PragerU is literally Israeli intelligence || James "ZioCon" O'Keefe; also next to him is Marissa Streit: a Jewess Zionist, chief executive officer of PragerU who served in Israel's military defense Unit 8200 and the IDF.... GOT IT? No. Why Not?

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Agreed.

Take everything with a grain of source. Even the MSM mixes in some truth now and then to better triangulate from.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Having a singular focus on sources is part of the same fallacy. You are just shifting the argument from authority from the speaker to the sources. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Of course facts matter, but you have to evaluate them in context. For example when someone says poverty leads to crime (sources) and black people are disproportionately poor (sources) therefore high black crime rates are caused by poverty you have to be able to dig past that and consider other evidence not presented by the speaker. You have to ask things like "do welfare programs reduce crime?" "are non black communities effected the same way by poverty?" "at what level of income does crime disappear?"

You have to be able to think for yourself. It just isn't useful to bicker back and forth over who should be trusted based on proxies like positions in authority, perceived bias, etc.

[–]JasonCarswellPlatinum Foil Fedora 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Triangulating on the truth is a balancing act. It's never all or nothing. Many things work on many levels. Authority is to blame as is the speaker as are the sources as are the repeaters and distorters - all with their own contexts. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

To your example, you have to also consider, "did politicians plan for welfare to become a trap?", "why do they focus on small time crime that is insignificant by comparison with corporate crime?", "is there systemic historical oppression against those visibly or economically different?", "how can they expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they can't even afford boots nor are provided opportunities by those with profound abundance?", "are they weaponizing this history against society now?"

They already know crime and other problems mostly disappear after incomes of $75,000 and higher - but they intentionally keep most people oppressed and struggling so they won't organize to become more balanced like Sweden.

I agree, critical independent thought is paramount. Everyone has their legitimate views supported by their "facts" from their "trusted" sources (earned or not).