My gripe: Way too much gullibility here on DU. Please, let's see more skepticism!

[Towlie]

Last edited Tue Apr 13, 2021, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I see a lot of threads about bad people allegedly doing bad things, often consisting of links to tweets from people nobody knows, and not backed up by any evidence or references to any credible sources.

And those posts are usually followed by way too many quickly-typed knee-jerk reactions with comments along the lines of "why, that's terrible", "that person is really rotten", or "we should all do this in return to get even", and the like.

Then, a skeptic like me comes along, and after doing a bit of research, reveals that the allegation is doubtful, unproven, or just plain false, and includes links to substantiate that finding. Unfortunately, revelations like that are often unwelcome to folks who wanted it to be true, but that's the way reality works sometimes.

So please be more skeptical! Always consider the possibility that what you're reading isn't actually true.

Edit: Here's a possible example, posted today (4/13).

[XanaDUer2]

1. I don't like posts with tweets nt

[TheBlackAdder]

32. Gullibility is as old as the ages.

.



.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. So true.

People all too often don't bother to double check something, and it can make me crazy.

[TexasTowelie]

3. I'll have to think about this OP for awhile.

I'm not going to disregard your advice, but I don't know if I'm going to implement it either.

[stopdiggin]

5. snort!

---- ----

[demmiblue]

4. K&R

[station agent]

6. Thanks for trying. It's a very helpful reminder n/t

[SayItLoud]

7. Might be helpful to share some examples of the "lot of threads" you see.

Not being snarky but claiming there's a lot of "gullibility here on DU" without referencing it seems similar to what you are pointing out.

[Towlie]

44. I'm proud of you! Congratulations, you definitely get it.

 
←

[housecat]

8. Should we be skeptical of you?

[erronis]

9. We all want to be one of the first to comment/rec a new post.

I agree - we should be much more skeptical.

Even of our beloved and trusted posters. Every now and then someone with 100,000+ posts sticks something in the groups that doesn't pass the smell test.

[beaglelover]

10. Twitter sucks. It really has ruined serious discourse in this country.

[PasadenaTrudy]

39. Don't blame twitter

My twitter feed is perfectly sane. Be choosy in who you follow.

[LexVegas]

11. Cool story, bro. nt

[KatK]

12. Always verify your source before posting. *Lots* of crapola online. n/t

[speak easy]

13. But did you know Skinner & Earl G were Frontmen for Q

and longterm DU'ers get replaced by pod people ?

[bluescribbler]

14. +1

[keithbvadu2]

18. But now I don't know whether to trust your claims or your 'sarcasm'.

But now I don't know whether to trust your claims or your 'sarcasm'.

It's just so complicated.

[madinmaryland]

22. I don't know whether to shit or wind my watch. 🤔

[Politicub]

25. Yes. But only on Wednesdays.

[madinmaryland]

41. I just decided to shit on my watch. Fuck winding it!

🍺🍺

[Politicub]

43. That's why you were supposed to wait until Wednesday.

That’s the day when S drops become Q drops, silly.

[SergeStorms]

26. I know, isnt that terrible!

Just being a dick, as usual.

[Treefrog]

15. Thank you!

There are some posters here who continually post twitter crap without knowing (or caring, I suspect) if the tweet is true or not.

[Sympthsical]

16. Or simply wait for more information

I've seen a lot of OPs where assumptions are made about, say, a criminal before there's any identifying information whatsoever. Sometimes several OPs on the same subject.

Then the facts come out proving them all wrong.

And suddenly it's all, "And we shan't speak of it again."

It's all confirmation bias. If someone believes the world does or must work according to the narrative they've formed about it, they will assume it does and seek out only information that makes their chosen "facts" comfortable and in their proper places.

Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" was prescient. And it isn't just the Right that has a big problem with it.

[johnthewoodworker]

17. People are poor readers, including on DU. Republican/Nazis count on inaccurate news.

[NurseJackie]

19. I do not believe you.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Nicely Played! (nt)

[NurseJackie]

36. ...

[bucolic_frolic]

20. I think it means let's not turn our beliefs into delusions

Let's use facts rather than embellish our propensities into a parallel Whack-Anon

[Hortensis]

46. "Let's use facts rather than embellish our propensities into a parallel Whack-Anon."

Like the way you put that. Whack-Anon.

[Mr.Bill]

21. In October last year I sat on a jury in a murder trial.

It taught me a lot. I watched 12 days of evidence being presented that basically turned a 2nd degree murder turn into involuntary manslaughter. It's all about the totally of evidence from both sides, as it should be. That rarely happens on the internet.

[littlemissmartypants]

23. Hear, hear!

[Hekate]

24. Thank you. DU used to have better standards before Twitter. nt

[SergeStorms]

27. Let's face it...

everything had better standards before Twitter and Facebook.

[AZ8theist]

29. Thankfully, I use neither of those two .....

[SergeStorms]

31. Nope, me neither.

I created an account on Facebook one night, and the next morning I had sixty some people who wanted to "friend" me. I didn't know one of them. At that very moment I knew Facebook wasn't for me and I deleted my account. Twitter...I've never used, nor will I. There's nothing "social" about social media, at least as far as I can see.

[AZ8theist]

40. Similar here...

I created an account YEARS ago and never used it.
Then, after hearing about the security breaches and the Russian rat-fucking, I went back and tried to delete my account. NO DICE.
They make it almost impossible to leave since they required multiple forms of ID. I was not about to give Fuckerberg any more personal info.
So my account lies dormant. Good.

[reACTIONary]

30. K&R

[Ford_Prefect]

33. The one that burns me up is when someone sees what they think is "Hot news" on the Guardian or often

a less reputable source, and feeling the rush of the juicy headline fail to look at a source closer to the scene, like a local TV news or newspaper on the same topic. The knee-jerk reaction runs strong in those and often, especially if it's a southern or western locale the blanket clichés start to fly condemning everyone who lives there at a stroke without realizing that some of us and them are part of the population in opposition: see Georgia, or North Carolina, or Montana based stories for example. Somehow one or two RW assholes means the entire Democratic side of that equation is just as culpable.

The other piece of that is the "off-site" sources have often missed details that matter, or chosen the same shaming attitude towards all and sundry. The explosion in Memphis and the immediate post-bang analysis was one example. The condemnation of North Carolina as a whole rather than the NC GOP over LGBTQ abusive laws passed by a captive legislature, when in 2 elections the entire state tried to rescind those same laws was another. Too often I see this pattern. Basic research only takes a few more clicks. A pause to decide if there might be other questions to ask takes no longer.

If you live in Singapore and the Asia Times or the Straits Times is your local then I have no doubt you might have to look a bit harder than the guy in Cleveland who's just too lazy to see if the Des Moines Register, or the L.A. Times might have a local take on their own stories.

[CloudWatcher]

34. ... and less snark please!

I agree ... and think that teaching logic and skeptical thinking should be a prime requirement for graduating high school!

Btw I come to DU for the facts. The more it is a snark-filled echo-chamber, the less I like it. Of course I've posted my fair share of snark, but I'm trying to do better

[Disaffected]

35. Ah yes, the ol'

rush to judgement. A very common phenom and, frequently evident here IMO especially it seems when a cop shoots someone.

'Always consider the possibility that what you're reading isn't actually true.' And the possibility that you may not have all the facts of the matter.

[GusBob]

37. This has always been a problem even before twitter

A misleading or factually inaccurate story would be posted and the discussion posts would follow the trail of inaccuracies

And invariably someone would point out the truth which would be ignored in subsequent posts because folks just read the OP, jerk their knee and let fly

As someone mentioned up above, reading comprehension is a problem in all walks of life.

I always appreciate the posters who get to the truth and attempt to correct things. That is one good thing about DU.

[PortTack]

38. Most of the posters here I think are very responsible and I thank them for all their work!!

Twitter is no different than any news feed, some of it hype some not. The posters I see using twitter use verified accounts from well known individuals

Marc Elias
Scott Dworkin
Kamala Harris
Joe Biden
CNN and their contributors
Joy Reid
Racheal maddow
Nicole Wallace
Steve Schmidt
Michael Steele
Jeff Tedrick
Jen Psaki

I could go on, but You get the point..all these ppl tweet and it’s very news worthy, and truthful

[brooklynite]

42. Well, if you're going to take all the FUN out of life...

[Permanut]

45. Agreed.

I'm totally skeptical of everything from every source. If you make a claim, show your source and your evidence.

DU members may not always check sources carefully, but right wingers seem to have totally abandoned any allegiance to facts and truth. One told me just last Sunday that the internet is owned by the Democrats. Couldn't provide any information about where that came from.

[Treefrog]

47. Absolutely! The one about the woman who looked like Amy Poehler is another prime example.

People love to post tweets!