Do you think that truth can ever be the new trend.

[jebartle]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

[Toymeister]

Google actively hides the truth. Use Duckduckgo or another.

[Bill14564]

Unfortunately, "truth" is in the mind of the searcher. Many don't want the truth, they want their opinions confirmed. Google will return enough responses that you can usually find any "truth" you are looking for.

[Bill14564]

Google actively hides the truth. Use Duckduckgo or another.

Just curious, what is one example that I can search on to see google hiding the truth that duckduckgo returns?

I use duckduckgo but I never had a reason to question the results returned by google.

[Two Bills]

"Lead me to those who seek the truth, and deliver me from those who’ve found it."

Many variations on this quote.

[JMintzer]

Unfortunately, "truth" is in the mind of the searcher. Many don't want the truth, they want their opinions confirmed. Google will return enough responses that you can usually find any "truth" you are looking for.

Yes, but more often than not, you have to delve deep into the search...

A while back, I was looking for a specific video that debunked an often claimed fallacy...

I had to go 10-12 pages deep to find it, even though I put in a specific request. The first 8-9 pages were articles citing the false information...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I use google and duckduckgo and I usually find the same "main" results on the first page of each. The search engine you use isn't the issue. The question you ask is the issue.

If you type in:

Is climate change is a hoax

You'll find conspiracy websites that will feed you all the hoax information. The algorithm is picking up on the words "climate change hoax" and spitting out your preferred propaganda.

If you type in

Climate Change science

You'll find more actual data from scientific sources, but also some sites proclaiming that it is /not/ science.

If you type in "climate change definition"

You'll get a bunch of dictionary results, and a few encyclopedia results.

You'll get these results no matter which search engine you use. Learn what to ask for. That requires critical thinking. Not everyone has it, it's not really a natural human trait. It has to be learned.

[Bill14564]

Unfortunately, "truth" is in the mind of the searcher. Many don't want the truth, they want their opinions confirmed. Google will return enough responses that you can usually find any "truth" you are looking for.

Yes, but more often than not, you have to delve deep into the search...

A while back, I was looking for a specific video that debunked an often claimed fallacy...

I had to go 10-12 pages deep to find it, even though I put in a specific request. The first 8-9 pages were articles citing the false information...

Hmmm, so you had to navigate past nine pages you considered to be false information to find the one video that held the truth? Interesting.

Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo know what the truth is, they only know what seems to be most relevant and most common. A couple of months ago they returned several articles reporting a certain person's death. Come to find out, they weren't dead. The articles were relevant and they were common but they weren't the truth.

[Pugchief]

Google and Bing actively suppress results that don't fit their narrative. Duck Duck Go used to not do that, but since the whole Ukraine controversy, they have also started to filter results. See this 36 second video for details: Duck Duck GONE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEqlGVn8hPg)
The upside is that DDG at least still respects your privacy.

The only unfiltered options are search engines like Brave, but they are inferior in quality IMHO.

[Bill14564]

Google and Bing actively suppress results that don't fit their narrative. Duck Duck Go used to not do that, but since the whole Ukraine controversy, they have also started to filter results. See this 36 second video for details: Duck Duck GONE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEqlGVn8hPg)
The upside is that DDG at least still respects your privacy.

The only unfiltered options are search engines like Brave, but they are inferior in quality IMHO.

What is an example of a search that will give significantly different results in google and DuckDuckGo and showing Google’s active suppression?

[Pugchief]

What is an example of a search that will give significantly different results in google and DuckDuckGo and showing Google’s active suppression?

When it comes to that independent search index, here’s a recap of how Brave explains it. Most search engines rely on third-party indexes instead of building and using their own. Brave is building its own search index … but sometimes, it anonymously checks search results against third-party results, then mixes those results into its results page. “This mixing is a means-to-an-end toward 100% independence,” Brave says. By clicking the "Info" link toward the top of the results page, you can see how many results came from third parties. source (https://www.techradar.com/reviews/brave-search-search-engine)

[Pugchief]

What is an example of a search that will give significantly different results in google and DuckDuckGo and showing Google’s active suppression?

And to answer your other question:

Google Manipulates Search Results (https://www.businessinsider.com/google-manipulates-search-results-report-2019-11?op=1)

[Bill14564]

source (https://www.techradar.com/reviews/brave-search-search-engine)

So Brave may use results from google or duckduckgo or others. But that doesn't show how any of them actively suppress results. Of anything, Brave's use of third party indices could be taken as a validation of their data sets.

Or am I missing something?

[Pugchief]

Or am I missing something?

Did you read the article linked in post #12?

[Bill14564]

Did you read the article linked in post #12?

Not as I was typing post #13, but I have now. I am still looking for an example search that shows google is actively suppressing results.

The article made claims that google denies. The article provided search results comparing google with Duckduckgo but while the results were not identical I did not notice a significant difference.

I expect results from different search engines to be different. I prefer that the search engine block spam. I would hope that results are ordered to give me relevant, factual data from known sources ahead of crackpot theories from so.eone's basement or scam pages that are loaded with unintelligible text to try to get on a results page. As far as I can tell, google and duckduckgo are doing just that.

[Pugchief]

I guess if you want to test it yourself, the next time there is some controversial topic (and you won't have to wait long with the next election season already upon us) you should try using both Google and Brave to search for something considered right-wing conspiracy by the MSM and compare the results.

That Google filters search results to push their own narrative/agenda is not new news.

[Bill14564]

The accusation that Google filters search results to push their own narrative/agenda is not new.

As another poster on here often writes: I fixed it for you.

[Pugchief]

As another poster on here often writes: I fixed it for you.

I guess Business Insider is making it up then. On the one hand, it's not like the MSM doesn't outright lie all the freaking time.

OTOH, Google claiming it doesn't use its algorithms to skew results, or is fair and unbiased politically is quite possibly also an outright lie.

[Bill14564]

I guess Business Insider is making it up then. On the one hand, it's not like the MSM doesn't outright lie all the freaking time.

OTOH, Google claiming it doesn't use its algorithms to skew results, or is fair and unbiased politically is quite possibly also an outright lie.

I didn't read anything in the Business Insider article that made the claim that Google filters results to push their on narrative/agenda. I'm not sure I read that in the WSJ article either.

there is no question that Google has algorithms to order results. When a search returns 172,000,000 results I would hope the search engine orders them to give me more relevant and common results first - I really don't have time to look through all 172,000,000. But with that many results, is there any filtering happening? And where is any evidence that even the ordering is to push a narrative/agenda?

I have never been concerned with what I have received from a Google query. If someone else has been concerned, particularly if they are frequently concerned, the question becomes whether the issue is with the Google algorithm or the user's bias?

[JMintzer]

Hmmm, so you had to navigate past nine pages you considered to be false information to find the one video that held the truth? Interesting.

Neither Google nor DuckDuckGo know what the truth is, they only know what seems to be most relevant and most common. A couple of months ago they returned several articles reporting a certain person's death. Come to find out, they weren't dead. The articles were relevant and they were common but they weren't the truth.

Nice spin...

I'd post the link I'm talking about (it's been proven to be true), but I don't feel like taking another "vacation"...

And Google most certainly has algorithms that promote and/or bury certain topics. That has been proven to be true, as well...

As to your "example"...

https://y.yarn.co/b1c330de-e4e4-4eea-9cb7-8d5f3198084d_text.gif

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Neither of them leads to the truth because they’re not supposed to. You have to decide that for yourself.

[Taltarzac725]

Critical Thinking (https://www.criticalthinking.org/?gad=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpeLu-4yQgQMVcptaBR3JRAagEAAYASAAEgJAcfD_BwE)

This is very interesting. I love the quote from Francis Bacon.

“For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothing so well as for the study of Truth; as having a mind nimble and versatile enough to catch the resemblances of things and at the same time steady enough to fix and distinguish their subtler differences; as being gifted by nature with desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to consider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and as being a man that neither affects what is new nor admires what is old, and that hates every kind of imposture." -Francis Bacon ”


Quote by Bacon, Francis: “For myself, I found that I was fitted for nothi...” (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/134667-for-myself-i-found-that-i-was-fitted-for-nothing)

I do have a BA in Philosophy (1980) from the U of Nevada, Reno and started on a MA but only had maybe took one course toward it. Could not figure out what practical use a MA in Philosophy would have. Had also started on a MA History to go along with my BA in History. (1981)

So, I got a MA in Librarianship and Information Management from the U of Denver, Class of May 1984. Librarians are supposed to look for the best answers to reference questions.

But, people have been asking what is the TRUTH for thousands of years.

I did also go to Law School at the U of MN (Class f 1989). Kind of the opposite of a search for the TRUTH. You fight for your client to the best of your ability within the parameters of the law.

[Bill14564]

...
And Google most certainly has algorithms that promote and/or bury certain topics. That has been proven to be true, as well...
...

No doubt the algorithms used by google and probably every search engine sort and order results. When the order appeals to a user then the engine is working well. When the order doesn't appeal to them then the engine is promoting an agenda and burying dissenting opinion.

I guess what I take away when I read about filtering and narratives/agendas and burying topics is the accusation that google has a political viewpoint and is manipulating results to emphasize that viewpoint. I don't believe that. I believe google wants users to go to their page frequently and in order to make that happen, they curate the results to put the most relevant and common information first.

I have yet to receive an example search which returns significantly different results in Google and DuckDuckGo and shows bad intent on the part of Google.

They also need to tread carefully to keep their section 230 protection and that may impact some of the results that are returned.

[huge-pigeons]

You looking for the truth on Google? Good luck. Remember, all search engines have been programmed a certain way to provide you with what Google, Facebook, bing, yahoo, old twitter, and others want you to see. That’s like asking Snopes to do fact checking which isn’t accurate.

Check these sites for further info:
How Google manipulates search to favor liberals and tip elections (https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/how-google-manipulates-search-to-favor-liberals-and-tip-elections/)

Middle Schooler Proves Google Search Results Influence Political Opinions [Infographic] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinanderton/2020/12/13/middle-schooler-proves-google-search-results-influence-political-opinions-infographic/?sh=7b5a54804371)

Google Search Results Can Lean Liberal, Study Finds - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-search-results-can-lean-liberal-study-finds-1479760691)

This also goes beyond politics, their search engines favor their advertisers in their searches.

Google Uses Its Search Engine to Hawk Its Products - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-uses-its-search-engine-to-hawk-its-products-1484827203)

Google tips the scales in its own favor--but do marketers care?; Tuesday's daily brief (https://searchengineland.com/google-tips-the-scales-in-its-own-favor-but-do-marketers-care-tuesdays-daily-brief-347670)

[GizmoWhiskers]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"
The first two pages on goo goo can be paid positions for info. As with life you have to invest time to get to the bottom to find the truth. Keep scrolling. Nothing in life is as it appears. Pawns in a twisted game comes to mind. If it sounds to good to be true it is.

[ithos]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

I did a search on the Russian Hoax Investigation back in 2017/2018 and the top links it returned were from:

PBS, NYT, Guardian, CNN, VOX, Reuters, NPR,NBC, New Yorker, ABC, Pew Research,
USA,BBC, Politico.

No bias there!

Anyone with an open mind and read from all sources knew the investigation was a witch hunt from the beginning.

Google vs. Trump: Leaked Video Reveals Executives' Negative Reactions to Trump's 2016 Election Victory (https://www.newsweek.com/google-vs-trump-leaked-video-reveals-negative-reactions-trumps-election-1119490)

The folks who think that google is not biased, believe everything on MSNBC and CNN are gospel. That includes my brother.

[ThirdOfFive]

"What is truth?" (Pontius Pilate)

[Two Bills]

I find this whole"searching for the truth" a bit of a fallacy.
Whose truth?
If you are looking for an alternative against mainstream opinion, any search engine will find what you are looking for, but is it the truth or factual?
If you accept mainstream opinion, is that the truth or factual?
Bit like searching the Bible for the answer to life, is that fact, or the truth?
Many believe it is so.
The greatest brains of their time were convinced the world was flat, and that's a truthful fact! :shrug:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think a lot of you just don't understand how google and other search engines actually work. I'll explain in the way my coding teacher explained arrays to me, since it's pretty much the same thing.

Google collects information. Google doesn't judge the information, but it does categorize it. It categorizes it based partly on the source, and partly on whether or not a company is paying for it to show up as a "sponsored" result. If it comes from a news outlet, then it's categorized as news. If it comes from a medical journal or science website, then it's categorized as science. And so on.

Each of these categories exist in a virtual file cabinet, unsorted. The newest bit of information goes in the front, the oldest in the back, but otherwise - it's just a mish-mosh of information.

When someone types in "climate change", Google checks the phrase, and discovers that the phrase matches with a whole lot of things in the "science" file cabinet. So it opens the science file cabinet, and takes out all the "sponsored results" that involve climate change, and puts them at the top of the list. It then goes through the rest of the cabinet seeking references to "climate change" and pulls out the files that match, in order of how many people have MOST RECENTLY checked the files. If most people have been RECENTLY checking the "climate change is a hoax" file from Breitbart news back in 2015, then that file will go on the top of the list immediately beneath the sponsored posts. It'll then open other cabinets to check for files that include the phrase "climate change." It'll toss all related files onto the list under the most recent and sponsored.

When it's done doing all this, it spits the entire list out for readers. Every time a reader clicks on one of those entries, the click is counted and marked as "recent." It's tallied with all the other recent clicks. So if 500,000 people click on a "Climate Change is Real!" file that was written yesterday and posted in the New York Times, and only 300,000 click on the one from Breitbart back in 2015, then the NYT post will replace Breitbart as the #1 post beneath the sponsored posts.

If you scroll over and click to results pages after the first, you'll also find articles from Entertainment Weekly about some celebrity divorce, and how there's been a real "climate change" in their household due to hostilities between the couple and their oldest son.

In short, Google doesn't manipulate what shows up on the top of the search results, OTHER than sponsored results. It ONLY looks for how many people are clicking on the links, and inclusion of the phrase in the correct category.

Edited to add: It does filter out certain things restricted by law - such as vulgarity and porn.

[OhioBuckeye]

That may be true but just say the wrong thing & see how long they banned you for, some of the others will do the exact same thing. So don’t speak to quickly about your knight in shining Armor! They all know what you’re saying whether you think they do or not! Nothing is private, not even here!

[Taltarzac725]

I think a lot of you just don't understand how google and other search engines actually work. I'll explain in the way my coding teacher explained arrays to me, since it's pretty much the same thing.

Google collects information. Google doesn't judge the information, but it does categorize it. It categorizes it based partly on the source, and partly on whether or not a company is paying for it to show up as a "sponsored" result. If it comes from a news outlet, then it's categorized as news. If it comes from a medical journal or science website, then it's categorized as science. And so on.

Each of these categories exist in a virtual file cabinet, unsorted. The newest bit of information goes in the front, the oldest in the back, but otherwise - it's just a mish-mosh of information.

When someone types in "climate change", Google checks the phrase, and discovers that the phrase matches with a whole lot of things in the "science" file cabinet. So it opens the science file cabinet, and takes out all the "sponsored results" that involve climate change, and puts them at the top of the list. It then goes through the rest of the cabinet seeking references to "climate change" and pulls out the files that match, in order of how many people have MOST RECENTLY checked the files. If most people have been RECENTLY checking the "climate change is a hoax" file from Breitbart news back in 2015, then that file will go on the top of the list immediately beneath the sponsored posts. It'll then open other cabinets to check for files that include the phrase "climate change." It'll toss all related files onto the list under the most recent and sponsored.

When it's done doing all this, it spits the entire list out for readers. Every time a reader clicks on one of those entries, the click is counted and marked as "recent." It's tallied with all the other recent clicks. So if 500,000 people click on a "Climate Change is Real!" file that was written yesterday and posted in the New York Times, and only 300,000 click on the one from Breitbart back in 2015, then the NYT post will replace Breitbart as the #1 post beneath the sponsored posts.

If you scroll over and click to results pages after the first, you'll also find articles from Entertainment Weekly about some celebrity divorce, and how there's been a real "climate change" in their household due to hostilities between the couple and their oldest son.

In short, Google doesn't manipulate what shows up on the top of the search results, OTHER than sponsored results. It ONLY looks for how many people are clicking on the links, and inclusion of the phrase in the correct category.

Edited to add: It does filter out certain things restricted by law - such as vulgarity and porn.

Math and computer programming are quite objective except when you start adding in who clicks on what. That brings in people and their prejudices, fears, hates, loves, etc.

[Altawood]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

Truth was struck a mortal blow in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

The objective today is to inflame and enrage to reap more ad revenue.

[Wondering]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"
"Truth"? If you want to fact check if something is accurate/truth, there are several legitimate fact check sites other than Google. Just don't believe the Noise cable propaganda networks that are sued and lose over three quarters of a billion dollars law suits. Not to mention being sued for a billion and a half in another suit!

[Taltarzac725]

"Truth"? If you want to fact check if something is accurate/truth, there are several legitimate fact check sites other than Google. Just don't believe the Noise cable propaganda networks that are sued and lose over three quarters of a billion dollars law suits. Not to mention being sued for a billion and a half in another suit!

If they own their bias and market it that seems to be a dead giveaway that they are anything but objective.

The various nightly news providers are usually very objective except for those selling a skewed narrative which makes them the target of lawyers.

[phylt]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

[jimbomaybe]

If they own their bias and market it that seems to be a dead giveaway that they are anything but objective.

The various nightly news providers are usually very objective except for those selling a skewed narrative which makes them the target of lawyers.
Sometimes a skewed narrative is subtle enough to pass nearly unnoticed, I remember hearing a talking head on a Sunday news program , claiming no bias, taking of one group meeting behind "closed doors" and when the opposing group was mentioned they were "meeting in secret"

[Taltarzac725]

Sometimes a skewed narrative is subtle enough to pass nearly unnoticed, I remember hearing a talking head on a Sunday news program , claiming no bias, taking of one group meeting behind "closed doors" and when the opposing group was mentioned they were "meeting in secret"

Meeting in secret implies criminal intent. That is all I am going to say.

Al Capone certainly did that a lot. Except when he did not need too because he controlled who was saying what in areas of Chicago and elsewhere. He did that through the threats of violence and having no regard for laws.

And if you are meeting behind closed doors that implies legitimacy of your meeting place. Eliot Ness met behind closed doors. Eliot Ness - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Ness)

[Bill14564]

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

I'm still curious to see one example of a search where Google censors a topic while DuckDuckGo does not.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Math and computer programming are quite objective except when you start adding in who clicks on what. That brings in people and their prejudices, fears, hates, loves, etc.

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

[Taltarzac725]

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

I do think nonsense sells newspapers. Look at the Publix check-out racks. Candy bars and junk media. Actually, some of the magazines are quite good if pricey. Not the stars' latest romances, diets, fat photos, etc.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If fact-checking is something you want to do, then skip Google. It censors topics and shows a definite bias installed by programmers’ preferences. Try Duck Duck Go instead. Even compare the two search engines by researching the same topic. Surprisingly, there will be a difference between the two, with Google skipping information their logarithms have been programmed to omit. At least this is how it was during Covid and breaking news about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

I just did this using simply "covid" as my search criteria. Here's the results:

Google:

Top stories: CNN, The Independent, sky news, Forbes, Newsweek, the Times, Fox News (more news).

Perspectives: The Hill, Substack, The Mercury

Search results:

CDC, WHO, Johns Hopkins, COVID.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov, whitehouse.gov, UN.org, more CDC, Worldometer, covidactnow tracker, Mayo Clinic, Wikipedia, vaccines.gov, cnn, Yale medicine, OSHA, CBS, CNBC, floridahealth.gov, CA.gov tracker in California, NIH.gov, ABC, Pan American Health Organization, TN.gov, CT.giv, combatcovid.hhs.gov, floridahealthcovid19.gov (sponsored), FDA.gov, CBS News, clevelandclinic.org, publichealth.lacounty.gov, and so on.

DuckDuckGo:

1. a box explaining COVID-19 with summary, vaccines, symptoms, tips, statistics, sourced from Wikipedia.

First search result: CNN

Then Recent News from Newsweek, CNN on MSN, Fox, and "more news."

Then CDC, NPR, CDC, NYT, Mayo Clinic, CDC, worldometer, UC Davis.edu, webmd, and "more results."

Looks to me like Google is offering a much more robust variety of info on its first page than DuckDuckGo is.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I do think nonsense sells newspapers. Look at the Publix check-out racks. Candy bars and junk media. Actually, some of the magazines are quite good if pricey. Not the stars' latest romances, diets, fat photos, etc.

But that has NOTHING to do with the topic - which is to use a search engine when looking for information.

[Taltarzac725]

But that has NOTHING to do with the topic - which is to use a search engine when looking for information.

A lot of the material filtered out is often junk science and propaganda. It does depend on the Search Engine though.

Google Scholar is Filled with Junk Science - Scholarly Open Access 2023 (https://scholarlyoa.com/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/)

[threeonemiles@outlook.com]

Truth is now the new hate speech.

[Boomer]

In Orwell's 1984, 'Doublespeak' was the method of communication. In the language of doublespeak the meanings of words were deliberately obscured -- or reversed.

The government of Oceania held 4 ministries. The Ministry of Truth was one of those. But those who worked for the Ministry of Truth had the job of writing propaganda. They did this by rewriting history and changing word meanings to fit Big Brother's hold on power.

The only reason the book was titled 1984 was because Orwell wrote it in 1948 and needed a title. Orwell missed it by about 30 years -- and that it is getting more egregious every day.

My high school classes read 1984 in 1984. At the time, my assignment for the essay at the end (always not to exceed two proofread, edited pages) was to look around the current (1984) world and to cite examples of things that were happening around us that seemed to foretell events that were in Orwell's work of dystopian fiction.

At the time (1984) violence in movies was becoming quite common and more graphic. In the book, Big Brother kept the Proles amused by producing extremely violent movies, with the goal of saturating the people with violence to make them immune to the violence used by Big Brother to remain in power and to use more power to take over other countries in their world.

The Proles in 1984 were the class of citizens of Oceania who had no real power for themselves, but could be easily manipulated and used by those whose goal was to remain in power forever.

There were two other things the government provided for the Proles, besides the violent movies. The other two were cheap gin and lotteries. The lottery winners were not real. Propaganda news made them real to the Proles. (As I recall, they very rarely threw in a real winner just to keep it "real." All the rest were fake winners.)

Most of the short essays the students wrote about 1984 were about movie violence. But that was in 1984 real-time.

Fast-forward to now, it would not be possible, in a two-page essay, to cover all the things being done by power-grabbers that we are seeing all around us. It would have to be a dissertation.

But. . .my point is moot (or is it?) because teachers would not be allowed to teach 1984 in many schools across the country now because digging into the book might cause critical thinking skills.

As far as the discussion in this thread of where is Truth and Google v. DuckDuckGo goes, I am sadly summing it up by paraphrasing that famous philosopher Mick Jagger who wrote, "You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.".................

To paraphrase Jagger, for that "do your own research" routine, "You can't always get what you need. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you want."

Boomer

PS: Dare I say -- think about it?

[Taltarzac725]

It does take an open mind and asking yourself why is so-and-so saying what he or she is saying? And is it verifiable or just hot air?

[JMintzer]

You looking for the truth on Google? Good luck. Remember, all search engines have been programmed a certain way to provide you with what Google, Facebook, bing, yahoo, old twitter, and others want you to see. That’s like asking Snopes to do fact checking which isn’t accurate.

Check these sites for further info:
How Google manipulates search to favor liberals and tip elections (https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/how-google-manipulates-search-to-favor-liberals-and-tip-elections/)

Middle Schooler Proves Google Search Results Influence Political Opinions [Infographic] (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinanderton/2020/12/13/middle-schooler-proves-google-search-results-influence-political-opinions-infographic/?sh=7b5a54804371)

Google Search Results Can Lean Liberal, Study Finds - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-search-results-can-lean-liberal-study-finds-1479760691)

This also goes beyond politics, their search engines favor their advertisers in their searches.

Google Uses Its Search Engine to Hawk Its Products - WSJ (https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-uses-its-search-engine-to-hawk-its-products-1484827203)

Google tips the scales in its own favor--but do marketers care?; Tuesday's daily brief (https://searchengineland.com/google-tips-the-scales-in-its-own-favor-but-do-marketers-care-tuesdays-daily-brief-347670)

https://media.tenor.com/aK9Q5vEfofsAAAAC/segundo-sol-novela.gif

[JMintzer]

It's still objective. The Google algorithms don't measure or give any particular value to WHO is clicking the links. They don't care who is clicking them. They are counting clicks (or "views"). Anyone who does NOT have a google account, or is NOT logged into their google account while they use the google search engine - is not being judged by Google.

If millions of people are viewing conspiracy nonsense and fewer than millions are viewing anti-conspiracy nonsense, then the conspiracy nonsense will be at the top of your google search. It's a binary system.

If you're using "Chrome", you're logged into Google...

[Bill14564]

If you're using "Chrome", you're logged into Google...

Not necessarily. Have a chrome window up right now but not logged in to google (at least according to gmail, calendar, and voice).

[JMintzer]

I think a lot of you just don't understand how google and other search engines actually work. I'll explain in the way my coding teacher explained arrays to me, since it's pretty much the same thing.

How may years ago was this? And you honestly think that search algorithms have changed since then?

Edited to add: It does filter out certain things restricted by law - such as vulgarity and porn.

Filter out porn? LOL! If you don't have your settings set to restrict access, going deep enough into almost any search will give you porn...

[JMintzer]

Not necessarily. Have a chrome window up right now but not logged in to google (at least according to gmail, calendar, and voice).

And if you search for something, you don't start seeing ads for that item on ToTV?

[Bill14564]

And if you search for something, you don't start seeing ads for that item on ToTV?

I don't see adds on ToTV (I also don't usually use google), but that has nothing to do with being logged in.

Ads are controlled through cookies and cookies don't require you to be logged in. When you search for an item Google will either place a cookie on your computer with an ID and record the searches done by that ID or it will place a cookie on your computer that contains the searches (the former is more likely). Assuming ToTV is using Google's ad service (likely) then it will pull that cookie from your computer and feed you an ad relevant to it.

I have not thought about this much, but if you have ever logged in to Google in that browser then Google might know who you are whether you are logged in or not. When you are logged in, Google could place a cookie on the computer with your ID in it. Whenever you access Google again from that browser it could retrieve the cookie and retrieve the ID that it used when you were logged in and know who you are whether you are logged in or not. Maybe I'll look into that sometime.

[JMintzer]

I don't see adds on ToTV (I also don't usually use google), but that has nothing to do with being logged in.

Ads are controlled through cookies and cookies don't require you to be logged in. When you search for an item Google will either place a cookie on your computer with an ID and record the searches done by that ID or it will place a cookie on your computer that contains the searches (the former is more likely). Assuming ToTV is using Google's ad service (likely) then it will pull that cookie from your computer and feed you an ad relevant to it.

I have not thought about this much, but if you have ever logged in to Google in that browser then Google might know who you are whether you are logged in or not. When you are logged in, Google could place a cookie on the computer with your ID in it. Whenever you access Google again from that browser it could retrieve the cookie and retrieve the ID that it used when you were logged in and know who you are whether you are logged in or not. Maybe I'll look into that sometime.

Really? I had no idea about "cookies"... Are they oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip?

[jebartle]

Neither of them leads to the truth because they’re not supposed to. You have to decide that for yourself.

Ahhh, there is the answer, YOU, after INVESTIGATING, find a truth, maybe not, but at least your open to FACTS, which is a plus in my book. We have a tendency to look for OUR narrative, right??

[jebartle]

"What is truth?" (Pontius Pilate)

Un-disputed FACTS

[Two Bills]

Un-disputed FACTS

If those facts are undisputed, they have not been checked properly.

[Sandy and Ed]

Yes, but more often than not, you have to delve deep into the search...

A while back, I was looking for a specific video that debunked an often claimed fallacy...

I had to go 10-12 pages deep to find it, even though I put in a specific request. The first 8-9 pages were articles citing the false information...
Google sucks. Bing usually gets me right where I want to go without fighting to get thru the weeds

[jimjamuser]

Google is our friend, when in doubt "check it out"
The thing to worry about is how much "spin" is produced in the Russian troll farms.

[ThirdOfFive]

Truth is now the new hate speech.
"Truth is now the new hate speech."

Ain't THAT the truth!

...Or, put another way, "Truth is that which serves the ____ ". (You fill in the blank)

Fascinating, the way some people differentiate between Truth (capitalized intentionally) and fact. Truth is defined not necessarily as factual information but often nebulously as "the Greater Good", and all is fair if one sees him/herself as protecting and furthering that Greater Good.

The process is similar in just about all cases: if the facts support Truth, then then the facts are quoted exhaustively. However, if the facts do NOT support Truth, then the opposite is true. The facts have become the enemy of Truth and must be ignored. If those facts cannot be ignored, then the origin of those facts must be discredited by impugning the source. If this is not possible, then the messenger bringing those facts must (figuratively, at least) must be killed.

Some of us see Google of engaging in at least step one of that process. But maybe we should be looking no further than our own back yards.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Un-disputed FACTS

LOL! there are personality type labels for that type of comment

The easiest way to see that there is no such thing as un-disputed facts , is the color of the cloudless midday sky. Most everyone sees blue. . but not everyone. . color blind people see a blue of a different shade/hue, but call it blue after being trained by those who are not color blind.

facts are a human construct, and when humans are involved, they always ph* it up with biases and genetic differences, aka individual perceptions, along with being no different than the animal kingdom of wanting to be the king of the local pack. . .

[Blackbird45]

"DO YOU THINK THAT TRUTH CAN EVER BE THE NEW TREND".
The problem to this question is we all believe in our own truths.
What is right and what is left, what is up and what is down.
Once one takes a stand it is hard to change their direction.
To do that they would have to admit to themself and to others that they have taken the wrong path.
It's equivalent to a male driver who's made the wrong turn but continues until he hits a dead end.

[jebartle]

Bottom line, FACTS can not be disputed, IMHO!

[Gabi12]

Google is not your friend. I’ve gone to Duck Duck Go and now to Brave for searches.

[justjim]

“People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe”. Andy Rooney. Rooney hit the nail right on the head. This is why it’s so difficult to change peoples mind even when the science says they are wrong.

[Taltarzac725]

“People will generally accept facts as truth only if the facts agree with what they already believe”. Andy Rooney. Rooney hit the nail right on the head. This is why it’s so difficult to change peoples mind even when the science says they are wrong.

I think we all agree on the force of gravity especially if we are about to get in a plane wreck as well as the various factors of physics and the breaking point of various metals.

Facts are facts no matter what spin is put on them.

[Pugchief]

Google sucks. Bing usually gets me right where I want to go without fighting to get thru the weeds

Ya, cuz you can trust Microsoft so much more than Alphabet. [/sarcasm]

[Taltarzac725]

Any talking head I would ask myself why he/she is saying that? What is that person's interest in what they are saying? How are they saying it? And most importantly when was this statement said?

Also-- follow the money.

[jimbomaybe]

Any talking head I would ask myself why he/she is saying that? What is that person's interest in what they are saying? How are they saying it? And most importantly when was this statement said?

Also-- follow the money.
Life is an ever changing dynamic, the search for "truth" is a never ending search,whatever a person's reasons are the weight of facts, logic and reasoning a person brings to any discussion is more enlightening as to what is "factual" regardless of motive real or imputed, it's easier to question someone's, character or motive when you disagree with the facts they present and you you have no response, how many times have we seen that here? institutions of higher learning (?) with safe zones so not to hurt feelings and debating societies facing extinction, the internet that channels one towards echo chambers of our preconceived beliefs and away from critical thinking

[Taltarzac725]

Life is an ever changing dynamic, the search for "truth" is a never ending search,whatever a person's reasons are the weight of facts, logic and reasoning a person brings to any discussion is more enlightening as to what is "factual" regardless of motive real or imputed, it's easier to question someone's, character or motive when you disagree with the facts they present and you you have no response, how many times have we seen that here? institutions of higher learning (?) with safe zones so not to hurt feelings and debating societies facing extinction, the internet that channels one towards echo chambers of our preconceived beliefs and away from critical thinking

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.

[Pugchief]

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.

Surely you jest. The only debate going on at colleges and universities is whether they are radically left enough. Conservative voices are squashed, picketed and/or boycotted.

[Pugchief]

Oh, and don't even get me started on what a bunch of snowflakes they've turned these kids into. Safe spaces? Really?

[Taltarzac725]

Oh, and don't even get me started on what a bunch of snowflakes they've turned these kids into. Safe spaces? Really?

Snowflakes? That is hilarious.

[jimbomaybe]

Surely you jest. The only debate going on at colleges and universities is whether they are radically left enough. Conservative voices are squashed, picketed and/or boycotted.
I would add guest speakers shouted down and prevented from speaking if they do not conform to the prevailing thought at that institution

[jimbomaybe]

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.
I remember being told that at this point in my life I would starving , freezing in the dark and the staticics were there to prove it, global warming perhaps but critical thinking I would think would suggest keeping an open mind, as to books on African history I don't have enough knowledge to judge how much is history and how much is politicized history

[Taltarzac725]

I would add guest speakers shouted down and prevented from speaking if they do not conform to the prevailing thought at that institution

Not sure who you mean? Unless we are again getting too close to politics.

[Pairadocs]

Google actively hides the truth. Use Duckduckgo or another.

I should not be, but am, really startled at the number of people, things, events I ask "Alexia" about, how to spell, or when they took place, etc. etc. and the number of things that might be considered "conservative", authors, books, events, and so on I get "sorry I do not know that" and similar replies. At first I didn't even recognize there was a "pattern".... silly me !

[Pairadocs]

Really? I had no idea about "cookies"... Are they oatmeal raisin or chocolate chip?

Probably none of the above, solid GOLD cookies to google !

[Taltarzac725]

I always have loved what Mark Twain wrote about various subjects--

Mark Twain quotations - Truth (http://www.twainquotes.com/Truth.html)

Familiarity breeds contempt. How accurate that is. The reason we hold truth in such respect is because we have so little opportunity to get familiar with it.
- Notebook, 1898

[Randall55]

Any talking head I would ask myself why he/she is saying that. What is that person's interest in what they are saying? How are they saying it? And most importantly when was this statement said?

Also-- follow the money. I tend to do the same. It seems many supposed "truths" are backed up by those with money and motives.

An out-of-the-box question. Have you ever heard a talking head reporting on an illness/disease, or provide death statistics of people who are considered normal weight? A group of us were discussing this topic. If we believe what talking heads tell us, only obese or malnourished people succomb to disease/illness and death. Yet, we all know that everyone dies. Why do they provoke their viewers into believing it will never happen to them? Seems odd.

[jimbomaybe]

Not sure who you mean? Unless we are again getting too close to politics.
I am not clear just where the mods draw the line between ideology and politics, I have been chastised for things I think were purely ideological, the IA programs have demonstrated bias, not just the programing and the RLHF (reinforced learning human feedback) but more importantly that 60% of programed influenced from a web crawl and 22% from curated sources makes me think that the preponderance of readily available public information is biased, if so that would decidedly move the needle, giving direction to the herd

[Pugchief]

Debate is very much alive in our universities.



Harvard is the worst university in America when it comes to free speech, according to an annual report released Wednesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The report ranked 248 college campuses nationwide, analyzing factors from speech codes to reactions to guest speakers. It included a survey of roughly 55,000 college students. Harvard, one of the nation’s top law schools, scored a zero out of 100, the lowest score ever recorded. Harvard’s speech climate was ranked as “abysmal” after FIRE surveyed more than 200 students about their experience at the Ivy League School. One student from the class of 2023 reportedly said that they were required to start every class stating their pronouns, while another said they were afraid to be open about their opinions source (https://www.dailywire.com/news/abysmal-harvard-places-dead-last-in-annual-college-free-speech-rankings)

So not only is there no debate, our so-called "finest" institutions are the worst offenders.

[Taltarzac725]

Speech is not free. It has consequences and often very serious ones. What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does)

The First Amendment is about the government not being allowed to censor speech not about a private institution doing that. Even though there are problems when that institution gets public funds, etc.

Harvard is the worst university in America when it comes to free speech, according to an annual report released Wednesday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The report ranked 248 college campuses nationwide, analyzing factors from speech codes to reactions to guest speakers. It included a survey of roughly 55,000 college students. Harvard, one of the nation’s top law schools, scored a zero out of 100, the lowest score ever recorded. Harvard’s speech climate was ranked as “abysmal” after FIRE surveyed more than 200 students about their experience at the Ivy League School. One student from the class of 2023 reportedly said that they were required to start every class stating their pronouns, while another said they were afraid to be open about their opinions source (https://www.dailywire.com/news/abysmal-harvard-places-dead-last-in-annual-college-free-speech-rankings)

So not only is there no debate, our so-called "finest" institutions are the worst offenders.

[jimbomaybe]

Speech is not free. It has consequences and often very serious ones. What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does)
So if I wanted to speak out on the position that the southern borders should be closed to prevent " undocumented" illegal entry to the US I could and should be stopped as my speech is evidence that I am a racist , hate monger , inciting others to violence to minorities, I am sure you could collect a good crowd who would agree and somehow stop me

[Two Bills]

Speech is not free. It has consequences and often very serious ones. What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does)

The First Amendment is about the government not being allowed to censor speech not about a private institution doing that. Even though there are problems when that institution gets public funds, etc.

Tal. Blue on green is so unreadable!

[Taltarzac725]

Tal. Blue on green is so unreadable!

Thanks for the assist.

[Taltarzac725]

So if I wanted to speak out on the position that the southern borders should be closed to prevent " undocumented" illegal entry to the US I could and should be stopped as my speech is evidence that I am a racist , hate monger , inciting others to violence to minorities, I am sure you could collect a good crowd who would agree and somehow stop me

There is no logic in your statement.

You can say that on Talk of the Villages or on one of the Villages' Town Squares. But would probably face some very harsh words in many places in Orlando.

And if you were in a private bar the owner could ask you to leave. And if creating a disturbance in a public bar , he or she could also ask you leave the premises.

This is a good discussion of Free Speech and the First Amendment. What the First Amendment really says — 4 basic principles of free speech in the U.S. | The Free Speech Center (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3910/what-the-first-amendment-really-says-4-basic-principles-of-free-speech-in-the-u-s)

[jimbomaybe]

There is no logic in your statement.

You can say that on Talk of the Villages or on one of the Villages' Town Squares. But would probably face some very harsh words in many places in Orlando.

And if you were in a private bar the owner could ask you to leave. And if creating a disturbance in a public bar , he or she could also ask you leave the premises.

This is a good discussion of Free Speech and the First Amendment. What the First Amendment really says — 4 basic principles of free speech in the U.S. | The Free Speech Center (https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/post/3910/what-the-first-amendment-really-says-4-basic-principles-of-free-speech-in-the-u-s)
I was responding to our centers of higher learning , those bastions of freedom of thought, inquiring minds

[Taltarzac725]

I was responding to our centers of higher learning , those bastions of freedom of thought, inquiring minds

They are not bastions of freedom of thought. They train people in science, history, business, medicine, law, religion, etc. These also involve critical thinking.

[JMintzer]

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.

Everybody Drink!

[JMintzer]

Critical thinking is not denying global warming, attacking books on African American history, etc. There are serious problems in academia but they are usually not the ones put out there by FOX and its related stations and interests.

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

It is hard not to say anything political here. So cannot really go into this.

There is ZERO debate going on in our universities. If one dares to show up and speak with an opinion that is not approved, they are immediately shouted down...

[JMintzer]

Tal. Blue on green is so unreadable!

Hence, my using "Bold" and "Enlarging the font", which for some, apparently means I'm "Yelling"...

[JMintzer]

They are not bastions of freedom of thought. They train people in science, history, business, medicine, law, religion, etc. These also involve critical thinking.

You spelled "indoctrinate" wrong...

[JMintzer]

Debate is very much alive in our universities.

A simple Google Search proves just how wrong you are...

berkely cancelled speakers - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?q=berkely+cancelled+speakers&sca_esv=563475517&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS873US874&sxsrf=AB5stBiSajTJtHrlJ1LHBGcwavmn_uGn1g%3A1694118 747552&ei=WzP6ZN2fIZOi5NoPq9-vwAw&ved=0ahUKEwiduZ6RrJmBAxUTEVkFHavvC8gQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=berkely+cancelled+speakers&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAaAhgDIhpiZXJrZWx5IGNhbmNl bGxlZCBzcGVha2VyczIIEAAYiQUYogQyCBAAGKIEGIsDSPY1UA BYgjVwAHgAkAEAmAHNAaABwwOqAQUwLjIuMbgBA8gBAPgBAeID BBgAIEGIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1)

[Pugchief]

Speech is not free. It has consequences and often very serious ones. What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts (https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does)

The First Amendment is about the government not being allowed to censor speech not about a private institution doing that. Even though there are problems when that institution gets public funds, etc.

My response was in regard to free thinking on college campuses, not the first amendment. But good job taking the quote out of context; there might be a career for you in the MSM. :)

[Pugchief]

They are not bastions of freedom of thought. They train people in science, history, business, medicine, law, religion, etc. These also involve critical thinking.

No, that's what they purport to do. What they actually do is indoctrinate young minds with ideology instead of critical thinking skills.

[jimbomaybe]

They are not bastions of freedom of thought. They train people in science, history, business, medicine, law, religion, etc. These also involve critical thinking.
The whole point of education is to gain knowledge, the only way to do that is never stop asking questions, the alternative is just learn accepted dogma, that requires no critical thinking at all , dogma allows no opposing viewpoints, is anti educational. It brings to mind the posters who tell you of their educational achievements lauding their intelligence and then without even trying to rebut a different viewpoint engage in shrill attacks on a person's character, blind to the fact they are demonstrating the exact opposite of intelligence, but you are right our educational institutions are no big on freedom of thought, much to their shame

[Pugchief]

Back to the original topic, here is a classic example of Google manipulating search results.

Scott Adams on Spasmodic Dysphonia (https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1699777155918692549)

[Bill14564]

Back to the original topic, here is a classic example of Google manipulating search results.

Scott Adams on Spasmodic Dysphonia (https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1699777155918692549)

Three things to note:

1. The DuckDuckGo results are almost identical to the Google results

2. It is not a convincing argument that Google must be manipulating search results because it leads with medical advice from NIH, Johns Hopkins, the Cleveland Clinic, and Penn Medicine rather than the medical advice of Scott Adams.

3. "Classic example?" It looks like that post on X was made this morning.

[Taltarzac725]

My response was in regard to free thinking on college campuses, not the first amendment. But good job taking the quote out of context; there might be a career for you in the MSM. :)

And how do you express "free thinking" except through written or spoken words!

Critical thinking is very much alive on our college campuses. And it comes from asking questions especially during class discussions.

[jimbomaybe]

My response was in regard to free thinking on college campuses, not the first amendment. But good job taking the quote out of context; there might be a career for you in the MSM. :)
Good jobs available at the "Ministry Of Truth"

[Two Bills]

Back to the original topic, here is a classic example of Google manipulating search results.

Scott Adams on Spasmodic Dysphonia (https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1699777155918692549)

I put Spasmodic Dysphonial into Google and top of search was:

The goal of treatment is to reduce symptoms of the disorder. Injecting Botox directly into the affected muscles of the voice box is a common therapy that is successful. Speech therapy is also a key part of treatment. Some centers offer a surgery to cut one of the nerves of the vocal fold.

I would assume that nothing to do with selective searching by Google, more the fact that the most popular/beneficial treatment is the Botox injection offered by centers of excellence.

spasmodic dysphonia - Google Search (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=spasmodic+dysphonia)

[Randall55]

The whole point of education is to gain knowledge, the only way to do that is never stop asking questions, the alternative is just learn accepted dogma, that requires no critical thinking at all , dogma allows no opposing viewpoints, is anti educational. It brings to mind the posters who tell you of their educational achievements lauding their intelligence and then without even trying to rebut a different viewpoint engage in shrill attacks on a person's character, blind to the fact they are demonstrating the exact opposite of intelligence, but you are right our educational institutions are no big on freedom of thought, much to their shame I am kinda new to this forum. Are shrill attacks really the opposite of intelligence? Or, merely frustration that a poster did not read the entire thread and just jumps in whenever the urge strikes? Or keeps repeating the same information when he/she was corrected several times pages ago. Or, an emphasis that "Hey! I'm pretty certain of my facts.I just might have a degree or similar expertise on the subject matter." Or, just plain boredom and posting whatever strikes their fancy. Or, EXTREMELY pro or against a subject. I think I even noticed some wanna be comedians whose only intent is to try to make you laugh, IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

I have seen a lot of that! I would not consider any of those types of posts unintelligent. Most of the time, I believe they are tongue and cheek, or frustrated EXTREMISTS and I get a good chuckle. If you met any of these people unknowingly in one of the squares, I am pretty certain they would be normal folks. You might strike up a conversation with one of them and walk away thinking. "That was interesting!" Even the extremists. In real life, they are probably not THAT EXTREME. Typing what you wish to say doesn't always translate accordingly. Note: I am not a psychologist nor do I portray one on TV.

[jimbomaybe]

And how do you express "free thinking" except through written or spoken words!

Critical thinking is very much alive on our college campuses. And it comes from asking questions especially during class discussions.

I do not understand how In the atmosphere of a college/university where a guest speaker in allowed to be shouted down if allowed to speak at all a student would not feel more than a little concerned if not intimidated. That voicing any like or similar opinions they would receive the same treatment. That they would be targeted, castigated. This in a situation where they live and work day to day and not just a visiting speaker.Please help me understand you logic and reasoning.

[Taltarzac725]

I do not understand how In the atmosphere of a college/university where a guest speaker in allowed to be shouted down if allowed to speak at all a student would not feel more than a little concerned if not intimidated. That voicing any like or similar opinions they would receive the same treatment. That they would be targeted, castigated. This in a situation where they live and work day to day and not just a visiting speaker.Please help me understand you logic and reasoning.


You have an anti gay rights speaker at a University. The students are going to use their FREE SPEECH to express their disapproval.

How Princeton Students Responded to an Anti-Gay Speaker on Campus | Teen Vogue (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/princeton-students-respond-anti-gay-speaker)

Pitt students petition university to cancel "transphobic" speaker events | LGBTQ | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper (https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pitt-students-petition-university-to-cancel-transphobic-speaker-events-23471809)

[Bill14564]

You have an anti gay rights speaker at a University. The students are going to use their FREE SPEECH to express their disapproval.

How Princeton Students Responded to an Anti-Gay Speaker on Campus | Teen Vogue (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/princeton-students-respond-anti-gay-speaker)

Pitt students petition university to cancel "transphobic" speaker events | LGBTQ | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper (https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pitt-students-petition-university-to-cancel-transphobic-speaker-events-23471809)

Expressing their disapproval of the speaker's viewpoint is perfect; demanding that the speaker be canceled or shouting the speaker down is not.

Nice contrast in the approaches reported in those two articles (understanding that much may not have been reported). The Princeton article focuses on how the talk was allowed to occur unimpeded while the Pitt article focuses on attempts to cancel the speaker. I personally prefer the Princeton approach.

I found this statement in the Princeton article to be humorous:
On email listservs across Princeton’s campus, similar debates raged on. One email thread involving undergraduates grew over 25 messages long.

25 messages long? 25 messages on ToTV is a thread just getting started!

[JMintzer]

And how do you express "free thinking" except through written or spoken words!

Critical thinking is very much alive on our college campuses. And it comes from asking questions especially during class discussions.

If you dare question the "authority" ie Professors, you risk failing the class...

Student Slams Prof Who Gave Her Zero For Using 'Biological Women (https://www.outkick.com/cincinnati-student-unloads-on-woke-professor-who-punished-her-for-using-term-biological-women/)

College student kicked out of class for telling professor there are only two genders | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-student-kicked-out-of-class-for-telling-professor-there-are-only-two-genders)

Williams College student government rejects pro-Israel group (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/05/09/williams-college-student-government-rejects-pro-israel-group)

You can keep repeating the same false narrative, it doesn't make your assertion true...

[JMintzer]

I do not understand how In the atmosphere of a college/university where a guest speaker in allowed to be shouted down if allowed to speak at all a student would not feel more than a little concerned if not intimidated. That voicing any like or similar opinions they would receive the same treatment. That they would be targeted, castigated. This in a situation where they live and work day to day and not just a visiting speaker.Please help me understand you logic and reasoning.

Oh, and it was a Law School class...

Stanford Law School Student Hooligans Shout Down Federal Judge – California Globe (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/stanford-law-school-student-hooligans-shout-down-federal-judge/)

An administrator was called to help quiet things down, and she egged on the protestors...

"The shouting became so loud that Duncan asked for an administrator to keep order, according to the video. Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, took to the microphone and gave a speech that accused Duncan of causing “harm.”

“Do you have something so incredibly important to say,” she asked him, that it is worth the “division of these people?”

Anyone care to explain to me how this is an "exchange of ideas that is very much alive on campus"?

[JMintzer]

You have an anti gay rights speaker at a University. The students are going to use their FREE SPEECH to express their disapproval.

How Princeton Students Responded to an Anti-Gay Speaker on Campus | Teen Vogue (https://www.teenvogue.com/story/princeton-students-respond-anti-gay-speaker)

Pitt students petition university to cancel "transphobic" speaker events | LGBTQ | Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh City Paper (https://www.pghcitypaper.com/news/pitt-students-petition-university-to-cancel-transphobic-speaker-events-23471809)

Oh, NOW it's a FREE SPEECH issue, when before you claimed it was something different...

"The First Amendment is about the government not being allowed to censor speech not about a private institution doing that."

So much for that "Honest Debate" you claim is so prevalent on campus...

[margaretmattson]

Oh, and it was a Law School class...

Stanford Law School Student Hooligans Shout Down Federal Judge – California Globe (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/stanford-law-school-student-hooligans-shout-down-federal-judge/)

An administrator was called to help quiet things down, and she egged on the protestors...

"The shouting became so loud that Duncan asked for an administrator to keep order, according to the video. Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, took to the microphone and gave a speech that accused Duncan of causing “harm.”

“Do you have something so incredibly important to say,” she asked him, that it is worth the “division of these people?”

Anyone care to explain to me how this is an "exchange of ideas that is very much alive on campus"? The new way of teaching is "don't make anyone upset." I read my nephew's college term paper. He has to take extraordinary measures to make certain a pronoun is not used incorrectly. Colleges take the meaning of harm to a whole new level. He is very much restricted in what he can say and write.

Example: I just wrote: He is very much restricted in what he can say and write. Fail! This statement would imply that he alone is being restricted.

He has to write something like. The college holds each of their students accountable for their speech and written word. Nope! Fail! This would imply the college does not hold its staff and administrators accountable only the students.

He says it gets easier with more and more practice but has to reread what he wrote over and over to make certain a pronoun harms no one.

Maybe a silly slip-up caused the uproar on that campus?

[Two Bills]

Talking of pronouns, up to the age of twelve, I though my name was "Oi you."

[jimbomaybe]

Oh, and it was a Law School class...

Stanford Law School Student Hooligans Shout Down Federal Judge – California Globe (https://californiaglobe.com/fr/stanford-law-school-student-hooligans-shout-down-federal-judge/)

An administrator was called to help quiet things down, and she egged on the protestors...

"The shouting became so loud that Duncan asked for an administrator to keep order, according to the video. Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s associate dean for diversity, equity and inclusion, took to the microphone and gave a speech that accused Duncan of causing “harm.”

“Do you have something so incredibly important to say,” she asked him, that it is worth the “division of these people?”

Anyone care to explain to me how this is an "exchange of ideas that is very much alive on campus"?
Phantasies have to be very well protected as they fall apart under little examination, certainly any discussion has to be curtailed , the words and language used have to be such as to not allow or suggest any question lest the phantasies start to unravel, likewise if you question basic assumptions you must have some sort of phobia and are so described and characterized , there by discredited

[margaretmattson]

Talking of pronouns, up to the age of twelve, I though my name was "Oi you."A supervisor of mine always called me"Hey, you!" And my coworker's name was " And, you too!" Never once did he use our names.

[JMintzer]

A supervisor of mine always called me"Hey, you!" And my coworker's name was " And, you too!" Never once did he use our names.

When I worked for a custom home builder for a few summers while in college, my boss called me "TDWBA" when I didn't know what he was talking about or if I screwed up (which thankfully became less and less often...)


Oh, what did the acronym mean? "The Dumbest White Boy Alive"... :loco:

When I finally quit to go to Med School, he told me if it didn't work out, I'd always have a job with him... I guess I got smarter... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[margaretmattson]

When I worked for a custom home builder for a few summers while in college, my boss called me "TDWBA" when I didn't know what he was talking about or if I screwed up (which thankfully became less and less often...)


Oh, what did the acronym mean? "The Dumbest White Boy Alive"... :loco:

When I finally quit to go to Med School, he told me if it didn't work out, I'd always have a job with him... I guess I got smarter... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: Sometimes, acting dumb is the smartest thing one can do.

[JMintzer]

Sometimes, acting dumb is the smartest thing one can do.

Sadly, it wasn't an act. I knew NOTHING about construction when I started (I was a gopher...). But, I'm a fast learner and by Summer's end, I was installing door knobs and locks, helping with finish trim, pretty much everything but electric... They didn't trust me THAT much!

I was the "punch list" guy. I went around the "almost finished" homes, looking for problems. I could tell, just by looking if some molding was 1/8" off, or if the drywall wasn't right, or if something was crooked... It tapped into my OCD perfectly!

It got to the point where they told be to stop looking so hard! The subs weren't very happy with me... :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

To this day, I'll walk around the house, straightening pictures...