Your main point is that Democrats and Republican are two sides of the same coin. You further claim that each side in the election are equally corrupt and everything said about Trump was just as vicious and full of lies as what was said about Clinton.
so then, what does that say about the guy you voted for, new king trump?
That's a fairly common delusion. You're not "special" in that respect.
if you're comparing the propaganda outlets you love to fictional creations, then you may have finally made an apt comparison.
Santa Claus, Easter bunny and religion were designed to give children hope and an attempt to make them act morally.
so fake news and lying is OK if the results will be to give hope and have people act morally? It sounds like you are giving a defense of fake news ironically.
I'm saying everything has its place as long as it's represented fairly.
Then how do you want Religion presented? Should there be a disclaimer at the entrance of every place of religious worship, that all they believe in is fake? Last time I checked Snopes or Politifact were not able to factcheck the existence of God.
Wtf are you talking about?
ok, you are right i am a bit blazed right now
But you can't present something as News that isn't fact, that's an intentional perpetuation of mass ignorance.ok, you are right i am a bit blazed right now
So my main point, is you have to allow Fake News because humans do not know everything and incorrect information is as valuable as correct information for future progress and making progress and ideas. Also, you can still learn a lot from Fake News because of what is not said. To me the idea of censoring fake news will just make the public think less and be stupider if they just lop up anything as gospel if it doesn't have a fake news warning.
You have to present it as real. Because otherwise, what you are saying is that every piece of news that is released has to be verified beforehand, and approved by some authority of body before it can be released. So this is an inefficient process, and we already have bodies that cover that sort of area (for example Wikipedia. or Politifact). So you are saying you want every news source to be a wikipedia, which we already have and already exists, isn't that kind of pointless? So people really need warnings before they read National INquirer at checkout stand? Humans naturally set trust levels on different sources, for example The Boy Who Cried Wolf story is a classic example, basically this kid was fake news and people caught on and stopped listening to him (even if it was at their peril and the wolf eventually came)
second amendment ? basically you are going to cut into 2nd amendment if you want to start banning or restricting fake news.
It IS supposed to be verified as fact before released or a retraction is supposed to be issued afterwards.
Well, plenty of news companies even today get their facts wrong plenty, even big dogs some of which are calling for warnings on fake news. I think people need to realize, news is for selling advertisements. Why did the big dog news stations all have Hillary winning the election by huge margins? Because that is what their customers wanted to hear, thus helping advertisers get more views. If they told the truth that Trump may win or it was 50/50, people who not watch it.
You are confused about this. The polls published by the big news stations had the election being very close. Trump was projected to have 30% to 40% chance of winning. Events with those kind of odds happen quite often -- about 30%-40% of the time.
Isn't religion founded upon belief without proof? Quoting a bible or any other religious text, carries the "not proven" warning label already. Just the name "Catholic Church" or "1st Baptist Church" or "Synagogue" helps others understand the differences they can expect from their own religious creed. So, actually, your idea of a fake news warning at entrances to religious institutions is already in place.
