"Has the 2016 election changed our perception of truth?"

originally posted by: Greggers
And ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ATS, where Russian Propaganda didn't happen, ...

If it did happen, that doesn't mean that it affected anything overall. And what INTRPTR was noting is that there is no hard proof/evidence that the hacking was because of the Russians, but even IF it was, the information released wasn't propaganda, it was factual information and pieces of correspondence. If you call that propaganda, I don't know what to tell you.

... fake news is purely the domain of the MSM, ...

I don't think that INTRPTR said anything about the MSM or that fake news was purely created by them, but the reality is that much of the reports and information pushed by the MSM is often incomplete in order to create a half-truth narrative at best, and some of it has been proven absolutely false in the worst-case scenarios. It's a bigger issue coming from the MSM because that's where the vast majority of the average American plucks their news, so it has the biggest footprint causing the most influence. It's a much more valid concern than this or that website that has a relative handful of already-ideologically-motivated people who visit and cite it.

... and if the CIA and FBI agree something is true, it must certainly be false.

Well, I guess that it isn't necessarily false, but with each agency's record of lying about important things, it's only intelligent to be skeptical of either or both.

But, yes, this really is what ATS is all about at its core--conspiracies and skepticism drive much of what the site is about, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

It didn't change my perception of truth at all. Both candidates twisted the truth, truth is based on a person's beliefs I guess.

Truth is based on consensus of the time, what is accepted as truth is usually a partial truth or maybe even something so deformed that we cannot fathom it is a lie. Untrue truths have cherry picked evidence to show they are true but other evidence can easily show there is a flaw. The acceptance of the evidence is governed by certain people though, so we are constantly fed only the BS that reinforces what certain interests want us to believe.

So no, I do not think anything about the 2016 changed my opinion in any way, I chose who I felt was the lesser of two evils and who had the best VP. Trump just happened to have a VP that was better than Hillary's. I did learn there are a lot of BSed people in this country that believe in lies and chose sides too strongly.

a reply to: infolurker

CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, are, in my opinion, approaching near collapse of credibility and I've actually begun to wonder if they'll survive financially.

My view of the truth is Muldur's, "the truth is out there". Unfortunately, its getting farther and farther away and I'm concerned the MSM in league with Silicone Valley may well tighten the locks of the digital curtain such that we can't get much of anything like the "truth". We'll be stranded behind Google and Facebook algorithms that leave us with only the Liberal Media fake news.

And believe me, if they can find a way, they'll do it.

a reply to: Greggers

And ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ATS, where Russian Propaganda didn't happen, fake news is purely the domain of the MSM, and if the CIA and FBI agree something is true, it must certainly be false.

Hah, the alphabet agencies, biggest liars of them all. The indirect source of the claims, with no proof 'proof'. I been around too long and seen too many of their false flags to even begin to believe them now, lol.

Indeed the claims of fake news begins with them...

Google Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example. I lived thru that era, can't get fooled again.

image

a reply to: SlapMonkey

INTRPTR was noting is that there is no hard proof/evidence that the hacking was because of the Russians...

In fact as I recall when asked, Assange stated it wasn't the Russians but a disgruntled DNC insider pissed about what happened to Bernie Sanders.

Thats much more believable, and was skipped over by the 'journalists', never to be repeated in the main stream.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

And ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ATS, where Russian Propaganda didn't happen, fake news is purely the domain of the MSM, and if the CIA and FBI agree something is true, it must certainly be false.

Hah, the alphabet agencies, biggest liars of them all. The indirect source of the claims, with no proof 'proof'. I been around too long and seen too many of their false flags to even begin to believe them now, lol.

Indeed the claims of fake news begins with them...

Google Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example. I lived thru that era, can't get fooled again.

image

You guys need a theme song.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


If it did happen, that doesn't mean that it affected anything overall. And what INTRPTR was noting is that there is no hard proof/evidence that the hacking was because of the Russians, but even IF it was, the information released wasn't propaganda, it was factual information and pieces of correspondence. If you call that propaganda, I don't know what to tell you.

It was hacked emails from one side (and only one side) along with blatantly fake news stories revolving around those emails. There was so little of actual relevance in the Podesta dumps that lunatics had to resort to BS. While there were two or three legit stories hiding in there, those were all covered by the MSM.

Pizza-gate and MSM poll rigging, not so much.

I don't think that INTRPTR said anything about the MSM or that fake news was purely created by them,

Well, I guess that it isn't necessarily false, but with each agency's record of lying about important things, it's only intelligent to be skeptical of either or both.

Again, it's a pretty common refrain here on ATS.

But, yes, this really is what ATS is all about at its core--conspiracies and skepticism drive much of what the site is about, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

Which attracts a lot of unbalanced people.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Greggers

And ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ATS, where Russian Propaganda didn't happen, fake news is purely the domain of the MSM, and if the CIA and FBI agree something is true, it must certainly be false.

Hah, the alphabet agencies, biggest liars of them all. The indirect source of the claims, with no proof 'proof'. I been around too long and seen too many of their false flags to even begin to believe them now, lol.

Indeed the claims of fake news begins with them...

Google Gulf of Tonkin Incident, for example. I lived thru that era, can't get fooled again.

image

You guys need a theme song.

You need to come up out of Plato's Cave.

originally posted by: Greggers
It was hacked emails from one side (and only one side) along with blatantly fake news stories revolving around those emails. There was so little of actual relevance in the Podesta dumps that lunatics had to resort to BS. While there were two or three legit stories hiding in there, those were all covered by the MSM.

Apparently you haven't looked into who Assange (you know, that guy who runs Wikileaks...who had the information delivered to him for release from the source of the leak) says leaked the information. If you had, you'd understand why it was only from one side. Or, if you had looked into it and you're just refusing to accept that, then I guess this conversation of the point of the email leak is a pointless endeavor.

I'd love to hear what you claim is the "BS" resorted to by "lunatics." Hell, I'd just like to see who you are defining as "lunatics" first, then we could go from there.

Which attracts a lot of unbalanced people.

True, but the imbalance works on both sides--some buy into the "official story" way to readily and defend it feverishly, while others discard it with reckless abandonment the moment it is released and refuse to even accept that some of it may be correct. But that imbalance is what keeps the site in balance, otherwise it'd just be an echo chamber, and that's never a good thing.

So, if I understand what I am seeing here the majority consensus is:

Individual perception of truth is a 'best guess' scenario based on heavily limited and filtered information from biased sources. Real truth, as in factual information, is beyond the reach of the average citizen deemed unworthy of such valuable and powerful information. TPTB seem to have decided that we don't have the stomach to digest real information, so they spoon feed us manufactured propaganda pablum instead.

Now, does being forewarned with that information change the perception? If we don't really know what the real truth is, can we say our perception of it is even valid in the first place?

The 2016 election cycle and the politics involved along with election cycles and politics before it have proven one indisputable truth.

Politics is among the most potentially dangerous, devastating and destructive forces on planet Earth.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I think before debating the question at hand, we need to ask who "we" are when we say "our perception".

Simply because this election showed just how divided the population really is.

I think a large number were already aware that the MSM was a Democratic mouthpiece and was quite slanted and corrupt. And I think afterwards that number had grown when everything panned out. So yes, a definite change did take place. But to what degree remains to be seen.

There are also many that bought into and continue to buy into things for face value and never question what they're told. And they won't be convinced that Russia didn't mess with the election for Trump.

So who are we talking about?

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I think its the colloquial we...pretty much anyone who was exposed to the election. Its a fine line to distinguish between real truth, which we may not even know, as opposed to what we are expected to accept as truth, terminating in personal perception. What we believe is our truth, until it is proven false, providing us with a new truth.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't think the 2016 election changed anything for me, but perhaps for others. I never believe the 'news' nor do I believe anything the candidates are saying is true (Hillary admitted what she says publicly isn't her real position).

Start out with the assumption that all politicians are lying and anything that is said in politics has an agenda behind it and you are probably starting out ahead of the game.

My position during the election is always self-defense. I ask myself 'who will screw up my life the least' and vote for that person.

originally posted by: ausername
The 2016 election cycle and the politics involved along with election cycles and politics before it have proven one indisputable truth.

Politics is among the most potentially dangerous, devastating and destructive forces on planet Earth.

If you believe many threads and posts on ATS; politics has driven America to the brink of civil war.

Theres also a negative side.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Apparently you haven't looked into who Assange (you know, that guy who runs Wikileaks...who had the information delivered to him for release from the source of the leak) says leaked the information. If you had, you'd understand why it was only from one side. Or, if you had looked into it and you're just refusing to accept that, then I guess this conversation of the point of the email leak is a pointless endeavor.

Go with pointless.

I'd love to hear what you claim is the "BS" resorted to by "lunatics." Hell, I'd just like to see who you are defining as "lunatics" first, then we could go from there.

Browse the fake news. Enjoy yourself some pizza-gate, some Podesta fixing MSM polls, some Hillary's public/private position having anything to do with lying to constituents, or any of the other easily verifiable garbage. Lunatics = the people willing to believe it without checking sources, although that's not necessarily what makes them lunatics.

True, but the imbalance works on both sides--some buy into the "official story" way to readily and defend it feverishly, while others discard it with reckless abandonment the moment it is released and refuse to even accept that some of it may be correct. But that imbalance is what keeps the site in balance, otherwise it'd just be an echo chamber, and that's never a good thing.

Unbalanced people are everywhere, yes. But the "official story" of any given conspiracy doesn't attract them per se. They do, however, tend to flock around conspiracies in droves.

a reply to: Greggers

There is a middle ground between swallowing the mass media narrative and reflexive disbelief.

When the narrative is contradicted by experience there is a problem.

People start to use critical thinking.

The Democratic Party underestimated this factor.

It might be the first time "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American Public" turned out to be untrue.

The story they were selling failed.

People recognised that they were being told a lot of lies.

Picking the lies of the other side apart is not useful.

If their deeds matched their narrative a little more closely they would not be in the place they are.

Smug self righteous arrogance and "They did it too" will not serve them well.

They would be fools to believe it will work for them in the future.

Something better is required.

originally posted by: draoicht
a reply to: Greggers

There is a middle ground between swallowing the mass media narrative and reflexive disbelief.

I agree with you.

When the narrative is contradicted by experience there is a problem.

People start to use critical thinking.

Very, very seldom is this true, in my estimation.

The Democratic Party underestimated this factor.

Nah. Look, Trump won because Hillary was a very unappealing candidate (she always has been), and because she failed to court the white, blue collar workers in the rust belt who had been crapped on by every administration since her husband was in office.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: DBCowboy

OK, then how do you explain the acceptance of some facts and the denial of others based on political affiliation? Wouldn't that qualify as perception of truth?

You're assuming the left gives a flip about truth and doing what's right.

Has the 2016 election changed our perception of truth?

Why would it? I think for myself, gathering as much information from as many sources as I can, in what ever amount of time I have...and, whether rightly or wrongly, make up my own mind about matters.

So I'd have to say no. Truth is subjective. My truth isn't necessarily yours...