labeled them racist liars.
Girl raped on train, but didn't want to press charges because then the rapist might be deported.
Dagens Nyheter covered up sex crimes, while accusing the cops of doing the same. And this was confirmed by Norwegian journalists since Swedish ones didn't want to touch the story.
And before you ask: "But why does ethnicity matter?"
If we're not gonna describe ethnicity, then why would we describe gender? Is it really that relevant if someone is male, or how old they are?
Sure men are overrepresented when it comes to crime, but why would you say it out loud!? All men aren't like that! Most aren't criminals! And women do crime too!
Either information is relevant, or not.
The only thing that happens when you ignore overrepresentation is failure to take action where it's needed most.
And the idea that minorities shouldn't be treated equally and criticized is the racism of low expectations.
And of course you don't WANT to believe crazy shit like this happens!
I'm an immigrant, I don't benefit from other immigrants behaving badly.
But reality isn't always what you want it to be, and I got a problem with how people define "source criticism".
Blindly dismissing an article, without investigating the source, isn't source criticism. And trusting everything mainstream-media says isn't criticism either.
And I suspect most people who shared Metro's video are ignorant, and don't get that you should be equally critical towards mainstream media.
Because the video doesn't say so. All it says it to google. So people might google, read what a big outlet has to say, and then leave it there. That's not criticism.
And googling might not be the best thing if you wanna be source critical, since Google isn't an omnipotent God.
It's a private company who got pressured by SJWs into removing "controversial" search suggestions. Like criticism against Islam, and overrep in crime.
So what can you do then?
You could use common sense. Don't trust something just because it's in an established paper.
Or because the website looks nice, or a government official is saying it.
And even if something seems resonable, always keep in mind that there might be a different explanation than the one you're presented.
Put simply: You can read it, consider it, but you don't gotta buy it. It's possible to entertain a thought without accepting it.
It's odd how people view source criticism. In school you're often taught to "Look up the sender, because that affects credability."
"So don't read alt-media, because they're racist!"
People staring themselves blind at the sender is the whole problem. They can't separate the actual source, from the person delivering the source.
If a site publishes info from a court document, for example, then the source is the document. Not the site.
So people don't even review the sources because they're brainwashed into caring about the sender.
I can link something from Avpixlat and I'm told it's a racist myth, even when their source is public service.
But let's take a look at the senders then. Aftonbladet is social-democrat with communists on their opinion page.
Expressen is liberal, and our "politically neutral" public service consists largely of feminists and Green party members.
The Green Party and Feminists are the most delusional parties in Sweden, so what does that say about their credibility?
They do uncritical commercials of the hate-organisation BLM, ask themselves if black racism is a good thing,
and don't even get me started on the US election. Such biased reporting.
Barely any articles about Wikileaks, and the most critical article of Clinton drew the conclusion that the nr 1 reason she's hated is her vagina.
Half of all news consumers read alt-media too, and 20% directly mistrust mainstream-media.
So a question people have is: Why does someone read alt-media?
Because we can tell journalists don't live in the same reality as ordinary people. We notice how biased they are, and how they darken uncomfortable issues.
Which they finally admitted themselves, and if you don't believe me then just watch this video going over Sweden's social climate.
Critical thinking is about questioning your own thoughts, as much as other peoples, and media is not an almighty God.
News are reported by humans, and humans are flawed. Everyone's a slave to their personal preferences, therefore they're biased whether aware of it or not.
So it's important to read various media, not just those sanctioned by the government.
People generally don't do much research, so when they read mainstream-media they're not even aware of the lies they're being fed.
Alt-media is needed because otherwise we'll get a monopoly of opinion, and this is the complete opposite to diversity in perspective.
And it's ironic that people who scream for diversity now want to eliminate diversity.
I get messages from people in school saying their teacher wants them to stop reading alt-media.
And school is supposed to be a place of learning. Obviously they don't teach you to think critically, they teach you to think "correct".
Those trying to get you to stop reading alt-media are just trying to stop you from thinking outside their box.
But all you want is as much info as possible? When did that become something bad?
Just because you read them doesn't mean you believe everything they say, you just want as many different perspectives as possible.
And it's a big problem for democracy that people are trying to stop others from gaining access to information.
And now their smear tactics have evolved to SJWs talking about "fake news".
They couldn't handle Trump winning, so they pressured Google and Facebook to start censoring.
This also spread to Sweden where Jonas Gardell wrote an open letter to Zuckerberg, there he... uh, uses God as an argument.
Our minister of culture got inspired and agreed, she suggested the government should control what's allowed on social media.
And now media-profiles are saying alt-media is a threat against democracy.
It's interesting. The Swedish establishment lied and said the immigration policy would enrich Sweden.
Now everybody can see how wrong they were, but nobody wants to define their bullshit as "fake news".
Have you noticed how many things that are considered truth today, were racist myths just a few years ago?
Organized begging, immigration being a huge cost and in conflict with the welfare system, that many refugee children aren't actually children.
It was taboo to even suggest age tests, even tho Denmark and Norway already do them, and say most lie about their age.
When Fredrik Reinfeldt resigned he admitted immigration puts a strain on public services.
This was a paradigm shift, because he admitted what many claimed all along, but were only called "racist".
Now it's obvious that it's a huge cost, so they changed the narrative. Now they say: "Yeah it's a big cost, but it's worth it!"
Even though the health board admitted that health, dental and psych ward services can't work properly.
And lest we forget that article on the governments website, now removed, where the former minister of integration lied about their irresponsible policy.
What was previously considered racist myths is today official policy of the Social Democrats. They just stole the Sweden Democrats ideas.
And people stay quiet, because they know the evil racists had good points all along.
If they now think fake news are a problem, does that mean they'll censor Sweden's media? Considering all the lies they've poured out.
Here's a few example of things they've reported as truths, but were plain wrong.
Stefan Löfven and our media claimed a large portion of refugees are highly educated. A closer look at the numbers showed it's just wrong.
DN released an absurd article on how Sweden earned 900 billion off immigration, but the report was flawed.
Instead of going off real statistics they created a model where they conflated labor migrants with refugees.
And blindly assumed there's no differences in income between fresh refugees and natives.
DN also claimed there's no terrorists in the refugee wave.
You don't even need a source to disprove this, it's just crazy to say all refugees are innocent angels,
and that terrorists are so dumb they wouldn't exploit an obvious opening. Especially considering the reports of islamists threatening christian refugees in Sweden.
DN also wrote immigrants don't use long-term welfare more than Swedes.
Have you BEEN to a fucking welfare office? I got a source to disprove this, but I'm not even gonna use it because this is so retarded.
A while back TV4 used The Onion as a serious source. This is a well-known American satire-site.
It says a lot when even the media themselves can't do source-criticism. Just take for example Alexandra Pascalidou who was nominated for a journalist award.
She recently talked about how Trump-supporters hand out alcohol and weed to blacks, so they can't be bothered to vote for the Democrats.
- Drugs? - Yeah, before the election so blacks won't vote.
- Do you have a source on this? - Yes absolutely, and many outlets reported on this, primarily American ones.
Your source is sloppy journalists. It turns out the guy they interviewed trolled the paper to make fun of their view of the alt-right.
There's no evidence racists handed out weed, and the guy didn't want to give any info on himself or others. Yet they still ran the story.
And one of the biggest alt-right fake news producers in America is a liberal.
And he did it partly to make the right look dumb, and partly because he made a lot of money.
Obviously there is no shortcut to knowledge and good judgment.
And the whole point of democracy is different views on reality. So the government trying to ban certain views is just a political tool.
False statements are obviously okay when journalists and politicians are the ones making them.
Not even the media knows source-criticism, and it's good that they mess up because it shows who they are. Do we really wanna remove that possibility?
Remember when Beatrice Ask shared a joke-article about 37 people dying from weed overdose?
This is the same person who was minister of justice, and controlled the drug policy in Sweden.
Even though she doesn't know shit about drugs. It showed how wrong she was for the position.
Fake news are much better than government-controlled news.
The worst with fake news is that people have to learn critical thinking. The worst with state-controlled news is dictatorship. Censorship.
You're not even allowed to know what's happening in your own country. The solution isn't censorship.
It's to demand that people get smarter. Treating people like idiots is the reason we're in this mess to begin with.
In school we're taught that source-criticism is really important, but only with certain sources. The popular ones can always be trusted.
Then it turns out you can't trust the popular ones, and so you get a population that blindly chooses the opposite. Because you never taught them critical thinking.
You shouldn't believe everything alternative media says, nor everything established media says.
Instead of trying to protect people from information, you should teach them how to handle information.
That's much more sustainable both in the present, and for future generations.
If they really cared about source criticism they'd let people be source critical, and fake news would die down automatically.
But now they wanna remove the chance to even question the mainstream-version, even though journalists have proven they have an agenda.
They wanna censor news that violate truth, but whose truth?
If they cared about source criticism they wouldn't say: The fewer perspectives, the closer you'll get to truth. The less websites you can look up, the better!
Fake news is whatever the establishment wants it to be. You can put that label on anything that challenges your agenda.
That's all for this video. A final tip, I'm often asked: "How do I stay informed with all these lies and deception?"
The answer is simple, but a pain in the ass. You gotta follow like 8 different sites, and even then you're not informed. You just know a lil' more than others.
Of course I follow established media like SVT, Expressen and Svenska Dagbladet.
I also follow bubb.la for a right-wing perspective on events, Proletären for a left-wing perspective,
and FriaTider & NyheterIdag because they're good at revealing establishment lies, or PC-scandals in general.
Put simply, don't trust anyone. All media is equally bullshit.
Everyone's technically correct, while still not giving the full picture.
So take control of your own mind and put the effort into researching and educating yourself.
Or shut up. I don't wanna hear about source criticism from someone who doesn't even research what they're dismissing.
For more infomation >> Watford v Crystal Palace (Mon 26 December 2016 Match Summary) - Duration: 2:48. 
For more infomation >> Leyton Orient v Crawley Town (Mon 26 December 2016 Match Summary) - Duration: 2:47. 
For more infomation >> КОНКУРС НА GIGABYTE GTX 1050 Ti и ИТОГИ 2016 ГОДА!!! #GTXvPodarok - Duration: 3:55. 
For more infomation >> Faith, hope and the message of Christmas - Duration: 7:37. 
For more infomation >> The Role of Poultry Viruses in Human Cancers - Duration: 5:06. 
For more infomation >> 5 Things Men Hate About Their Girlfriends - Duration: 2:14. 
For more infomation >> SmartDNS: Bypass Country Restrictions on Video Sites - Duration: 6:31. 
For more infomation >> To Be Continued Capitulo 1 Completo Sub Español - Duration: 14:14. 
For more infomation >> Huevo Sorpresa Gigante de Minions en Español de Plastilina Play Doh - Duration: 10:50. 
For more infomation >> 'La La Land' Movie
For more infomation >> ДЕНЬГИ НА ХАЛЯВУ | КОНКУРС! - Duration: 1:05. 
For more infomation >> Desi Vimax Oil in Pakistan | Banane Ka Tarika | Nafs Mota Aur Lamba Shartiya ilaj | SMS 03073780133 - Duration: 1:14. 
For more infomation >> Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc #04 - LE MASTER KAAG, PREMIER BOSS ! - Duration: 17:40. 
For more infomation >> 想詢問關於馬來西亞/台灣/澳門事宜的朋友 請注意！ - Duration: 2:03. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét