Study: Most Students Can't Spot Fake News (engadget.com)

Even those who think that the U.S. Presidential election wasn't affected by the swath of fake news articles swirling on Facebook and other social media networks, they tend to agree that there is a lot of misinformation on the web. At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to tell fake news from a real one. But what about kids? How is our future generation doing? Not so well, apparently. An anonymous reader shares an Engadget report:A Stanford study of 7,804 middle school, high school and college students has found that most of them couldn't identify fake news on their own. Their susceptibility varied with age, but even a large number of the older students fell prey to bogus reports. Over two-thirds of middle school kids didn't see why they shouldn't trust a bank executive's post claiming that young adults need financial help, while nearly 40 percent of high schoolers didn't question the link between an unsourced photo and the claims attached to it. Why did many of the students misjudge the authenticity of a story? They were fixated on the appearance of legitimacy, rather than the quality of information. A large photo or a lot of detail was enough to make a Twitter post seem credible, even if the actual content was incomplete or wrong. There are plenty of adults who respond this way, we'd add, but students are more vulnerable than most.

Comments

Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the point.
 
Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

Re:Duh.

[Rockoon]

Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

But that might lead to critical thinking.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

But that might lead to critical thinking.

And that might result in some poor little snowflake's "safe space" being challenged.

Can't have THAT!

Re:Duh.

[PopeRatzo]

And that might result in some poor little snowflake's "safe space" being challenged.

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

Re:Duh.

[houstonbofh]

But it is all "Fake News." Once the official news stations started editing video and showing bias, it became a question of degree, not truth or lie...

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

This... This is the thing our "dearest" leaders strive to avoid at all costs.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Logic is not enough if they don't know the ways they are being influenced and understand the motives of the people influencing them. It's the assumptions that matter in the deduction.

Re:Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

That's the point. Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

Good luck with that. There are kids in their 20s in college who can't budget, can't cook, and if it isn't on Facebook it doesn't exist. There are adults high school (drop-outs) who have never applied for even a part-time job and as a result are too afraid of rejection to give it a try (real special snowflakes) They drop out of government-paid trade schools that give them an extra stipend, and they can't budget either, which is why they get iPhones and home internet on a $150 a month plan as soon as their check comes, go to concerts at $200 a pop, eat out with their friends, and then wonder why they have no money for food or rent.

You don't need to teach them critical thinking - you need to teach them basic thinking. Cause and effect, such as "you spend money on sh*t you want, you won't have money for sh*t you need.".

Last week I had the displeasure to watch one second-year college student who works as a cook in a burger franchise screw up making grilled cheese.

Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?

They don't have basic life skills and you expect to teach them logic? Sheldon says (and Mr Spock agrees) that is illogical. And we have a new generation of teachers who don't know much either, because they were also special snowflakes. They teach from the book because, like the burger cook, they can't do it if it isn't laid out step by step.

Re:Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

It's a self-selection process. Those special snowflakes are the next generation of follow-the-instructions-exactly fast food cooks. They're as good as robots - it wouldn't occur to either to try to find a better way and they just follow the program.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the ruling party in the US has banned such subject 'indoctrination' of youth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/texas-gop-rejects-critical-thinking-skills-really/2012/07/08/gJQAHNpFXW_blog.html

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an amazing teacher in middle school. He'd teach us exactly that--how to spot propaganda, false advertising claims, etc. It was probably the best set of lessons I ever learned because now I'm impervious to all the crap.

Of course, if he was teaching today they'd try to brand him as a communist or a "leftist" (whatever that means) because teaching kids to think might make them question capitalism (it does) or religion (ditto).

Questioning is not the same as rejecting, at least if you have a brain, but I was once married to a teacher and she also taught her students logical analysis like my favorite teacher had: the number of fundamentalist dipshit parents who had it out for her was amazing. Yeah, she had the occasional bout of trouble from the special snowflake crowd, but that was dwarfed by the control freak religious nutjob parents.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows critical thinking is the gateway to swing dancing!

Re:Duh.

[ShanghaiBill]

But that might lead to critical thinking.

Unlikely. Most teachers benefit a lot from the educational status quo, which is defended by the Democratic Party. College professors are the most politically biased group in America. According to some polls, only 3% of them voted for Trump. Our educational system is the problem, not the solution, with a strong vested interest in indoctrination rather than thinking.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?

At this, I question your own critical thinking skills. The two obvious ways are undercooking and overcooking, which can be a matter of time or heat, or both.

Then there is a matter of ingredients, and methods. I could possibly conceive of more.

The foibles and failings in cooking are well-known and hardly new. Many of them are rather easy to do. They've been fodder for comedy for centuries.

But you treat it is somehow meaningful and significant. It validates the conclusion that you want to have, rather than being an unimportant detail of no real consequence. Nothing new to that either, plenty of stories contrasting one wise fool versus some foolish sage.

Go ahead though, look down upon others, judge them with your wrath. It probably won't come back to bite you.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I had an amazing teacher in middle school. He'd teach us exactly that--how to spot propaganda, false advertising claims, etc.

That's great! No, I really mean that. Blessings on that teacher.

It was probably the best set of lessons I ever learned because now I'm impervious to all the crap.

Errr...your lack of self-awareness is astounding. Don't flatter yourself. Yes, you--even you--approach the world with a set of biases. To think otherwise is just myopic. The trick will be to identify those biases and confront them when you see them.

Re:Duh.

[skids]

lol. That's just precious.

Re:Duh.

[skids]

It has always been a question of degree, from the beginning of time. And yet, some people seem to do just fine with that, while others spend their life savings on a disaster bunker full of gold-plated special edition coins and freeze dried yams.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did not vote for a particular candidate" != "politically biased".
"Reject a particular ideology" != "indoctrinated".

Re:Duh.

[painandgreed]

Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

But that might lead to critical thinking.

Only if you teach them to be rational also. Controlling strictly logical people is just a matter of controlling the premises they are given.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

because teaching kids to think might make them question capitalism (it does) or religion (ditto).

Generally when I read something phrased like this I tend to be skeptical that the word "question" is really what the original author was thinking. Usually I figure that the author means "soundly reject" instead of "question" and is trying not to sound like the pretentious, elitist jerk they probably are. I'm generally not far off.

OTOH, if you're one of those rare people that truly means "question" instead of "soundly reject", you have my sincerest apologies.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that might result in some poor little snowflake's "safe space" being challenged.

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

Brandon Victor Davis:

St. Patty's day weekend is like Christmas for black dudes who like white chicks. Happy holidays boys.

More Brandon Victor Davis:

@TAMIKASLAWRENCE the problem is ho's aren't what they used to be. If ho game would step up, cats wouldn't get distracted.

So, who's the special misogynistic snowflake who got upset when Liar Hillary! lost?

Really? Calling women "ho" is OK?

That's the guy you think is qualified to lecture someone on racism?

What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:Duh.

[Opportunist]

What good man were they rude to, and what's Mike Pence doing in that statement?

Re:Duh.

[drnb]

But that might lead to critical thinking.

Unlikely. Most teachers benefit a lot from the educational status quo, which is defended by the Democratic Party. College professors are the most politically biased group in America. According to some polls, only 3% of them voted for Trump. Our educational system is the problem, not the solution, with a strong vested interest in indoctrination rather than thinking.

Or maybe, just perhaps, those college professors know something you don't. Just a thought.

Yes, they know the world of scholarly journals and ivory towers. Not necessarily the real world. The more we move from hard science to soft science the more their teachings are opinions and beliefs, often politicized ones. If you think professors are beyond such things you have not spent much time around them.

Re:Duh.

[smooth wombat]

According to some polls, only 3% of them voted for Trump.

Sounds plausible. Trump polled poorly among people with a higher education. Perhaps that "indoctrination" allowed people to see him for the con artist he truly is.

which is defended by the Democratic Party.

The very point I was making. Thank you.

Re:Duh.

[epyT-R]

Actually it's both parties.. The right don't want youth thinking through the bullshit of religion, and the left simply bills their own demagoguery as 'critical thought.'

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

So?
Sure, there are dropouts who can't do anything even slightly complicated. But that is nothing new. These people always existed - the only new thing is that they try to force them through college these days. 50 years ago, that'd be unthinkable. Such people joined the army or worked as farm hands. You didnt expect much intellect from a farm hand. He don't get bored using a shovel all day, only tired. A soldiers life is managed - no need to understand budgetary constraints.

But today, these intellectual minimalists are expected to write reports and do non-repetitive work . . .

Re:Duh.

[Dorianny]

Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?

They don't have basic life skills and you expect to teach them logic? Sheldon says (and Mr Spock agrees) that is illogical. And we have a new generation of teachers who don't know much either, because they were also special snowflakes. They teach from the book because, like the burger cook, they can't do it if it isn't laid out step by step.

Pay someone minimum wage and then wonder why they don't give a damn if they serve your customers burned sandwiches while their minds are too busy trying to figure out how to pay the skyrocketing rent and college tuition on a salary that can't afford you either

Re: Duh.

[epyT-R]

I don't know when you went to school, but public schools are largely run by the left these days.. It's more likely he'd be canned for inciting "hate speech" or "space invalidation" when one of his students picks apart some social justice blabber (also learned in school) with his newfound rationality.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, no shit. 11 year olds usually havnt learned the world is a lie yet.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you too. Unless you're ok, then you have my sincerest apogee.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you aware that propaganda is a "leftist" tool to break the right wing establishment in feudal, aristocratic and theocratic societies?

Propaganda is the way the American war of independence was promoted and how the French revolution came to be for example. In the years/decades before the French revolution pamphlets with 'fake news' were spread over the cities in France with titles (and cartoons) like "The king baths in the blood of children". Fake news is from all times and its weird that some/many people are convinced that it is a completely new phenomena caused by social media.
 
The current migration crisis and the inability to criticize its own open border politics and the failure to see that multiculturalism doesn't equal peace has led to the popularity of alternative politicians. In Europe you see the same, but with an EU that is run by politicians who lost their national elections and were promoted away to the EU, the EU is a reflection of the democratic voice of 10-15 years ago. Europe has become alternative of right wing (whatever you want to call it), but it is not reflected yet in the EU. This is the major reason why so many people have become anti EU (and in the case of the UK have voted Brexit). They don't feel represented. Their right wing choice might still be in the opposition of the national politics and have a long way to become mainstream enough to be offered a job in the EU. The brains behind the mass immigration, if they exist, have done a formidable job to destabilize western countries with simple use of propaganda (in this case Islamic anti western propaganda) to cause the unrest in the middle east and indirectly the mass immigration. Ironically the anti-Western propaganda is completely ignored ("not everyone is like that") while the western propaganda is heavily criticized because of course the West has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq even when many people didn't want war at the time. The protests of the critical thinkers, of whom many future 'alt right voters' or simply 'former Obama voters but now non voters', where ignored when Bush and Blair declared war some 15 years ago.

Communism is one big example of a state controlled propaganda machine. The current identity politics are an example where critical thinking is needed to see the nonsense. Where it once started as a well meant study of the civil rights it has become a purely rationalized philosophy that rejects any input from empirical observations (examples are "boys prefer male toys is learned through role models and not in the genetics so we should give a baby doll to boys and a matchbox car to girls" versus "Empirical and repeatable studies have shown us that even male apes prefer male toys while they don't have a role model"). It are often people living in the bubble or echo room where identity politics are propagated who don't see any flaw in their reasoning. Any opposition is automatically right wing, or like now 'alt right'. If someone teaches critical thinking today to the by identity politics ingrained students and teachers, they try to brand him a a fascist or neo-nazi or misogynist or racist or ...
 
Of course critical thinking is needed in a capitalist free society to point to the deficiencies of the current system. But when you are so convinced that capitalism is inherently bad and you live in a socialist state controlled society you immediately brand critical thinkers as extreme right. The same is true in a capitalistic society with an advanced progressive social construct of which the US is an example (also called cultural Marxism by the criticizers).

Re: Duh.

[clonehappy]

now I'm impervious to all the crap.

Good on you!

the number of fundamentalist dipshit parents who had it out for her was amazing. Yeah, she had the occasional bout of trouble from the special snowflake crowd, but that was dwarfed by the control freak religious nutjob parents.

Erm, don't get too full of yourself there buddy. Sounds like you're definitely a victim of leftist propaganda. Sorry, bud, you lose.

Re:Duh.

[clonehappy]

Perhaps that "indoctrination" allowed people to see him for the con artist he truly is.

Or, just maybe, "higher education" is just nothing more than an extension of the high school popularity contest, in which you just have to say and do and "question" the right things to get in and play the game? I should know, I still manage to play it every day. Empty shells of people walking around trying to out-signal each other to show who's most virtuous, most oppressed, or most "progressive".

The "indoctrination" is just that. And unless you want to be cast out of the group, you'd better not think outside the box. Or at least, don't say things too loudly. The real world, far outside of the walls of the echo chambers that make up the modern university are something most people there have never experienced. And I'm honestly free of sarcasm when I ask you, honestly, has this thought ever crossed your mind?

Re: Duh.

[boristdog]

You know how I know you have never worked at a public school?

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

holy crap have you finished yet?

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

yet not hillary for the con-artist she really is.

Re: Duh.

[LesFerg]

Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?

At this, I question your own critical thinking skills...

I think the key point you are skipping over here is "a cook in a burger franchise". These typically feature a fixed menu and fixed set of ingredients, and usually have a very well defined set of actions to follow between taking an order and handing over the finished product.

You would expect a minimal amount of training was given to new young employees, but usually you will be disappointed when you find yourself being served by a team of sad looking students.

Re: Duh.

[TapeCutter]

Don't flatter yourself. Yes, you--even you--approach the world with a set of biases.

Yes, skepticism is easy, self-skepticism is hard. Both skills are required for "critical thinking" to take place.

Re:Duh.

[William Baric]

This tweet is not in the style of Trump, so it was most probably made by his staff. Also, it was obviously made with the intent of trolling those SJW actors.

Re:Duh.

[PopeRatzo]

This tweet is not in the style of Trump, so it was most probably made by his staff.

So, the President-elect's staff are special snowflakes who need safe spaces? [and no, it came from Trump's android phone]

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the key point you are skipping over here is "a cook in a burger franchise". These typically feature a fixed menu and fixed set of ingredients, and usually have a very well defined set of actions to follow between taking an order and handing over the finished product.
You would expect a minimal amount of training was given to new young employees, but usually you will be disappointed when you find yourself being served by a team of sad looking students.

And I think you're missing the key point of my response. That there are a multitude of possible ways to screw up in food preparation. There is no difficulty in explaining a failure. Even a moment of inattention can do it.

As such, the outrage that is presented causes me to shrug at another case of a person seeking to fume at an entirely commonplace incident of no consequence.

I would even say training and experience can lead to problems as expectations vary. Sorry I was not clearer.

Re: Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

And you're missing the point entirely. Adults should be able to make a grilled cheese sandwich without f*cking it up. Screwing it up is not, as you claim, an entirely commonplace incident. Same as leaving the house for a couple of hours when you're frying chicken and setting the place on fire isn't an entirely commonplace incident. People prepare food all the time without problems.

As for training, did you really need any training to make a grilled cheese sandwich, make scrambled eggs or fry a burger? We were doing this at home while in grade school. No instructions needed - just watch your parents do it a couple of times. Unless you're of the generation that ate only take-out and microwaved food, and never got to bake a cake and make fudge when you were a kid. Again, we did this at home when we were in grade school. French fries were a bit later because of the danger, but we never set fire to anything accidentally.

"There is no difficulty in explaining a failure. Even a moment of inattention can do it." There's no difficulty explaining why texting while driving is a bad idea either, but when it causes an accident, we punish it.

Re:Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

The grilled cheeses were for themselves, so they kind of had an incentive to do their best. And since when does a high school dropout worry about the cost of college tuition for themselves?

Also, minimum wage here is $10.75. 2 weeks wages should easily more than cover the rent on a 3-1/2. (Actually, it more than covers a 4-1/2).

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're missing the point entirely. Adults should be able to make a grilled cheese sandwich without f*cking it up. Screwing it up is not, as you claim, an entirely commonplace incident. Same as leaving the house for a couple of hours when you're frying chicken and setting the place on fire isn't an entirely commonplace incident. People prepare food all the time without problems.

And yet fire departments are continually answering calls about incidents in kitchens. Because you know what? People do mess up. And they have for ages. It isn't news. I know you want it to mean something, but it doesn't. You're just angry and want it have meaning.

Me, I've already seen the warnings about people deep-frying turkeys, and have no particular ire over it.

As for training, did you really need any training to make a grilled cheese sandwich, make scrambled eggs or fry a burger? We were doing this at home while in grade school. No instructions needed - just watch your parents do it a couple of times.

I'm sorry your parents never bothered to teach you cooking then. My mother made an effort, though part of that was because her mother never wanted her in the kitchen at all. She still complains about that.

Unless you're of the generation that ate only take-out and microwaved food, and never got to bake a cake and make fudge when you were a kid. Again, we did this at home when we were in grade school. French fries were a bit later because of the danger, but we never set fire to anything accidentally.

Good for you. The Shriners hospitals are glad never to have seen you. Really.

There's no difficulty explaining why texting while driving is a bad idea either, but when it causes an accident, we punish it.

Yes, yes, send the kitchen police out now. Whatever. Your rage was quite apparent from the start.

Fortunately for the rest of us, you aren't in control of everything and the idea of restraint exists, and all you can do is fecklessly post about it.

There's a reason not every accident results in a ticket, even when there is a fatality, there may be no charges. Why just the other day, a police officer crossed the street in front of me, a good distance, but I observed that he would have been invisible to me until he got out of the shade where he had been standing.

Re: Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

And yet most people never have a fire in the kitchen. It's not common - it's the exception.

My mother never taught us to cook because we picked it up on our own. It's just applied chemistry (which explains why I made a cake with green and red icing even though it was summer. Experimentation.) We weren't sheltered from life. That's not possible in the slums.

Cooking is a basic survival skill. It's been for more than a million years. It wasn't even our invention, but a preceding species. And that's with an estimated IQ of 60, less than 99.5 percent of humans.

In other words, if a moron (IQ between 51 and 70) can do it ...

Also, there was no rage. This is what happens when you over-protect your kids. As far as I'm concerned, it means that my kids have less competition to worry about, and so do their kids. (hum "The circle of life")

Re:Duh.

[udachny]

Minimum wage is only about 80% too high for grilled cheese sandwich cooking.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet most people never have a fire in the kitchen. It's not common - it's the exception.

Now it is, we've gotten the fires out. On purpose. It's a lot safer now, especially now that you don't find actual fires in the home very often.

Electric heat, even gas, is a lot safer. Woodfires are almost unknown. For good reasons, though not just safety. And electricity and gas are also getting safer. In absolute terms, fires are going down.

But things still happen, as they have for centuries. Just pull up a few incident reports. You'll see.

Cuts across the ages as well.

My mother never taught us to cook because we picked it up on our own.

That's sad. You missed out on good experiences. But I suppose you could watch some cooking shows, there is a lot to learn. More than any one person could ever master.

Cooking is a basic survival skill. It's been for more than a million years. It wasn't even our invention, but a preceding species. And that's with an estimated IQ of 60, less than 99.5 percent of humans. In other words, if a moron (IQ between 51 and 70) can do it ...

There's that condescension showing clearly.

Even intelligent people make mistakes. And for all of those years, that includes people who have been making mistakes in food preparation. Some minor, some major, some lethal.

It isn't new. It happens. It still is. Though a lot of the pitfalls are controlled. Even the raw food is safer. Civilization advances.

Also, there was no rage. This is what happens when you over-protect your kids. As far as I'm concerned, it means that my kids have less competition to worry about, and so do their kids. (hum "The circle of life")

And yes, mocking too, I already noted how you looked down on others. Got to get your self-satisfaction kicks in as you can.

Re:Duh.

[Dorianny]

Minimum wage is only about 80% too high for grilled cheese sandwich cooking.

65% of federal welfare assistance went to working families. In essence our Tax dollars are being used to subsidize Corporate payroll's

Re:Duh.

[udachny]

No, it's the other way around. It's the corporate payroll that still keeps some people off of full welfare. Grilling a cheese sandwich is not the kind of a job that can or should pay whatever the insane minimum wage law dictates (7+ dollars an hour for grilling sandwiches? I think machines will do better).

Re:Duh.

[Dorianny]

No, it's the other way around. It's the corporate payroll that still keeps some people off of full welfare. Grilling a cheese sandwich is not the kind of a job that can or should pay whatever the insane minimum wage law dictates (7+ dollars an hour for grilling sandwiches? I think machines will do better).

You will find a human standing over a grill making Grilled Cheese sandwiches even in Australia where the minimum wage is US $17.70 an hour. The unemployment rate there is only .8% higher then in the U.S. Conservative orthodoxy that a livable minimum wage will lead to mass layoffs is just a ploy to protect Corporate profits on the Taxpayers dime

Re:Duh.

[mjwx]

That's the point. Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

Good luck with that. There are kids in their 20s in college who can't budget, can't cook, and if it isn't on Facebook it doesn't exist.

Remember that these are the same people who in the most basic maths classes always said "when are we ever going to use this in real life". The truth is they never will use algebra in real life, but the smart kids use it every day (ever figured out how many litres of petrol you'd get for $20... you've used algebra).

You cant eliminate dumb, all you can do is teach and hope that most of the students learn (they do).

Also, I know someone with two PHD's who couldn't make a sandwich to save his life. Some people are simply not able to grasp certain concepts and this does not make them dumb, crocheting is a basic skill but it's one I wouldn't have the foggiest how to do.

Re:Duh.

[William Baric]

As I said, it was obviously made with the intent of trolling those SJW actors. And as for "it came from Trump's android phone", you are just imagining a scenario to fit your point. Sorry, but I don't care about what you imagine.

Re: Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

Why the hell would I watch cooking shows when it's something that even a moron can learn without them (as the early hominids did).? And I didn't "miss ouit" on anything by not having my parents teach me to cook - I didn't need them. So what did I miss - "bonding?" Not when I cooked supper and they ate it. You're projecting your limitations and need to have your hand held for basic shit.

You call it condescension - I call it pointing out that even morons can do it so there's no real defense. If you needed help learning something that a hominid with an IQ of 60 was able to do that says more about you and the bunch of low-expectation-mother-fuckers you hang around with. Go get your gold star for showing up, because you are SUCH a special snowflake.

Yes, I look down on such people, because they haven't got the pride, the initiative, to try to better themselves. If they don't hold themselves in high esteem, who am I to disagree with their self-assessment?

Mistakes should be few and far between. Repeated mistakes even less. Someone causes a kitchen fire, they will NEVER be allowed near my stove, even if it's to make a grilled cheese sandwich. I already put out one fire caused by a kid in the next house not paying attention while making french fries, and sure enough, 30 years later he's a loser stoner who has not worked one year in his life. Moron is as moron does.

Re:Duh.

[roman_mir]

Real unemployment in USA is in double digits, people without work cannot afford these sandwiches, so people eat out much less than before and so restaurants are scaling down.

I don't follow Australia economy much, so won't talk about it. With the restaurants scaling down and closing there will be way fewer jobs for grilling sandwiches but there will always be a few who will still do it at whatever the minimum wage of the time is and the top 1% will still be able to afford their services.

Minimum wage will put the people getting it out of jobs and the businesses will shut down too (or it will be the owners themselves grilling that cheese).

Re:Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

Take that person with 2 phds and just give him the raw ingredients, and nothing else for the next month. He'll figure it out. Or he'll starve. But he doesn't starve. Learned helplessness is almost as bad as feigned helplessness - both are manipulative.

Same as if you absolutely had to learn crocheting, you'd learn.

Re: Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell would I watch cooking shows when it's something that even a moron can learn without them (as the early hominids did).? And I didn't "miss ouit" on anything by not having my parents teach me to cook - I didn't need them. So what did I miss - "bonding?" Not when I cooked supper and they ate it. You're projecting your limitations and need to have your hand held for basic shit.

Seems to me you're compensating for your loss of a valuable experience, by converting it into evidence of your own superiority. You didn't miss out. You showed your own superiority. It's everybody else who is a loser! It's your own limitations that are leading to your resentment of others. That's why you show so much anger underlying your comments.

You call it condescension - I call it pointing out that even morons can do it so there's no real defense. If you needed help learning something that a hominid with an IQ of 60 was able to do that says more about you and the bunch of low-expectation-mother-fuckers you hang around with. Go get your gold star for showing up, because you are SUCH a special snowflake.

Keep looking down on people, but though you are doing your best to deny it, mistakes happen in food preparation, they always have, and they mean far less than you want them to prove. But that's why you resort to pointless expressions of ire to deflect from actual facts. You can't offer an argument as to the long history of food preparation mistakes in this world, but you can ignore it.

If you just keep going on about snow-flakes and other people being morons, you think I'll forget the real problem with your assertions.

Too bad for you, I'm actually capable of recognizing your methods and their dishonesty.

Yes, I look down on such people, because they haven't got the pride, the initiative, to try to better themselves. If they don't hold themselves in high esteem, who am I to disagree with their self-assessment?

Indeed, that's how you have to picture them. After all, it's a lot easier if you see them as unworthy. But I'm talking about the actual people in the world, who do make mistakes, and yet who are not so despicable as you want to make out.

The people, you summarily condemn with your condemnatory disparagement. But maybe they just don't despise themselves as much as you want.

Mistakes should be few and far between. Repeated mistakes even less. Someone causes a kitchen fire, they will NEVER be allowed near my stove, even if it's to make a grilled cheese sandwich. I already put out one fire caused by a kid in the next house not paying attention while making french fries, and sure enough, 30 years later he's a loser stoner who has not worked one year in his life. Moron is as moron does.

Your comment reveals more about yourself than anybody else. Mistakes are to be despised, and even to the point of absolute denial when it offends you enough, because you can't allow it. And not only that, you produce a late-coming example, bad enough it may be entirely manufactured on your part, but even if not, the real story is likely quite different(and you may find the causation to be quite different than you imagine, let alone the potential steps that could have been made to address it), and balanced by who knows how many multitudes of people who did not turn out as you would most likely believe.

Like I said, you are driven by your rage, to the point of thoughtlessness and lack of critical thinking.

I almost wonder how you react to all the news pieces that will be shown in the next few days. It is the season for accidents in the kitchen. So the media prepares their bits on it, as familiar as the Yule Log on WPIX. Been that way for decades. And they'll do it next year too! The horrors!

Re:Duh.

[Dorianny]

Real unemployment in USA is in double digits, people without work cannot afford these sandwiches, so people eat out much less than before and so restaurants are scaling down.

I don't follow Australia economy much, so won't talk about it. With the restaurants scaling down and closing there will be way fewer jobs for grilling sandwiches but there will always be a few who will still do it at whatever the minimum wage of the time is and the top 1% will still be able to afford their services.

Minimum wage will put the people getting it out of jobs and the businesses will shut down too (or it will be the owners themselves grilling that cheese).

I am rather confused by your post. Officially the Australian unemployment rate is .8% higher then in the U.S . If you are indeed correct and the unemployment figure is double digits in the U.S, that means that Australia has half the unemployment rate of the U.S while having a minimum wage that is more then 2 times higher. The facts seem to show that a higher minimum wage leads to less unemployment rather then the other way around. This does make sense %70 of the GDP comes from the Consumer Economy. How is the Consumer Economy supposed to grow if %30 of the labor force is low-wage Service jobs that leaves families in need of Welfare assistance just to scrape by

Re:Duh.

[CaptainDork]

This.

Parents don't want evolution, climate change, slavery, or science in their schools.

They don't want diverse ideas by non-Christian, non-White, non-heterosexual, non-European American cultures to infect their children.

But they do want their children to grow up and be big and get jobs.

Ignorance begets ignorance.

Re:Duh.

[roman_mir]

The facts seem to show that a higher minimum wage leads to less unemployment rather then the other way around

- no, there is no causality where you found it. Lower minimum wage means the price of labour is lower, we consume more of that, which is cheaper. There are too many other factors at play, major ones are that the unemployment didn't start with the service industry, it started with the most productive industries that moved out of the USA due to the cost of doing business.

USA is full of government workers, service sector workers, financial workers, health care workers and such, it has very few manufacturing jobs and it's losing more of them by the hour. Eventually this spreads to other jobs and the minimum wage does not help with the already non-functioning economy, which was destroyed by government induced inflation (money printing, borrowing at artificially low interest rates).

Again, the restaurants are losing business because people can no longer afford to eat out, there will be fewer and fewer even minimum wage jobs around, so raising the minimum wage at this point in the USA will simply speed up the coming economic collapse.

Re:Duh.

[Dorianny]

The facts seem to show that a higher minimum wage leads to less unemployment rather then the other way around

- no, there is no causality where you found it. Lower minimum wage means the price of labour is lower, we consume more of that, which is cheaper. There are too many other factors at play, major ones are that the unemployment didn't start with the service industry, it started with the most productive industries that moved out of the USA due to the cost of doing business.

USA is full of government workers, service sector workers, financial workers, health care workers and such, it has very few manufacturing jobs and it's losing more of them by the hour. Eventually this spreads to other jobs and the minimum wage does not help with the already non-functioning economy, which was destroyed by government induced inflation (money printing, borrowing at artificially low interest rates).

Again, the restaurants are losing business because people can no longer afford to eat out, there will be fewer and fewer even minimum wage jobs around, so raising the minimum wage at this point in the USA will simply speed up the coming economic collapse.

Don't pick one sentence out of an entire paragraph to respond to! The gist of my post is very clear. You have an example in Australia with a much higher minimum wage and a low unemployment rate. The economy is NOT a zero sum game it is foolish to oversimplify it. I don't know what the Microeconomics look like in Australia so I can't talk to you about the Restaurant business there but in Macroeconomic terms Australia has a much higher minimum wage and its near what economists call "full employment." According to your theory the much higher minimum wage should mean a very high unemployment rate and that's simply not the case.

Re:Duh.

[gzuckier]

What good man were they rude to, and what's Mike Pence doing in that statement?

As far as I can tell, John Goodman must have been insulted at the show, and Trump's just telling Pence, like Hey, this happened, Mike Pence!

Re:Duh.

[gzuckier]

That's the point. Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

Good luck with that. There are kids in their 20s in college who can't budget, can't cook, and if it isn't on Facebook it doesn't exist. There are adults high school (drop-outs) who have never applied for even a part-time job and as a result are too afraid of rejection to give it a try (real special snowflakes) They drop out of government-paid trade schools that give them an extra stipend, and they can't budget either, which is why they get iPhones and home internet on a $150 a month plan as soon as their check comes, go to concerts at $200 a pop, eat out with their friends, and then wonder why they have no money for food or rent.

You don't need to teach them critical thinking - you need to teach them basic thinking. Cause and effect, such as "you spend money on sh*t you want, you won't have money for sh*t you need.".

Last week I had the displeasure to watch one second-year college student who works as a cook in a burger franchise screw up making grilled cheese.

Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?

They don't have basic life skills and you expect to teach them logic? Sheldon says (and Mr Spock agrees) that is illogical. And we have a new generation of teachers who don't know much either, because they were also special snowflakes. They teach from the book because, like the burger cook, they can't do it if it isn't laid out step by step.

Haven't seen this repeated in a few years, but it remains true: You can't make things foolproof, fools are too clever for that.

Re:Duh.

[gzuckier]

That's the point. Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.

Good luck with that. There are kids in their 20s in college who can't budget, can't cook, and if it isn't on Facebook it doesn't exist.

Remember that these are the same people who in the most basic maths classes always said "when are we ever going to use this in real life". The truth is they never will use algebra in real life, but the smart kids use it every day (ever figured out how many litres of petrol you'd get for $20... you've used algebra). You cant eliminate dumb, all you can do is teach and hope that most of the students learn (they do). Also, I know someone with two PHD's who couldn't make a sandwich to save his life. Some people are simply not able to grasp certain concepts and this does not make them dumb, crocheting is a basic skill but it's one I wouldn't have the foggiest how to do.

Like watching a table full of college educated adults trying to work out a 15% tip, let alone split a check. might as well ask the dog and the cat to split the cost of the pet food.

Re:Duh.

[roman_mir]

I don't know what the true state of Australian economy is, so I cannot argue on that. I can however tell you that Singapore has some of the lowest unemployment rates on the planet and it has no minimum wage at all. My point is that the minimum wage in itself does not dictate the entire picture but it does make the problem worse for the economies that are already mostly hiring in the service sectors.

I have a software business, I have some people working for me in a Western country and they are paid above the legal minimum wage.

However I have a number of people working for me in the Ukraine and there I am paying a much lower wage than I would have to pay in a Western country (though by the local standards it's many times the average). I could not hire as many people in a Western country as I have employed in the Ukraine because the amount of money I can spend on employees is limited to my revenues.

If suddenly I had to pay an American minimum wage to all of my employees, I would have to fire a large number of them and that would be that, it's really not that complicated to understand.

Now, we are not talking about skilled professionals in this thread, we are talking about grilling cheese and to do that type of work there are literally millions of people that could fill in the position. Given the fact that multiple people apply for any given position (for example Walmart gets hundreds of applications per job offer) it stands to reason that the companies are overpaying their hires when they are forced to pay them the minimum wage but also it means the companies are hiring fewer workers because they spend more per worker.

Now again, if you look at the actual economic situation in the States you will observe falling productivity among the workers and thus falling purchasing power, which translates into scaling down of the businesses. The minimum wage prevents many from being hired who could be hired.

I am actually not saying that the minimum wage all by itself leads to an economic collapse, I am saying that in the conditions where the economy is collapsing minimum wage is adding to the suffering of the common people. Companies will deal, will have fewer workers, will outsource, will automate and many will shut down. The more companies shut down the fewer opportunities for work there will be, given these circumstances what gives the politicians the idea that the fewer remaining businesses have more money to spend on low skilled employees?

Re: Duh.

[BarbaraHudson]

Fucking moron. You keep making up shit expecting everyone to swallow it. No wonder you hide behind Anonymous Coward.

Is it because you were never taught to stand on your own two feet because mommy or daddy kept "showing" you how to do things but never really letting you try it on your own?

I'm obviously superior to you because I don't hide.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the fact that multiple people apply for any given position (for example Walmart gets hundreds of applications per job offer) it stands to reason that the companies are overpaying their hires

Your reasoning is faulty. Walmart underpays its hires. Many full-time Walmart employees don't get paid enough to buy food and must rely on food stamps. Walmart is effectively being given corporate welfare and is not paying its way.

Re:Duh.

[roman_mir]

No, my reasoning is correct. Given the number of applicants per position, WM could easily fill all those positions at much lower wages.

The fact that those jobs are low paying jobs does not mean that the people hire to do them are underpaid, they are overpaid for the jobs that they are hired for, otherwise there wouldn't be a line up of applicants.

Re:Duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that those jobs are low paying jobs does not mean that the people hire to do them are underpaid

The fact that those jobs are subsidized by by tax-payers means they are underpaid. Walmart can't fill those positions at "much lower wages" because the wage is unviable without welfare and barely viable with it. Walmart relies on government handouts.

But what's the effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this "fake news" meme is about finding someone to blame for Cheetoface winning the election, but I'm not buying it.
People who voted for Trump weren't suddenly swayed away from Hillary at the last minute by a tweet accusing her of eating babies.
I'm sure a good many of the headlines I casually notice are phony, but if it's something I care about, or something that could actually change my opinion, I'm going to read on, and fact-check it, too.

Re: But what's the effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

bury your head in the sand. perhaps your answer is there.

Re:But what's the effect?

[unixisc]

Are you a college student? If not, it doesn't apply to you. As it is, most people of the country did have their votes locked in, and it was only the people at the margins in a few states who ended up swinging the election

Re:But what's the effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Fake News issue IS in fact a response to Hillary loosing the election. They would rather blame someone else then admin they SHOULD have done something else to bring Republican voters into their camp. It's a rejection of the fact that they did not do enough to be inclusive.

We still don't have a definition of what is Fake News. To most liberals all conservative news sites are fake news. To many in both camps Snopes is fakes news because they believe what is probably fake news - Snopes is funded by Soros.

To most Republicans Clinton News Network (CNN) is mostly Fake News.

The major outlets are not doing themselves any favors when they take an opinion piece and run it as news.

Maybe they are pointing at cbsnews.com.co or some similar .com.co that ran the fake story on Hillary being indited 9 days before the election but anyone that read to the bottom of the page could see it was a parody site. Huffington Post then carried it as actual news.
The Huff has never been much for credibility for exactly this reason. Their writers are mostly piece meal workers and apparently there is no editorial checking. "A note at the bottom of the original article explains that “This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. "

Re:But what's the effect?

[__aaclcg7560]

To most liberals all conservative news sites are fake news.

As a moderate conservative, the entire right-wing echo chamber is fake. Most of my lily-white, tea-party loving relatives aren't speaking to me since I can easily pop their reality balloons.

Re:But what's the effect?

[desdinova 216]

We still don't have a definition of what is Fake News. To most liberals all conservative news sites are fake news. To many in both camps Snopes is fakes news because they believe what is probably fake news - Snopes is funded by Soros.

I keep seeing this, but I haven't seen any reputable verification of it.

Re:But what's the effect?

[budgenator]

Snopes is like Wikipedia, when you get into highly controversial topical issue there's a lot of "there be Dragons Here". They do a lot of discussion on peripheral points then declare something mostly false.
Another site that's gone over to the dark-side is Charity Navigator, they had de-listed the Clinton Foundation due to an non-understandable business plan, the two weeks later give them 5 stars after they became part of the Clinton Foundation.

I chalk it up to the education system, things went downhill fast when philosophy became a four letter word, without logic and epistemology rigorous thought is impossible.

Good to know

[nospam007]

Now I understand why Facebook uses an algorithm to decide what's real news or not

The algorithm is very bad at it, but this tells us the youngsters who did this before, were even worse.

Re:Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

On the down side, the dumbasses have swamped /. and are about to turn it into another breitbart

Re:Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

The algorithm is probably a turk machine where they get a bunch of school kids to spot the fakes.

Re:Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...the youngsters were the ones that wrote the algorithm, soo.....

Re:Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I understand why Facebook uses an algorithm to decide what's real news or not

The algorithm is very bad at it, but this tells us the youngsters who did this before, were even worse.

Most students these days may be tech-savvy (the new book-smarts), but have a common-sense, logic and reasoning quotient bordering on mental retardation.

Really?

[U8MyData]

Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...

Re:Really?

[Narcocide]

I read this in Cartoon Donald Trump's voice.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, Comic Book Guy,

Re:Really?

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Don't call them lemmings, we execute snowflakes like that in our population.

Re:Really?

[greythax]

I find delicious irony in the fact that you used the term lemmings to describe people who can't identify fake news: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/ind...

Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.

No wonder they are susceptible to propaganda for the stupid. They are in fact the ignorant and stupid, relative to their parents and grandparents.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[omtinez]

If that was true, then all of those that went through the school system 40 years ago would be, as you suggest, well educated and very well spoken. In my personal experience, that's most certainly not the case.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HelpTheNewOverlord]

All well and good, but who raised these kids?

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[jeff4747]

And worst of all, they keep standing on your lawn.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

A bunch of people who got propagandized and cajoled into doing something different (and we can see now, bad) by a combination of government and media.

Yeah, I see the irony of it too, but the median IQ is 100 and there's no getting around that. Also, most people are followers rather than leaders. They will move with the herd.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Jaime2]

I feel wrong disagreeing with you, but...

I just watched James Randi's documentary this past weekend and I recall a story about how he put together a press packet for a fake channeler that called himself "Carlos". This was 35 years ago, and he was on a lot of major news programs and in a lot of publications. Not one of the staffers of any of these shows/publications checked his references - as they were all fake. The public bought every word he said. Fake news is a very old phenomenon and every generation has fallen for it.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

My experience is that the people in a generation older than I am have much better English than the average person of my age. Sure, there are problems with some of the more blue collar types with possessives - they tend to think apostrophe-s is a plural. But that is mostly indicative of people who left school before they had much opportunity to do English composition. Leaving school in the 9th grade or so was surprisingly common circa 1955, if you were going to work with your hands anyway.

My mother has better English than my kids do, certainly, as do I. You can only do so much at home to correct the issues. At least I got them to stop saying 'brung'.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, I find the exact opposite to be true. As people age they get more and more stubbornly ignorant, and today's baby boomers are perhaps among the most gullible (look how many of them fell in line behind Trump and Clinton! Look how many of them scream "WRHOBWIOEJRABLLLL PARTICIPATION TROPHIES BLKJRWLAHHAHHHH" every time this topic comes up. Snowflake metaphor from some dead-inside alt-righter coming in 3... 2...

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[PopeRatzo]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.

Somebody's been eating the memberberries again.

"Member how smart we were as kids?"
"Yeah, I member."

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HornWumpus]

Do they say 'Broughtened' now?

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HornWumpus]

The 'swallowing semen prevents breast cancer' on CNN was an epic high point of fake news.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

Even the stupid shit we did was smarter than the kids today. Seriously. We'd paste together a whole pack of EZ-widers and drop an ounce inside of it and roll a stogie, then get accosted by St. Bernards on the way home and think we were going to get eaten by bears or something. We'd steal fire extinguishers from a church and blow them off on a beach. We'd flick matches into the Goodwill box until it caught fire. We'd drop acid and wander through the supermarket grabbing rolls, taking one bite out and throwing it on the floor.

If you have teenage kids, you'll find out that the stupid things they do are just _dumber_. It's like they have no imagination.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

My argument is that they lack the wherewithal to figure out that the stuff is fake. Whether they will do so or not, regardless of age, is debatable.

My affection for Mr. Randi remains unabated.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

The truth is that I still correct them from time to time. They take big pauses before they say anything related to 'brought', because they know it's one of my hot buttons. It requires conscious thinking on their part to say 'brought'.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[BarbaraHudson]

In every generation, many of those kids who had to basically raise themselves turn into self-sufficient people who have learned that you need to be polite if you want something - they didn't have their parents to make sure that they didn't get the snot beaten out of them if they were rude.

That's why many of the kids born after ww2 didn't need to be shielded by their parents - their parents were out doing the two-parent or single-parent work thing.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago

I disagree. You just got a clearer picture of how uninformed and underdeveloped people are. You are looking through the rose colored lens of history. Kids by far and large are trusting. They are not a cynic because nothing has caused them to second guess others. Parents blow smoke up their asses about 'be what you want to be'. Then when they act what little they have been taught they get a huge blowback. They then meltdown on the internet. We see them as stupid and uneducated. By comparison to someone with say 50 years of experience they are. However, I clearly remember my piers as in gradeschool. They are no better or worse than what I see today of the same age group. *WE* get to see more of it more clearly because the internet gives everyone a sounding board to spew whatever comes to mind. The young and old alike. It looks terrible. Because it is. However it is no worse.

Also to judge by my facebook who are 99% 'older people' they are no better. They pass on whatever stupid cogitative bias they have. They are just more articulate about it. They are also in many ways harder to persuade that they are wrong. They have many years of 'experience' to tell them 'how life is'.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[swillden]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.

No wonder they are susceptible to propaganda for the stupid. They are in fact the ignorant and stupid, relative to their parents and grandparents.

Cite? You've made a lot of claims, but offered zero evidence.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[AK Marc]

Why can't their parents take some personal responsibility? If someone is dumb compared to their parents and grandparents, why aren't the parents and grandparents taking responsibility for their failures?

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Macdude]

To quote a very famous man...
The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise

That famous man is Socrates.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[sinij]

Please don't spoil vitriol with your reasonableness. Complaining about young people is older than recorded history, as such it is (literally) cornerstone of our civilization.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[ljw1004]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.

Citation needed. I think you're wrong. Here are charts of A-level performance (national exams taken in the UK at the end of 12th grade) which have shown steady and significant improvements since the 1960s. (Source = http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp..., and a further report of data since 1990 = http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev...)

http://i.imgur.com/RWdWAjx.png
http://i.imgur.com/gJZ5rbb.png

I picked A-levels because they've been the same kind of exam for a long time (as opposed to say the 10th grade O-levels which were changed out for GCSEs).

On the subject of maths, my understanding is that calculus used to be a college course, but now it's taught to loads of high school students. Here's another graph showing increased earlier uptake of calculus:
http://www.maa.org/the-changin...

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[pr0fessor]

I never did any of those things.... Not to say the cops didn't pick me up for underage drinking and drop me off at home letting my parents know and knowing full well it was likely I would get a beating from my father but they didn't arrest me. Today they press charges against the kids and give them community service where all the bad kids get together and go clean the park or something. Next thing you know they are all hanging out together and getting into more trouble and doing more community service.

 

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[naasking]

My experience is that the people in a generation older than I am have much better English than the average person of my age.

You mean those with decades more experience with a subject are more skilled, knowledgeable and adept? Colour me shocked.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

Nono, we weren't that dumb, its the younger generation that is! Even though every generation has said this since the dawn of time, this time its true!

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[The-Ixian]

I fail to see how any of your examples show how you are smarter than today's youth.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[The-Ixian]

You can't take personal responsibility for someone else. Not even your kids.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

>wander through the supermarket grabbing rolls, taking one bite out and throwing it on the floor
At least your other examples of vandalism, in lieu of any of the wit or showmanship that marks decent trolling, had a measure of novelty. But I can't find even that much in this one. Tell me the shopkeep was a douche, or even in some group or ethnicity of presumed douches, that the act might not feel so hollow.

I grew up before the gods of instant gratification reached today's full saturation, but my time in that primitive era never left me so desperate as this.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

You are asking such question here? I mean most of regulars here would not know how kids are made or experience the process so he question is not only rhetoric but also rather pointless in this f.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I have to swollow my own or is it enough if somebody else does that?

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[AK Marc]

You can't take personal responsibility for your actions as a parent? That must be why all the Conservatives are always talking about personal responsibility. They don't know what it means.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Striek]

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”

-- Socrates

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[omfglearntoplay]

Flame bait, OK. My kids are doing things in elementary school that I did in 7th and 8th grade. I personally teach them to not trust commercials (IMO very important when ever other one is to buy legal drugs that have deadly side effects), so they don't just trust anything thrown at them. At the same time, I don't want them to distrust the whole world... just to be wary/distrust people trying to sell them BS, whether that is a physical product or an idea.

As for the "stupid"... my sibling has an IQ over 150, has a masters degree... and still can't manage money. It's easy to say people are stupid... but the truth is, people are just spoiled and greedy and then close their eyes to the reality around them because they get overwhelmed. 90% of the problem is the credit cards and banks screwing over the masses.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[gweihir]

No argument about the kids, but I think you have an overly positive opinion about their parents and grandparents.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[hey!]

No, I think this is another case of the gulf between haves vs. have-nots widening.

I look at my kids' friends and they blow away the kids I went to school with. It's because they go to school in an affluent suburb with a high education budget which spends that money on curriculum and keeping class sizes small, not sports. Many of these kids will graduate with a dozen AP courses under their belt. They can tell you about the Federal Funds Rate and why it's important, explain how the Whig party collapsed, or who the sides fighting in Syria are and why.

But they are not typical. They may be above average in talent, but what really sets them apart from their peers is the opportunities they have been given, which outstrip anything anyone in my generation had unless they went to an elite private school.

Mark my words, the best educated segment of this next generation will be world-beaters. The question is can they carry the dead weight of their peers who went to schools with broken priorities that struggle to meet even basic standards of performance.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is no accident.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[operagost]

The question would be, where did they get the idea to conjugate "to bring" as "brung"?

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[budgenator]

Why can't their parents take some personal responsibility? If someone is dumb compared to their parents and grandparents, why aren't the parents and grandparents taking responsibility for their failures?

You would think, that because there was a time when parents actually educated their kids that it would continue. Public education gave everyone a common base to learn from and parents would enrich from their own unique skills and knowledge. Years ago an immigrant family would be bilingual, now they barely speak 2 half languages.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[operagost]

Seriously... I never engaged in rampant shoplifting, arson, or vandalism. I may have TP'd a house. I stole something ONCE. Call me goody two-shoes. My parents had too much oversight to allow me to roam with packs.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[budgenator]

Funny you should use British examples, I've read something written by Christopher Monchton, and I always have to look some of the words up in a dictionary, to make sure I am understanding them correctly, I suspect that many Blacks in the US can't read the works of Martin Luther King, even with a High School diploma.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

It wasn't intended to be witty, it was just stupid. We failed to care much about other people at that age. The rolls were $0.20 at most, so it wasn't like we were doing much harm and the store staff didn't get too torqued up about it.

In contrast, my kids think dull Facebook trolling about appearance is interesting. Even prank phone calls would be better than what they do. I don't even see good graffiti where I live, whereas when I was a kid...one night every white house in the neighborhood became a litany of curses ala "Life of Brian".

Another one I just remembered - somehow, my friends found out my parents' keyless lock entry code for their car. It was a Ford, with a 10 digit keypad built into the driver's side door window molding. Anyway, they spray painted it onto the telephone pole located diagonally from the front door of my house. 48662, assuming my parents would see it when they left the house and get upset. What they didn't realize was that the creosote and tar and whatever else coating on the telephone poles was meant to absorb spray paint, and it did. You couldn't see it - unless it rained. Then the numbers shone out clearly, but when dry you couldn't see a thing.

My parents never figured it out.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[AthanasiusKircher]

Here are charts of A-level performance (national exams taken in the UK at the end of 12th grade) which have shown steady and significant improvements since the 1960s.

What you conveniently forget to mention is that there is a continuous and pervasive media discussion in the UK about whether A-level grades have been inflated over the past few decades. There are some studies suggesting inflation anywhere from two to three complete grade levels, but that may be media exaggeration. However, even more rigorous studies seem to indicate a decline in standards over the decades, even if things have been somewhat constant for the past 15 years or so. Even the first report you link starts out by talking about how A-level grades didn't increase as much as previously in 2012 due to adjustments made to try to hold standards constant.

And frankly, I'd be absolutely shocked if there weren't at least SOME decline. Back when A-levels were first introduced in the 60s, most people taking them were headed for elite colleges. The number of participants has increased something like 8-fold since that time. If the UK somehow managed to improve teaching THAT MUCH over the past 50 years while simultaneously increasing the number of students who previously wouldn't have even considered college to take the exam... well, it would be the greatest educational miracle in the history of the world!

Bottom line is that I don't think we can draw any conclusions about "kids overall" from such stats. Standards may have changed over time. More kids take the exam, which are pooled from different demographic groups. If I had to guess, I'd assume that UK kids are probably somewhat better off in terms of "book material" than their forebears, though independent assessments of reasoning skills (i.e., non-curricular tests similar to IQ tests), etc. seem to show mild declines.

Take from that what you will... but I wouldn't just look at those graphs and assume, "Oh, everybody's so much smarter!!"

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HBI]

They came home from (public) school in Central Jersey with it. I certainly wouldn't have taught it to them.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[ljw1004]

If I had to guess, I'd assume that UK kids are probably somewhat better off in terms of "book material" than their forebears, though independent assessments of reasoning skills (i.e., non-curricular tests similar to IQ tests), etc. seem to show mild declines.

I thought that IQ tests showed marked improvements in abstract/conceptual reasoning skills, and moderate increase in vocabulary skills (4 point increase in vocab skills amongst schoolchildren from 1953 to 2006).
http://www.apa.org/monitor/201...
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

I never trust Malcom Gladwell, but he's quoted in that second article saying the exact opposite of OP: "And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average IQs of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded."

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[HornWumpus]

If you have man breasts, you're going to have to continue swallowing your own.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[PopeRatzo]

Seriously... I never engaged in rampant shoplifting, arson, or vandalism.

And you think these things are done to a greater degree today?

If so, you're wrong. I don't know when you grew up, but property crime in the US has been steadily declining for decades.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Swampash]

you misspelled "american"

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Whibla]

Purely anecdotally:

As someone who taught secondary school maths, you can take it from me A-levels have got easier. It has got so bad that 'quality' universities are now having to lay on, for want of a better word, remedial classes in certain subjects, including maths, to get their students up to a level where they can start their degree. Well, It's either this or just lower the standards of the degree - but then this is a not-particularly-surprising-outcome when a government sets an arbitrary target (I believe it was 50%) for people in higher education.

It is very difficult to make direct comparisons between the US and UK systems when it comes to education, as depth and breadth vary enormously, however when I was at school we studied calculus for AO level maths, that's roughly at age 15, a couple of years earlier than AP calculus, and a couple of years before calculus is generally taught in secondary schools today. Futhermore the treatment we gave the subject back then was considerably more thorough than is generally given today, in this country at least - I can't comment on the US system..

Having said all that my education barely touched on high level computer programming (well, if machine code wasn't your thing then your options were flavours of BASIC, so no real surprise there) and I'm sure there must be other things that children are taught today that we weren't back then...

Now, I'd like to agree with the OP, that the median child of today is less literate, less numerate, and generally less knowledgeable than the median child of yesteryear but, honestly, I find myself unable to do so, because I have no reliable frame of reference. Not only did I not know most students back when I was one (I saw only the top few percent on a daily basis) even now I can't say for sure that I've seen both the best and worst that current schools have to offer. There's a huge gap between the highest and lowest performing students, and, even discounting these extremes the whole subject is multidimensional - even ignoring the so called soft skills reducing the question to a single better or worse figure renders any answer essentially meaningless. However, I also find myself unable to agree with you. When exam rates show such a consistent year on year increase there are a number of possible explanations: Genetic evolution is making us smarter; Social evolution is making us smarter; The education system is getting better; The exams are getting easier; Some other factor I haven't thought of right now; Some of, if not all of, the previous...

It's probably overly simplistic to use Occam's Razor to arrive at an answer but I've run out of time ;-)

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[Whibla]

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head.

A few years ago I found myself assisting in the delivery of a short external course at HBS. The standard of some of the first year MBA students that attended that course was truly impressive - actually that doesn't do them justice, it was staggeringly impressive.

Whenever I feel disillusioned about the state of education today, or disheartened by what I read, or see firsthand, I find these memories somewhat comforting.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[gzuckier]

In the literal sense, they are retarded compared to children of similar age 40 years ago. Their grammar and word usage is worse, their punctuation is worse. Their grasp of mathematics is worse. Their knowledge of history is worse. Their cognizance of current events is worse.

No wonder they are susceptible to propaganda for the stupid. They are in fact the ignorant and stupid, relative to their parents and grandparents.

40 years ago, and for a generation previous, the nation valued learning, and education, and knowledge, and wisdom. we were in the space race with the satanic commies, and an arms race, and so on. we had to develop new technological wizardry so we could fight in Vietnam against the locals. Art and culture and literature and music were things to make you smarter. even rock music made you sit around and discuss, just who was the walrus, and what was a goo goo goo joob anyway? seriously discuss it, long into the night. news featured things like 60 minutes that did in depth reporting on stuff that didn't fit between mr. wilson's 30 year old cat and farmer brown's 200 lb pumpkin on the news. but you can't make tons of money on that stuff!!! mcdonald's makes more money than cordon bleu restaurants. you can't go wrong pitching lowest common denominator to the masses. then you shut down the budgets for education. lord knows we don't want our schools to actually be pleasant places to be in, let alone temples to higher learning. kids just learn all sorts of things there that contradict their parents.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[ScentCone]

Citation: Open your damn eyes. It's self evident.

Re:Modern kids are retarded (literally)

[swillden]

It's been self-evident to every generation ever that the younger generation was lazy, stupid and useless. And they've all been wrong. Why are you different?

Working as designed

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid people are easy to control.

But they definitely feel better about themselves!

[HBI]

The participation awards and the focus on self-esteem have done their part, certainly.

You give us too much faith

[deadwill69]

"At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to tell fake news from a real one."

Judging by some of the discussions over the last few days on similar articles I doubt this.

Re:You give us too much faith

[SeattleLawGuy]

"At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to tell fake news from a real one."

This is blatantly untrue. If you're sure you can spot fake news, odds are you can't. (Or at least, that you can only spot some of it.)

Re:You give us too much faith

[wvmarle]

Indeed. It's not that easy to spot fakes - especially the well done ones that rely on exaggeration and other half-truths.

Unsourced photos? Well, they can just make up a source. How can we easily see it's true or not? Same for all details given in a story.

Not everyone can spend an hour looking up details on every story they read. Usually we just have to put faith in the news outlet, faith in the reporters that write the story, and trust them that it is true and correct.

Re:You give us too much faith

[gzuckier]

"At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to tell fake news from a real one."

This is blatantly untrue. If you're sure you can spot fake news, odds are you can't. (Or at least, that you can only spot some of it.)

Spot it is one thing. Do some homework and research the primary source(s) is another. Not as difficult these days given the ubiquity of Google and the propensity for ignoring everything that does not exist on the web.

Like this is new.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the Maine!

This is nothing new: people have been lying since the invention of language, and the media do it all the time. Just ask William Randolph Hearst.

Kids aren't good at telling lies from truths, and we already knew that from thousands of years of experience with children. That's why kids are sometimes called "innocents." That's why there are stricter rules on advertising during children's programming.

They can't?!

[fustakrakich]

Jeeze! All they have to do is turn on the TV... It's all lies. Some are just better than others

Any surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

As the "legitimate" news organizations fall farther and farther due to a not-so-hidden agenda and sensationalism it's only going to be prime time for anyone who wants to make crap up. The old standard outlets even go out of their way to smear in the name of profits over principles.

Meh. Let them burn. They created this house of cards.

Re:Any surprise?

[BarbaraHudson]

They're falling further and further because the shareholders value profits over good journalism. It costs money to put journalists in the field for weeks at a time to get the real niitty-gritty instead of "reporting" on someone else's press release.

Is This Story a Fake?

[fullback]

It's so hard to tell...

Re:Is This Story a Fake?

[painandgreed]

It's so hard to tell...

Read the article. Follow the sources. More effort than most readers here will bother with.

In this case, it goes to Engadget which links to an article on the Wall Street Journal commenting on an unreleased Stanford study (apparently set for release today or next Tuesday). You could try and find the article, but in this case, the WSJ is about the most reliable source of news. People pay to read the WSJ because they expect correct news in order to base their attempts to make money. If the WSJ misportrays something and people lose billions on wrong information, they will go find a different source of news to buy. Of course, still you can't really trust the commentaries as they are just opinions and not actually news. This seems to be a legit and researched article but if I was going to base my business on it, I might spend the effort to hunt down that study and read it, and probably some others too. For a discussion on /., I'd go ahead and make the call that this is a real story with fairly reliable information (that there was a study and this is what it found out, the study still could be wrong).

Re:Is This Story a Fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

How convenient.
"it's real because WSJ said so."
And "I trust the WSJ because if they posted fake news we would know"
Circular logic.

People are literally stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you see how many people voted for Hillary or Trump?

Re:People are literally stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, tell me about it. Over 50 times we asked ourselves who we wanted to see run for President and over and over again we chose Orange Hitler vs. Grandma Nixon.

Democracies do not get the governments they need nor even the governments they want. They get the governments they deserve.

Re:People are literally stupid

[BarbaraHudson]

It was a close choice, but if I had to vote for either one, I would rather vote for Hitler. At least Hitler did something good - he killed Hitler. Maybe he could be an example for them to follow. And he's dead, so just how much damage can he do? Instead of pissing off other countries, the leaders could pay a visit and use him as a dart board. And you could invite all the neo-nazis to visit. They won;t be so hot for him after they get a smell of his rotting corpse. Try running that up a flagpole and see who salutes it.

Sanders would have beat Trump, so blame the Clintonites in the DNC for creating President Trump. At least in 2020 Elizabeth Warren will kick ass on both sides. She'll shatter the glass ceiling based on merit, not on "political dynasty" or "vote for me because vagina."

Fake News Is A New Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to Al Gore's invention of the Internet in 1991, fake news simply did not exist. We were surrounded by nothing but cold, hard facts. This made it nearly impossible to walk to school as the facts would arrange themselves as a step slope regardless of which direction one walked. It sucked. We hated it.

These days, you kids are lucky to have a warm, comforting blanket of plausible lies to surround yourself.

Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost to a despicable loud-mouthed clown because the electorate looked at her and found a lying, unscrupulous, corrupt, unlikable, arrogant harpy whose only accomplishment is marrying Bill Clinton.

Quit trying to excuse Hillary's loss. It's all on the Democrats who selected her to run for President.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost to a despicable loud-mouthed clown because the electorate looked at her and found a lying, unscrupulous, corrupt, unlikable, arrogant harpy whose only accomplishment is marrying Bill Clinton.

Quit trying to excuse Hillary's loss. It's all on the Democrats who selected her to run for President.

Give us examples of these traits of Hillary's for which you have first-hand knowledge.
I ask these things because I'm positive that you have no first-hand knowledge about any of this, or even second-hand.
All you have are reports from the media which you choose to believe.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it sounds like the OP read and believed a lot of the fake news.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[unixisc]

People who followed the Clintons during the 90s - when Trump was one of their fanbois - know all the things that you pretend don't exist. The Rose Law Firm, Hilary's Cattle Futures, Whitewater, her attempt to take over US healthcare, et al. Those were done fully utilizing the fact that her husband ran things. Then after Bill's term ended, Hilary became a senator, a role in which she achieved squat, then ran for president and thankfully got pummelled by Obama. Then became Secretary of State and managed to totally mismanage the Arab Spring crises that followed, as well as violating government rules on handling government information. Crimes that sent other people to jail.

Quit being a shill for her. The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her. I actually disagree w/ Bernie on most things, but I'll say this for him: he drew bigger crowds than Trump, and had he been the nominee, any GOP candidate - be it Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich,... would have lost in a landslide. Similar to Obama's win over Romney

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding me. The media were colluding with her campaign, they weren't reporting anything!
1. Lying: Benghazi was a spontaneous protest caused by a youtube video. Proof: See Wikileaks, she knew the night of the attack that it was a terrorist attack.
2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.
3. Corrupt: Read Clinton Cash for a long list of examples.
4. Unlikable: See any of the likeability polls that were run in 2016 about Clinton. She's got the lowest numbers ever for a Democrat presidential candidate.
5. Arrogant: See the video she gave where she wondered how she wasn't up by 50 points over Trump.
6. Harpy: harpy image 1, harpy image 2, harpy image 3. The fact is, there are numerous accounts of her throwing huge tantrums when anything doesn't go her way. Cursing and swearing, throwing objects, smashing things, firing people. She's just a horrible person.
7. Only Accomplishment is marrying Bill: Hard to prove this one either way. She has zero accomplishments before marrying him. Would she have been elected as a Senator if she wasn't the wife of a former President? Impossible to say for sure, but probably not.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary lost to a despicable loud-mouthed clown because the electorate looked at her and found a lying, unscrupulous, corrupt, unlikable, arrogant harpy whose only accomplishment is marrying Bill Clinton.

Quit trying to excuse Hillary's loss. It's all on the Democrats who selected her to run for President.

Give us examples of these traits of Hillary's for which you have first-hand knowledge.
I ask these things because I'm positive that you have no first-hand knowledge about any of this, or even second-hand.
All you have are reports from the media which you choose to believe.

Better yet, how about YOU list just ONE Hillary Clinton accomplishment.

Just one.

We won't be holding our breath.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[MerlynEmrys67]

She got her whole e-mail server wiped without a DoJ indictment. I would say that is a pretty major accomplishment.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[thegarbz]

I ask these things because I'm positive that you have no first-hand knowledge about any of this,

Are you a news hipster? Were you unable to tell real news from fake news before it was cool?

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Major Blud]

The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her.

I doubt this. Bernie never would have gotten the minority support that HIllary was able to get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...

Of course, I guess this NY Times article could be fake too :-)

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[unixisc]

This is a theory of the media that Bernie was too far left, and therefore unelectable. Just like the theory went on the Right about Trump. Remember, when Ted Cruz, National Review, Weekly Standard and a whole bunch of Never-Trumpers warned the GOP base that nominating Trump would be handing it all over to Hilary, due to all the baggage w/ blah blah blah?

A similar theory ran about Bernie - that the people would never elect a socialist, if he was nominated. Except that Bernie drew big crowds wherever he went, tied Hilary in IA and thumped her in NH, and won several states in b/w - including red states. All this despite voters knowing that Hilary was a shoo-in, thanks to the super-delegates. Now imagine if the super-delegates had not been there. More Dems would have voted according to their actual preferences, as opposed to electability. Bernie would have trounced Hilary in the same way that Obama did.

Now, in the general elections, Trump would have won all the Romney states, while Bernie would have held all the Obama states. FL and OH would have been the tossups, not WI, MI and PA. Also remember that Clinton had a major deficit w/ not only Trump, but also Bernie, when it came to Whites. Bernie would have split the vote w/ Trump here.

In the end, the election is a study in how the 2 national parties handled their voters. The RNC, despite all the pressure from the Congressional GOP i.e. the establishment, resisted the temptation to weigh in, and was neutral in the civil war that happened b/w Trump vs Bush vs Rubio vs Christie vs Cruz vs Kasich. When Trump finally beat Cruz in IN, the official party congratulated him and rallied behind him, despite the misgivings of the never-Trumpers.

Contrast that w/ the Dems. As WikiLeaks showed, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was in the tank for Clinton, as were most other DNC officials, some of whom were downright ugly in their attitudes towards Bernie. As a result, Dems who had trouble w/ Clinton sat out the election. In an attempt to deliver the election to the most electable candidate, the DNC lost bigly (to use a Trump word). And w/ them, also GOP traitors like Romney, Christie Todd Whitman, Kelly Ayotte, et al

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[unixisc]

She got to be the co-governor of AR and co-president of the US for 2 years w/ Bill.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Clinton 92: 44,909,806 (* Perot 19,743,821)
Clinton 96: 47,401,185 (* Perot 8,085,294)
Gore 00: 50,999,897
---- (above: 51 to 54 million democrats, below: 59 to 69 million democrats)
Kerry 04: 59,028,444
Obama 08: 69,498,516 (* outlier)
Obama 12: 65,915,795 (* outlier)
Clinton 16: 63,747,686

Bush 92: 39,104,550 (* Perot 19,743,821)
Dole 96: 39,197,469 (* Perot 8,085,294)
Bush 00: 50,456,002
---- (above: ~47-50 million republicans, below: 60 to 62 million republicans)
Bush 04: 62,040,610
McCain 08: 59,948,323
Romney 12: 60,933,504
Trump 16: 62,020,213

It's pretty easy to see why Clinton lost in 2016. Black voters surged in 2008, about half of those returned in 2012, but none of them returned in 2016.
See also: Black celebrities laughing and saying "I told you so" after the election.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[GerryGilmore]

The whole "Bernie could not get minority support" meme is just that. Basically, the Clintons had been playing the black community at a national level for decades. Bernie, they just had never heard of. Would they have stayed home had we won the primary? No.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Unscrupulous: When Bill Clinton was done his 2nd term, the Clintons took over $100,000 worth of White House furniture and decor. They were forced to pay or return it.

Ah, I remember this one. Once more exaggerated accusations that don't rise to the level you want to pretend it is.

Look, you want to espouse the principle that politicians should live in ascetic austerity, go ahead, but right now? You've got bupkus in the way of substance. Oh my, disagreement over who owned what, and misunderstandings. My word, the same thing happens every day in court. Every day.

But let's burn the witch, because that's the way you have to do things.

I look forward to your silence about Trump's misdeeds and peccadilloes though. It'll make listening to the crickets all the more interesting.

I do wonder how many racists will be complaining about Obama trashing the White House in some way, maybe with some note about fumigation, or getting the smell of grease out of the carpets. And of course, it won't be racist at all. Nope. Just a coincidence.

Oh, FUCK YOU :

Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House. ...

After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.

Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.

So your defense of the Clintons is effectively: they got away with stealing $76,000 worth of stuff.

You're too dumb to know how dumb you are, aren't you?

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her.

I doubt this. Bernie never would have gotten the minority support that HIllary was able to get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...

Of course, I guess this NY Times article could be fake too :-)

Umm, riiiight. Bernie couldn't have won BECAUSE THE NY TIMES SAID SO

Clinton has Solid Lead in Electoral College, Trump's Winning Map is Unclear

Re: Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Even leftist Snopes has this to say, from your own damn link:
The Clintons voluntarily returned or paid for some gifts due to dispute over whether they had been given to the Clintons personally or to the U.S.
"voluntarily" my ass - AFTER they were busted.

Voluntary. Means "Rather than argue with you, we'll just pay you some money. Happens all the time. Disagreements over who owns what, and sometimes money is an easy way to get rid of a problem.

Just ask Donald Trump. He tells us a settlement doesn't mean an admission.

Oh wait, now we are. Huh.

You lamely failed at refuting ONE of the GP's points - what about all the others?

Actually, I showed exactly why it was a farce of an accusation and you managed to confirm it. I get it, I get it, you hate her enough to rage over it. Your resentment and anger is quite evident.

Nothing will convince you to rethink your allegations.

What about Hillary approving the sale of US uranium production to Putin's oligarchs after they donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Slush Fund, err, Foundation?

At least you're not claiming she actually physically sold the uranium to the Russians. I actually saw that version passed around. But hey, why not mention the dozens of others who signed off on it?

Even the Canadians had to approve.

Apparently it is all on Clinton. Blame her for the cleanup too, why don't you

You pathetic piece of shit. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult shit like that.)

Was your mother on Thalidomide? Your brain development seems limited.

I'll wait for one of the defenders of the Right who complains about the foul-tongued and hateful left to speak up about your incivility. What do you think, when pigs fly, or when Frosty survives Hell?

Still waiting on the Photoshops though.

Re: Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, FUCK YOU :
Former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, have sent $28,000 worth of household goods back to Washington after questions arose over whether the items were intended as personal gifts or donations to the White House. ...
After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return.
So your defense of the Clintons is effectively: they got away with stealing $76,000 worth of stuff.
You're too dumb to know how dumb you are, aren't you?

Ah, still sticking to the 200,000$ number. Reality, a routine disagreement over a division of property arises, and it is settled in a non-eventful fashion.

Yet you, you, are still convinced there is something nefarious to it.

These kinds of arguments are made in courts across the country. Sure, occasionally you get dastardly plots, but many times it is just confusion or misunderstanding.

But to you, because it was the Clintons, so obviously they got away with something. Obviously.

The fiends.

Fuck it, if I was Obama, I'd strip the White House empty down to the outlet plates and donate it to Trump's ex-wife's charity. Might as well go all out with it. Trump probably wants to remake the place anyway.

Re: Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just surprised that the Kenyan Muslim Anti-Colonial Socialist didn't destroy America like everybody said he would.

He still has a few weeks, so maybe there's hope.

Meanwhile Trump is backpedaling like crazy, and it looks like he is going to end up 2 million votes behind. It'd be really funny if Hillary uncovers evidence to show the election was rigged.

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[gzuckier]

Hillary lost to a despicable loud-mouthed clown because the electorate looked at her and found a lying, unscrupulous, corrupt, unlikable, arrogant harpy whose only accomplishment is marrying Bill Clinton.

Quit trying to excuse Hillary's loss. It's all on the Democrats who selected her to run for President.

"The media lies! And Hillary is a lying, unscrupulous, corrupt, unlikable, arrogant harpy whose only accomplishment is marrying Bill Clinton! I don't actually know her, but that's what the media tells me!"

Re:Hillary did not lose because of fake news

[gzuckier]

People who followed the Clintons during the 90s - when Trump was one of their fanbois - know all the things that you pretend don't exist. The Rose Law Firm, Hilary's Cattle Futures, Whitewater, her attempt to take over US healthcare, et al. Those were done fully utilizing the fact that her husband ran things. Then after Bill's term ended, Hilary became a senator, a role in which she achieved squat, then ran for president and thankfully got pummelled by Obama. Then became Secretary of State and managed to totally mismanage the Arab Spring crises that followed, as well as violating government rules on handling government information. Crimes that sent other people to jail.

Quit being a shill for her. The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her. I actually disagree w/ Bernie on most things, but I'll say this for him: he drew bigger crowds than Trump, and had he been the nominee, any GOP candidate - be it Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich,... would have lost in a landslide. Similar to Obama's win over Romney

Yes, of course, those not quite 50% of the voters who make up more than 50% of the electoral votes and want to roll back the Muslim Kenyan's Rule of Terror and Hillary's determination to steal our guns so that Muslims can give us all abortions and force us to marry people of our same sex, are just dying to vote for somebody labeled "socialist".

Sarcasm

[nitehawk214]

No surprise here. Kids can't get sarcasm either.

Re:Sarcasm

[Sir_Eptishous]

No surprise here. Kids can't get sarcasm either.

So true, but then again, sarcasm is a Gen X thing.
Once were gone everything will be literal, figuratively.

Re:Sarcasm

[nitehawk214]

No, every time a new generation discovers sarcasm they treat it like it is the greatest invention of all time.

Re:Sarcasm

[MerlynEmrys67]

Don't forget to Ban DiHydrogen Monoxide

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

The ability of understanding sarcasm should develop in children at around 10 years of age. In the internet, the ability to understand sarcasm seems to be a complex function of mental age, the amount of mod points in Slashdot and the amount of alcohol and/or [holy book] lessons consumed at that day.

Re:Sarcasm

[gzuckier]

No, every time a new generation discovers sarcasm they treat it like it is the greatest invention of all time.

There's a sarcasm gene that kicks in when you hit puberty, so that your parents will get fed up with you and kick you out of the cave so you can reproduce.

Re:Sarcasm

[nitehawk214]

That gene also serves to protect young children from being killed by their parents.

Who is surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you expect when you do not emphasize critical thinking and analysis? The American school system has never been about teaching kids how to think, just what to think, to accept the corporate American mindset. This makes for the best workers who will do their jobs but never question the overall system.

Re:Who is surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that there are a lot of parents that don't want their children to have critical thinking skills. It can lead to the children challenging some of the beliefs of the parents, and perhaps choosing different paths in life.

Religion is a perfect example of such a conflict. Religion is something you are supposed to take on faith without challenging the orthodoxy, and children are expected to continue in the church that the parents belong to. If the children had critical thinking skills, it could lead to the children concluding that what the church is teaching is a bunch of bunk.

Many politicians like a populace with no critical thinking skills - for want of a better word, let's call them "sheeple". It means that they can "win" an argument with put-downs and cheap shots, and never address the actual issues at hand. And for that matter, the politicians are never expected to explain the inconsistencies and fallacies in their own views.

Companies like sheeple too - people are more inclined to buy some piece of crap based upon some stupid jingle in a TV ad.

Re:Who is surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe some schools are like that. Certainly going through the system in the late 80s and early 90s my school was all about critical thinking.

For me Charter schools are the main evil as they provide many of the same benefits of a private school while still being free.

The main benefit being that good kids are taken from the public school system and placed into separate schools making public schools full of less than average students. It used to be we all merged together and our diversity made our education that much better. You were subject to people with different opinions and had to learn how to cope.

Re:Who is surprised?

[gzuckier]

What do you expect when you do not emphasize critical thinking and analysis? The American school system has never been about teaching kids how to think, just what to think, to accept the corporate American mindset. This makes for the best workers who will do their jobs but never question the overall system.

American manufacturing became dominant when it learned to convert from individual fitting and adjusting and tweaking of unique parts to make a finished device, to starting with identical interchangeable parts and subassemblies that can be assembled mass production style. Naturally, the principle spread to white collar work and the individual units that go into it. We're not very good at it yet, though; our "educational" industry has a rate of production products which fail usability which would never be acceptable for any other industry. Worse yet, they seem to be able to self-assemble into contraptions which gum up the works.

It's almost like

[Anonymous Coward]

The public school system isn't doing it's job.

Re:It's almost like

[__aaclcg7560]

In other news, snow is wet.

Re:It's almost like

[ClickOnThis]

The public school system isn't doing it's job.

You can say that again. ("it's" == "it is".)

Re:It's almost like

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar!

BREAKING NEWS:

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids tend to be dumb. Film at eleven.

Unsurprised

[jxander]

This clearly illustrates the one area where schools lack: critical thinking

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization:
Memorize your multiplication tables.
Memorize the dates of the Egyptian empire
Memorize the themes in To Kill a Mockingbird
Memorize that mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

They are given a book, told "this book is truth, memorize this book," and so yeah, seeing an article with ulterior motives would throw them for a loop.

If you want better politicians, you need a better populace. If you want a better populace, you're going to need a better public school system that teaches students more than just numbers and facts. We need to teach them how to think critically, how to examine the world around them, and how to leverage the internet as a nearly unlimited resource, while being wary of the ability for any random jack-hole to post some spurious shit on their blog.

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

This clearly illustrates the one area where schools lack: critical thinking

>

That is by design in Texas. The 2012 Texas GOP platform opposed the teaching of critical thinking in schools. www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The decline of critical thinking being taught in schools coincides with the push to perform standardized testing on all our students.
Why did the push for standardized testing come about?
Glad you asked that, some people were looking for a way to evaluate teachers to get rid of the bad ones, to do that they wanted an objective measure of student performance, ergo standardized testing.
Teachers realized that to keep their jobs the kids had to do well on standardized tests so...the tests were taught do the detriment of teaching critical thinking.

So the push to retain better teachers (Standardized Testing) has resulted in less educated students. Who would have thought.

Re:Unsurprised

[Archangel Michael]

Our School system isn't designed to memorize rote. It is designed to produce Factory Workers, from a style that is 120 years old. Instead of highly customized and accelerated learning for those that want education, we end up with "lowest common denominator" drag to the bottom.

What we don't do any more is require Mastery or even Competency in subjects. Everyone is given participation grades and then we wonder why our kids can't do basic math. We throw good money after bad money trying to solve problems that money doesn't fix. We have entire weeks dedicated to "testing" our kids every year, and no actual results to show for it. Our system is broken because we have people educating from the top down, and not from the students up.

In an effort to have "No Child Left Behind" we spend inordinate amounts of efforts trying to educate kids who do not want, or otherwise cant be educated, while ignoring the best and brightest, leaving them to be "bored" and hate school. We are afraid to allow excellence, because that makes others have low self esteem if they cannot measure up. We end up Punishing success, rewarding failure, and wonder why.

I work in education. I see the results of this top down approach to industrial education, and it can no longer work. But we are too damn scared to actually let people free to find out better ways, and instead are continuing to listen to people who do not know anything to tell the rest of us how enlightened they are.

My fix is quite simple. Vouchers for everyone. We'll get teachers that can teach, teaching kids who want to learn, with parents involved because they can actively participate in the education of their children. The only people who complain about such a system are the once more concerned about other people's kdis than they are about educating their own.

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The decline of critical thinking being taught in schools coincides with the push to perform standardized testing on all our students.

O tempora o mores!

Re:Unsurprised

[ljw1004]

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization: ... Memorize your multiplication tables.

I don't think that's true. Twenty years ago kids were taught to do long multiplication, long division etc. as a straightforward set of rote instructions that they had to memorize and apply blindly.

More recently as part of "new maths" they're told to solve these problems differently -- with techniques that are no longer the rote application of instructions, but instead require creativity and understanding of what the numbers represent. http://www.nbcwashington.com/n...

I'm in two minds about this. As a computer scientist, I loved that kids were learning ALGORITHMs, and they're missing out on that now. But as someone who cares about maths, I'm happy that they're understanding numbers better. (even if it leaves their less mentally agile parents dismayed, like in the above link).

Re:Unsurprised

[AthanasiusKircher]

If you want a better populace, you're going to need a better public school system that teaches students more than just numbers and facts. We need to teach them how to think critically, how to examine the world around them, and how to leverage the internet as a nearly unlimited resource, while being wary of the ability for any random jack-hole to post some spurious shit on their blog.

Our public school system was NEVER designed to do such things. As someone who has actually taught within it, I know the history. It was designed to train obedient factory workers -- seriously, timed classes with students responding to bells? Look back at some sources from the early 1900s, and you'll see people explicitly talking about how the system was designed to imitate factories. Real in-depth learning doesn't take place in neatly managed 45-minute blocks, sounded to an end by a buzzer.

At first, this sort of thing was just about primary education -- train kids with basic reading and math skills; enough to survive as a basic factory worker. (The huge influx of immigrants in the late 1800s, many of whom didn't have the tradition of going to grammar schools that was already in place in the U.S. even in the early 1800s, led to these reforms.)

But then it spread to secondary schools. Why? Because of the problem of dangerous "young radicals." Kids back in the early 1900s, like teenagers in any era, tend to be more rebellious. You had a LOT of young folks taking up with socialist causes, unions, etc. in the 1910s and 1920s, so suddenly we had compulsory education laws requiring kids to attend school beyond primary level. (Before the 1930s or so, it was pretty common in most of the U.S. for working-class kids to leave school at somewhere between 4th and 6th grade.) And the Great Depression that followed led a bunch of kids to "stay in school" in an attempt to get better educational credentials for jobs -- sound familiar??

So, what do we do with these "young radicals"? Increasing child labor laws and protections for young workers forced them out of jobs even before the Depression, so you end up with a bunch of idle teenagers who are bound to get up to all sorts of mischief. So, we get them off the streets and force them into classrooms, where we can indoctrinate them with good social values like civil obedience. Around this time, we also see the proliferation of alternative high school curricula -- for vocational or technical tracks. Previously, almost all secondary schools in the U.S. had been centered around "deeper learning" as part of a college-prep curriculum.

Oh yeah, there were other goals in educational reform too... some quite noble. But we tend to forget that the design of public education was never about "advanced learning." Take a look at the high-school curricula from the late 1800s sometime, before the movement for mass secondary ed. The standards were a LOT higher, and they continued to be high in the 20th century in private academies and such. The new PUBLIC schools were mostly designed to get the rest of the riff-raff off the streets and get them to submit to authority.

Now, in that context, you can understand why all of the rhetoric about "teaching critical thinking" in public schools has been an uphill battle. The whole system was originally rigged against that... it wasn't designed to promote "free thinking," because that's antithetical to many of the primary goals of the system.

Re:Unsurprised

[jxander]

More recently as part of "new maths" they're told to solve these problems differently -- with techniques that are no longer the rote application of instructions, but instead require creativity and understanding of what the numbers represent. http://www.nbcwashington.com/n... [nbcwashington.com]

You know, it took me a minute, but I actually like the concepts in the "new math" subtraction.

They're trying to illustrate that subtraction is fundamentally the distance between two points. [32 - 12 = 20] because there are 20 points of difference between those two numbers. You can use "milestones" along the way to demonstrate that: From 12 to 15, from 15 to 20, from 20 to 30, and from 30 to 32. You chart a path from one end to the other, and measure the steps you took (3, 5, 10 and 2). Add up the steps to arrive at your answer.

You probably use a similar process when mathing out bigger numbers in your head. If you calculate [1000 - 432 = 568] in your head, you might figure out the big chunk, from 1000 down to 500, before sussing out the smaller part. Or you could go the other way and solve 432 up to 500, then finish out to 1000. Personally, I solved for 430, and just shaved off 2. Similar process, just taken further.

They have to start the learning on simple problems [32 - 12] to prove the concept to kids. Then work their way up to more complex stuff.

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization: ... Memorize your multiplication tables.

I don't think that's true. Twenty years ago kids were taught to do long multiplication, long division etc. as a straightforward set of rote instructions that they had to memorize and apply blindly.

Huh? I learned that 35 years ago. We learned the algorithms because you might need to do some math - and pocket calculators weren't everywhere in those days.

But it was not 'a set of rote instructions to apply blindly'. We learned how multiplication worked, with rectangles divided into lots of little squares. Useful, for we could count the squares when doubting the calculation. The rectangles also made it blindingly obvious that 5*3 must be the same as 3*5, a fact not obvious to kids. If the multiplication tables were hard - you could get by knowing only half of it by using this fact.

Then came long multiplication. Sure, it is a 'procedure'. But they told us why it works, tying it to the positional number system (ones, tens, hundreds, thousands,...) Same with long division, showing how it works not merely how to use it. It was boring, but tolerable. Not knowing why it works would be intolerable, not knowing why we divide stuff would make it totally pointless.

But as someone who cares about maths, I'm happy that they're understanding numbers better. (even if it leaves their less mentally agile parents dismayed, like in the above link).

They should understand that they can't expect parents to help out when they use new methods. But homework is not about 'complete this work because it must be done'. It is about working enough with something so you remember. So do the hardest parts that require the most guidance at school, when using 'new methods'.

Re:Unsurprised

[CrimsonAvenger]

Fascinating that you're in education...

instead are continuing to listen to people who do not know anything to tell the rest of us how enlightened they are.

Remove that word, and it's grammatical.

The only people who complain about such a system are the once more concerned about other people's kdis than they are about educating their own.

Ones. Not "once"...

Re:Unsurprised

[stealth_finger]

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization: ... Memorize your multiplication tables.

I don't think that's true. Twenty years ago kids were taught to do long multiplication, long division etc. as a straightforward set of rote instructions that they had to memorize and apply blindly.

More recently as part of "new maths" they're told to solve these problems differently -- with techniques that are no longer the rote application of instructions, but instead require creativity and understanding of what the numbers represent. http://www.nbcwashington.com/n...

I'm in two minds about this. As a computer scientist, I loved that kids were learning ALGORITHMs, and they're missing out on that now. But as someone who cares about maths, I'm happy that they're understanding numbers better. (even if it leaves their less mentally agile parents dismayed, like in the above link).

Well yeah, there are steps to do math and established ways to work it out from start to finish, follow the steps and you'll get the correct answer. This new math is mindboggling how difficult they want to make something that's relatively simple, the best part of it is that you have to do math before you start doing the math. Take that example you posted, where is the math showing how the split the second number into smaller numbers in order to be able to add them back up again instead of just adding the two numbers? Are saying kids can't add more than 10 to something yet they can easily divide ane subtract in their heads. What about the bit that says 3+3+3+3+3 isnt the same as 5+5+5 when doing 3x5? http://uk.businessinsider.com/...

Re:Unsurprised

[stealth_finger]

You know, it took me a minute, but I actually like the concepts in the "new math" subtraction.

They're trying to illustrate that subtraction is fundamentally the distance between two points. [32 - 12 = 20] because there are 20 points of difference between those two numbers. You can use "milestones" along the way to demonstrate that: From 12 to 15, from 15 to 20, from 20 to 30, and from 30 to 32. You chart a path from one end to the other, and measure the steps you took (3, 5, 10 and 2).

What I don't get is why its split into 3,5,10 and 2, why not 10, 10, 2. or 10, 5, 5, 2. If it's about charting the steps you'd just do 32-1=31 31-1=30 twelve times. Most people, I assume, chunk numbers up in their heads when doing simple metal arithmetic but I assume people do that in the way that is best for them, going up, down, working in fractions or whatever. This way seems to be extremely strict on doing things in an even more specific way without having any real sense about it. Maybe the 3,5,10,2 takes you to working in 5s and the difference for your answer but then it's taking a needlessly complex route to get back to simplicity.

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:Unsurprised

[gzuckier]

This clearly illustrates the one area where schools lack: critical thinking

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization: Memorize your multiplication tables. Memorize the dates of the Egyptian empire Memorize the themes in To Kill a Mockingbird Memorize that mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

They are given a book, told "this book is truth, memorize this book," and so yeah, seeing an article with ulterior motives would throw them for a loop.

If you want better politicians, you need a better populace. If you want a better populace, you're going to need a better public school system that teaches students more than just numbers and facts. We need to teach them how to think critically, how to examine the world around them, and how to leverage the internet as a nearly unlimited resource, while being wary of the ability for any random jack-hole to post some spurious shit on their blog.

That's part of it, of course; but also there is a sorting system which selects a minority to be entered into the ruling class. The criteria for said selection do not have to be precise nor explicit, the point is that you have to create a small sumpopulation somehow. Like bees selecting a particular larva to develop into a queen.

Re:Unsurprised

[gzuckier]

Our School system isn't designed to memorize rote. It is designed to produce Factory Workers, from a style that is 120 years old. Instead of highly customized and accelerated learning for those that want education, we end up with "lowest common denominator" drag to the bottom.

What we don't do any more is require Mastery or even Competency in subjects. Everyone is given participation grades and then we wonder why our kids can't do basic math. We throw good money after bad money trying to solve problems that money doesn't fix. We have entire weeks dedicated to "testing" our kids every year, and no actual results to show for it. Our system is broken because we have people educating from the top down, and not from the students up.

In an effort to have "No Child Left Behind" we spend inordinate amounts of efforts trying to educate kids who do not want, or otherwise cant be educated, while ignoring the best and brightest, leaving them to be "bored" and hate school. We are afraid to allow excellence, because that makes others have low self esteem if they cannot measure up. We end up Punishing success, rewarding failure, and wonder why.

I work in education. I see the results of this top down approach to industrial education, and it can no longer work. But we are too damn scared to actually let people free to find out better ways, and instead are continuing to listen to people who do not know anything to tell the rest of us how enlightened they are.

My fix is quite simple. Vouchers for everyone. We'll get teachers that can teach, teaching kids who want to learn, with parents involved because they can actively participate in the education of their children. The only people who complain about such a system are the once more concerned about other people's kdis than they are about educating their own.

The First Rule of School is: sit in one place for 8 hours (except when directed to move elsewhere by a Designated Authority) and do not make any noises or large movements, except when directed to by a Designated Authority. Everything else is optional. If you can manage that, you've got a future in the Adult World of Work. If you can't, you're screwed.

Re:Unsurprised

[gzuckier]

Our school system is really only designed to enable rote memorization: ... Memorize your multiplication tables.

I don't think that's true. Twenty years ago kids were taught to do long multiplication, long division etc. as a straightforward set of rote instructions that they had to memorize and apply blindly.

More recently as part of "new maths" they're told to solve these problems differently -- with techniques that are no longer the rote application of instructions, but instead require creativity and understanding of what the numbers represent. http://www.nbcwashington.com/n...

I'm in two minds about this. As a computer scientist, I loved that kids were learning ALGORITHMs, and they're missing out on that now. But as someone who cares about maths, I'm happy that they're understanding numbers better. (even if it leaves their less mentally agile parents dismayed, like in the above link).

On another note, one of the worst failings of my schooling, back in the days of dinosaurs, was that the boys all got shop and the girls all got home economics. Now I thought shop was great, in all the manifestations we were taught, and I bet a lot of women would have benefited; but in the end, everybody needs to learn some home ec if they intend to move out of their parents' basements.

Re:Unsurprised

[gzuckier]

If you want a better populace, you're going to need a better public school system that teaches students more than just numbers and facts. We need to teach them how to think critically, how to examine the world around them, and how to leverage the internet as a nearly unlimited resource, while being wary of the ability for any random jack-hole to post some spurious shit on their blog.

Our public school system was NEVER designed to do such things. As someone who has actually taught within it, I know the history. It was designed to train obedient factory workers -- seriously, timed classes with students responding to bells? Look back at some sources from the early 1900s, and you'll see people explicitly talking about how the system was designed to imitate factories. Real in-depth learning doesn't take place in neatly managed 45-minute blocks, sounded to an end by a buzzer.

At first, this sort of thing was just about primary education -- train kids with basic reading and math skills; enough to survive as a basic factory worker. (The huge influx of immigrants in the late 1800s, many of whom didn't have the tradition of going to grammar schools that was already in place in the U.S. even in the early 1800s, led to these reforms.)

But then it spread to secondary schools. Why? Because of the problem of dangerous "young radicals." Kids back in the early 1900s, like teenagers in any era, tend to be more rebellious. You had a LOT of young folks taking up with socialist causes, unions, etc. in the 1910s and 1920s, so suddenly we had compulsory education laws requiring kids to attend school beyond primary level. (Before the 1930s or so, it was pretty common in most of the U.S. for working-class kids to leave school at somewhere between 4th and 6th grade.) And the Great Depression that followed led a bunch of kids to "stay in school" in an attempt to get better educational credentials for jobs -- sound familiar??

So, what do we do with these "young radicals"? Increasing child labor laws and protections for young workers forced them out of jobs even before the Depression, so you end up with a bunch of idle teenagers who are bound to get up to all sorts of mischief. So, we get them off the streets and force them into classrooms, where we can indoctrinate them with good social values like civil obedience. Around this time, we also see the proliferation of alternative high school curricula -- for vocational or technical tracks. Previously, almost all secondary schools in the U.S. had been centered around "deeper learning" as part of a college-prep curriculum.

Oh yeah, there were other goals in educational reform too... some quite noble. But we tend to forget that the design of public education was never about "advanced learning." Take a look at the high-school curricula from the late 1800s sometime, before the movement for mass secondary ed. The standards were a LOT higher, and they continued to be high in the 20th century in private academies and such. The new PUBLIC schools were mostly designed to get the rest of the riff-raff off the streets and get them to submit to authority.

Now, in that context, you can understand why all of the rhetoric about "teaching critical thinking" in public schools has been an uphill battle. The whole system was originally rigged against that... it wasn't designed to promote "free thinking," because that's antithetical to many of the primary goals of the system.

We're still overthinking the topic, I believe; the major single basic purpose of school is essentially day care for the kids so the parents can do factory work and housework. Stamping them into replacement parts for when their parents wear out is just gravy.

Re:Unsurprised

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want better politicians, you need a better populace.

No, we need a better politician trap. The last great improvement was invented by the french -in 1789.

Original WSJ article

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that don't click on sources (ironic considering the article...)

The original on WSJ has a lot more detailed info and examples.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/most-students-dont-know-when-news-is-fake-stanford-study-finds-1479752576

Re:Original WSJ article

[houstonbofh]

I too enjoyed the irony of a summery of a summery of an article about how no one checks the sources! :) We must have some young adults on the editing team as well...

Re:Original WSJ article

[Anonymous Coward]

What's funny is that you had a source (spell) checker at hand when you wrote the word "summary" as "summery" - TWICE - and you still managed to fail to spell it correctly.

Re:Original WSJ article

[houstonbofh]

It is a "spell Checker" not a "grammar checker." Auto-correct functioned as intended... Badly.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance and confidence, that's always a winning combination.

There's only one true source for truth!

[Yvan256]

http://www.theonion.com/

Re:There's only one true source for truth!

[houstonbofh]

And http://www.cracked.com/ ... Sadly two of the better news sources out there.

Re:There's only one true source for truth!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man are you guys misinformed. http://zapatopi.net/ Daljit is my heartthrob.

Re:There's only one true source for truth!

[Anonymous Coward]

Always be sure to get your military news from the http://www.duffelblog.com/

Easiest way to spot fake news...

[Anonymous Coward]

It has WORDS in all CAPS. Seriously. As soon as I see a 'news' story that has words in caps, I ignore it.

Re:Easiest way to spot fake news...

[stealth_finger]

Or if the headline is written as a question. If the news is asking you, the answer is no, move on.

No wonders here.

[Anonymous Coward]

"A Stanford study of 7,804 middle school, high school and college students has found that most of them couldn't identify fake news on their own."

No wonders here because the entire test group has almost zero life experience.

Useless, expensive, fail study.

Propaganda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect to see the phrase 'fake news' being used over and over again in established media articles.

In a related story ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents tend to be as well ...

Phishing

[Sir_Eptishous]

Why did many of the students misjudge the authenticity of a story? They were fixated on the appearance of legitimacy, rather than the quality of information.

This is the same reason people get nailed by spear phishing.

Re:Phishing

[sinij]

Pedantic correction: You get speared by spear phishing. You probably were thinking about Jesus, he got nailed.

Re:Phishing

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were going to say...
It is the same reason people get nailed by the attractive jerk -- he/she looks handsome/pretty so they have sex only to discover the person lacks quality!

Re:Phishing

[gzuckier]

Why did many of the students misjudge the authenticity of a story? They were fixated on the appearance of legitimacy, rather than the quality of information.

This is the same reason people get nailed by spear phishing.

Con men in general. You get a badly spelled email offering you a share of a Nigerian prince's inheritance, and you toss it with a sneer. You get a notice of an investment opportunity from Bernie Madoff and you at least consider it. Or you get an offer to "Make America Great" from somebody in the middle.

Fake study

[Art Challenor]

This study is completely fake and the numbers are just a complete fabrication. (OK, really, did you verify it before posting that this is this NOT fake news because it's on ./??)

Evaluation Skills

[wisnoskij]

The real problem is that many people simply have no inbuilt way to evaluate the truthiness of an article. They do not even know where to start. And so label anything they disagree with as fake, and everything they agree with as truth. Their is as much, if not more, of a problem with real legit news being considered fake as their is fake storied being believed.

Re:Evaluation Skills

[gweihir]

And that is exactly the problem: People that do not know their limits. "Incompetent and unaware of it" captures this extremely well.

Re:Evaluation Skills

[gzuckier]

The real problem is that many people simply have no inbuilt way to evaluate the truthiness of an article. They do not even know where to start. And so label anything they disagree with as fake, and everything they agree with as truth. Their is as much, if not more, of a problem with real legit news being considered fake as their is fake storied being believed.

Some people "live in their head". some people "live in their gut". Actually, obviously everybody does some of both, but people do tend to be polarized more into one or the other direction. Means that some people assemble as much evidence as they can and go over it analytically and make their decisions that way, and others decide by a rapid unconscious process which bypasses conscious rational analysis. Lately there's been attention paid to this, by the folks who do rigorous analytical thinking, and it's apparent that these are two subgroups who do not get along because they cannot reproduce each others' thought processes and decisions and therefore mistrust each others' motives and POV and conclusions, and trying to build bridges between the two doesn't work very well. And: since the Enlightenment, society has skewed more and more to the analytical, rational, judgmental, side, and as technology has become more powerful and successful, that type of person has become more highly valued and rewarded, at least in the industrialized world. Which means that the people left out, are the very ones who are least capable of evaluating the truth or falsity of what is presented to them on any other basis than it feels true, based on what they're already decided.

More fucking bullshit

[whodunit]

I'm fucking sick of this narrativr being pushed on Slashdot. Your first clue that it's politically motivated should have been President Obama using his presidential podium to bitch about it. Your latest should have been how quickly China latched onto the bandwagon. Those with longer memories might recall that China has enforced internet censorship using this exact rationale before; "anti-social misinformation." But "fake news" is much more succinct - it implies that "real news" can only come from "real news sources." Coincidentally this endless propaganda blitz only started after it was revealed how much election info people got from their friends on Facebook. It's yet another media attempt to solidify - nay reclaim - their oligarchal status as outlets that people trusted implicitly. One need look no further than their current behavior - where they are issuing hysterical semons about Trump being "the least transparent President in history" because he didn't inform the media before stepping out for a fucking steak dinner - to see the depths of their panic. After a campaign season where they dropped the last pretenses of objectivity and did their level best to destroy Trump - only to see him win the Presidency - they know their former sainted and respected status as Messengers From Olympus is no more. They can shriek and rage and stomp their feet all they want but nothing will change this. Trump uses Twitter to speak to the masses directly, which underscores the point: they are not just no longer trusted, but no longer needed.

No number of propaganda articles will change that.

Re:More fucking bullshit

[jergantic]

You really think news organizations' reputations are baseless and that journalism has been rendered obsolete because the president-to-be lets us know everything we ought to know in his manic bursts of communication through Twitter and YouTube?

You seem to suffer from a strange combination of cynicism and credulousness.

Re:More fucking bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

> You really think news organizations' reputations are baseless and that journalism has been rendered obsolete because the president-to-be lets us know everything we ought to know in his manic bursts of communication through Twitter and YouTube?
No, I think it because those very same organizations published story after story about how Trump had 0% chance to win, gaming was dead, white men are racist, and all kinds of other sensationalized bullshit.
They pissed away any reputation they had years ago.

Re:More fucking bullshit

[NetNed]

The hypocrisy of it is that the Smith-Mundt act was repealed while Obama has been in office yet he is "worried" about "fake news".

Re:More fucking bullshit

[DogDude]

What in the fuck are you talking about? Reality is a "narrative"? Really?

There are a lot of dumb people believing dumb shit (including yourself, obviously). Society is being affected in bad ways, as a result. The truth doesn't need you the believe it's "narrative" or not.

Thank God

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank God for all the shit my older sister gave me--tricking me into believing stupid shit. Thank my Dad for letting her do it, within reason. Those people probably didn't get pranked hard enough. They ended up like this guy I knew in highschool who went to NYC and got sold an "authentic switch blade" in a paper bag, for $10. It turned out to be s Snickers' bar.

I predict phishing ...

[Anonymous Coward]

will become a most lucrative profession :-(

It is ALL fake news

[lessthan0]

Ron Paul compiled a list of fake news from mainstream/big media based on the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta. There was amazing collaboration between the Clinton campaign and major media outlets, and spin perpetrated on the world. It is shameful.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list

Offenders include ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Daily Beast, Huff Po, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, Politico, Washington Post and more.

Polls were rigged by oversampling democrats vs. republicans/independents so many were flat wrong. Aggregate sites like 538 were wrong. "Legitimate" news sites pushed a common agenda and it was fake. Your only hope is to read multiple outlets, traditional and non-traditional news, with very different points of view, focus on facts, know that the EVERY reporter is biased, take that into account, and draw your own conclusions.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past."
-- George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

Re:It is ALL fake news

[jergantic]

This is some random joker with a blog who simply listed all major news organizations as fake because they "told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". He provides no sources to back up this claim. These news sites did not, in reality, tell us this; they told us that this was claimed by the US government, which was true.

538 simply performed a statistical analysis of the polls. They gave Trump around a 30% chance of winning and wrote multiple stories emphasizing that it wasn't a done deal. They were not "wrong".

Re:It is ALL fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul, a former Senator and Presidential Candidate, is a "random joker"? I think you lost me on credibility at the beginning.

538 was wrong 11 of the 12 primaries with Trump, they were wrong on pretty much all swing states (except NH and VA). So every time 538 had a decent chance of being wrong they were wrong about 90% of the time. If you made anti-538 and just picked opposite of every close race you would be hailed a genius for being correct so often.

So, you don't know prominent figures, and think complete failure is success.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[brewthatistrue]

I tried your link but it merely has a screenshot of hyperlinks to sources but doesn't have the actual hyperlinks.

http://www.ronpaullibertyrepor...

Do you know the source that was screenshotted?

Re:It is ALL fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone talks about this list as "fake news", the graphic itself says it's reporters who talked to the Clinton campaign, which is completely different, and it conveniently lists only "mainstream media" sites while ignoring the "alt" sites which are 100% lies and conspiracy theories.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[andydouble07]

"Oversampling" is a polling method for getting a lower margin of error among one of the subgroups in a poll. For example if you're extremely interested in whether 18-30 year-olds support a policy at a 49% rate or a 51% rate, and a 3% margin of error is too much, you might oversample that age group. It does nothing to the overall results of the poll, just makes the margin of error smaller in one of the subgroups. Try to learn a few basic things about how the world works before claiming that everything is "rigged".

Re:It is ALL fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I've seen that screenshot before. Strange that, it's always presented as a screenshot.

Now, here's an exercise for you: why don't you actually do as it suggests, go to the Wikileaks database and search for those journalists' names? I tried that (with a sample of 3), and found absolutely nothing to suggest any relationship, improper or otherwise, between the named journalists and Clinton, her campaign, the DNC, or Podesta. The names came up, sure - but every link was to an email in which the journalist's published story was being quoted, and the email sender had only included the name as a byline.

So the news here is "Clinton analysts tried to do their job". They sent emails quoting news stories, and correctly sourcing and attributing the news stories. Shocking, I know.

But this list insinuates that there is something sinister going on. And unless you do actually check it yourself (and who can be bothered with that, I've got some serious Call of Duty to play here), you'd think "Aha, a smoking gun!"

Re:It is ALL fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Source with LINKS to citations:
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list

Re:It is ALL fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, so it was all Dick Cheney. He is the only guy who lied and everybody else parroted. Everybody else is absolved of responsibility. Too bad Russia was too weak to protect Iraq from you bastards, their own fault, I guess.

Yeah, the MSM are highly paid whores.

Karma will come for you devil worshippers.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[budgenator]

538 simply performed a statistical analysis of the polls. They gave Trump around a 30% chance of winning and wrote multiple stories emphasizing that it wasn't a done deal. They were not "wrong".

If you know anything about statistics, you would know that simply due to the sampling sizes of the polls being "analysed", the best they could do is blowing smoke up people's asses. Being right by accident doesn't make you a statistician.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[quantaman]

Ron Paul compiled a list of fake news from mainstream/big media based on the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta.

Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta:
a) They reported (endorsed?) the Bush claims on WMDs.
b) They reported on Obama's false claim of "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
c) They (probably) miscalculated the probability of a Trump victory.
d) They supposedly disagreed with the author's assessment of the economy.

And the article was by Chris Rossini, not Ron Paul.

I was tempted to point out the ridiculous justification the author used to claim respectable media establishments were "fake news".

But I was too distracted by the irony of your summary containing multiple falsehoods.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[quantaman]

Actually the list of "fake news" sites you cited is built on 4 criteria, none of which are Wikileaks or John Podesta:

I should point out that they do have a picture of a list of hyperlinks of media sources that supposedly "colluded" with the Clinton campaign. Even if that claim was correct they don't actually show it resulting in fake stories.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[dcooper_db9]

Yet another article reinforcing the idea that "the media" is liberal and biased against right wing views. This isn't a list of fake news stories., it's a list of journalists. There's no specific claim even made and the "source" is a link to wikileaks. Not to a document on wikieaks, just to the website. the "list" doesn't mention John Podesta's name and it doesn't even suggest that these journalists conspired with anyone.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[gzuckier]

Ron Paul compiled a list of fake news from mainstream/big media based on the Wikileaks emails from John Podesta. There was amazing collaboration between the Clinton campaign and major media outlets, and spin perpetrated on the world. It is shameful.

http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/revealed-the-real-fake-news-list

Offenders include ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Daily Beast, Huff Po, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, Politico, Washington Post and more.

Polls were rigged by oversampling democrats vs. republicans/independents so many were flat wrong. Aggregate sites like 538 were wrong. "Legitimate" news sites pushed a common agenda and it was fake. Your only hope is to read multiple outlets, traditional and non-traditional news, with very different points of view, focus on facts, know that the EVERY reporter is biased, take that into account, and draw your own conclusions.

"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four

And the list from Ron Paul comes without being cluttered by any underlying data or such; that's how we know it's not "opinion". "Your only hope is to read multiple outlets, traditional and non-traditional news, with very different points of view, focus on facts, know that the EVERY reporter is biased, take that into account, and draw your own conclusions." You just figured that out? That's pretty much the starting point for analytical thinkers.

Re:It is ALL fake news

[gzuckier]

This is some random joker with a blog who simply listed all major news organizations as fake because they "told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction". He provides no sources to back up this claim. These news sites did not, in reality, tell us this; they told us that this was claimed by the US government, which was true.

538 simply performed a statistical analysis of the polls. They gave Trump around a 30% chance of winning and wrote multiple stories emphasizing that it wasn't a done deal. They were not "wrong".

The funny part is that there is a pretty big overlap between the folks who still believe Iraq had WMD, and the folks who would cite this list (which does indeed cite "told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" as one criterium). Adding to the humor, the folks who believe that Iraq sent their WMD to Syria for safekeeping, and also believe that we need to join with Putin and Syria in the fight against ISIS. Them rightwingers is comical. Who can look at old movies of Hitler and not giggle?

Re:It is ALL fake news

[bluegutang]

Polls were rigged by oversampling democrats vs. republicans/independents so many were flat wrong. Aggregate sites like 538 were wrong.

Um. 538 predicted a 3% lead for Clinton in the popular vote. In the end she won the popular vote by 2%. If just 1% of voters preferred Trump but were embarrassed to admit it, then the polls would have sampled perfectly.

538 predicted Trump had a 29% chance of winning. In the end, he won. If something has a predicted 29% chance of happening and it happens, that's not a failure in the prediction.

No shit sherlock

[ilsaloving]

This is a dunning-kruger problem. The only way you can tell if something is fake or not, is if you already have at least some knowledge about the subject matter. If there's an article from a trusted news source about how Intel put out a 6GHz CPU, the first thing I would do is check if the date is April 1st because I know about the problems involved.

If an article says someone has discovered a liquid form of a higgs-boson condensate, how would I know different? I mean, it's a condensate , obviously it must condense somehow.

And to make matters worse, in the US there are truth in advertising laws but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent for news. At least, I assume that must be the case, because I can't fathom how Fox News could be viable otherwise.

Fake news is nothing new, and certainly not specific to this past election. The only thing different is that people are finally starting to wake up to how serious of a problem it is.

Re:No shit sherlock

[AthanasiusKircher]

The only way you can tell if something is fake or not, is if you already have at least some knowledge about the subject matter.

I wouldn't say it's the ONLY way. For example, if I get a link to a story from The Onion, I'm pretty sure it's fake. There are loads of similar -- but less well-known -- sources out there either putting out satire/parody or hoaxes or fake propaganda.

So, you can know something about your source. I agree that younger students likely won't know about these things (nor do most adults realize the difference -- some of these sites deliberately disguise themselves to look close to a real news site with a known name -- in that case, the URL is usually a clue that something is weird).

In fact, that's the main way I "vet" a news story. If I see a link to a media source I've never heard of before, I automatically assume it could be fake until proven otherwise. There are probably a couple hundred reasonably reputable media sources out there which I know of personally. (And here I'm not saying all "perfectly free from bias" or distortion -- I mean sources that don't publish entire stories they KNOW are false, parody, etc.) You link to a "news source" I've never heard of? I'm skeptical.

Beyond knowing something about your source, fake news can often be spotted because it's "too good to be true." Does a story sound like an exaggerated version of the perfect retort to someone with opposing views from you? Might be a good chance it was just made up. In that case, the easiest thing is to do a quick search for the story. Is anyone else in any media source you've heard of picking up the story? If not, it's more questionable -- doesn't mean it's automatically false, but I'd take a "wait and see" attitude on it.

Finally, you can look for internal clues. A lot of fake news is poorly written and poorly edited. As TFS points out, when it looks professional, though, it's harder to sort out. But if it's actually a parody or hoax site, there are often clues buried in the article that something silly is going on. If you learn to spot such things, it's harder to fall for hoaxes -- though that doesn't help with fake propaganda.

Anyhow, there are a lot of strategies you can use to evaluate news stories even if you know little about the subject beforehand. But it often requires a degree of skepticism about EVERYTHING you read online that most people don't have, as well as critical thinking skills, and a willingness to do a few quick searches to see whether anything in the story is corroborated anywhere more reputable.

Re:No shit sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think this is true. I've seen plenty of posts and "news" stories which were about subject matter I know very little about, but which were clearly fake. Pretty much any dire warning article or post that urges people to share in order to save others is almost certainly passing along false information. I don't have to look at a calendar to know that it's highly unlikely "next year's October is going to include six Fridays, the first time that's happened in 675 years!"

Re:No shit sherlock

[budgenator]

Fox News pretty much gets the same stories off the wire as all the others do. The biggest differences is the commentary, followed by what they lead with.

Re:No shit sherlock

[AmiMoJo]

Actually you can usually tell if something is fake even if you know nothing about it with some really simple checks.

Do a reverse image search on Google, see if the image has been manipulated or used out if context. Often you will see other sites using the same image to debunk the fake news.

If it's on Facebook or a blog it's best to assume it's false until a few major foreign news outlets start carrying it to.

Re:No shit sherlock

[ilsaloving]

That is a great point. However... What's the likelyhood that it will even occur to the average person to do that, let alone the process involved?

Re:No shit sherlock

[AmiMoJo]

Maybe someone could write an add-on for browsers that automates these checks. Kinda like anti virus or ad blocking, but for bullshit.

Re:No shit sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't fathom how Fox News could be viable otherwise.

or ABC, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Daily Beast, Huff Po, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times, Politico, Washington Post and more that were caught deliberately lying this election.

The difference is that Fox News viewers don't trust Fox News.

Re:No shit sherlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you can usually tell if something is fake even if you know nothing about it with some really simple checks.

Actually, when somebody tells you there's a "simple" way to solve a problem, that "simple" way is usually very ineffective if not outright wrong.

If we followed your advice of waiting for major news outlets, for example, well most of them thought Hillary would win. Most thought Brexit wouldn't happen. Most would tell you all sorts of nasty things about GamerGate, MRAs, the alt right, and other "deplorables"

There is no simple (or easy or quick etc) way to tell truth from lies. You'll have to work hard in building up your critical thinking skills and experience. A big part is being willing to admit you're wrong, which unfortunately many on the left are doing anything but. They're still living in their post factual bubble, resulting in stories like this where they're trying so hard to find fault in anybody but themselves to why Hillary lost.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[houstonbofh]

Ignorance and confidence, that's always a winning combination.

Sadly, it seems to be one lately.

Editors...

[Daetrin]

Even those who work as editors at Slashdot, they tend not to correct awkward grammar. At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to parse needlessly complex sentences.

Re:Editors...

[gzuckier]

Even those who work as editors at Slashdot, they tend not to correct awkward grammar. At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to parse needlessly complex sentences.

Let's eat, grandma.
Let's eat grandma.
Punctuation is your friend.

Trust comes easy for some people

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go one step further and propose that the vast majority of human beings operate this way. The impression a person gives can easily override the facts. That's why the people who succeed in climbing the corporate ladder are, overwhelmingly, the same ones who have been at the top of the social totem pole their entire lives. They look better, they speak better, they excel at making other people feel comfortable. For the vast majority of human beings, it's very easy to trust a person like that.

Clearly We Need Government Intervention

[KalvinB]

This obsession with "fake" news is all about one thing: government censorship.

All this study proves is that young kids are gullible (duh) and our public education system is one of the worst in the world (not news).

First liberals complained about Citizens United endlessly. And now that Trump won with far less spending than Hillary, suddenly they're concerned about "fake" news while ignoring the false editorializing of the liberal media and rampant lead burying.

Liberal Fascists just can't stand that they no longer control the narrative. And it's really a thumb in their eye whenever Trump tweets out something they don't like. Historically, if the President wanted to say something, they had to go through the filter of the press.

Not anymore.

And good riddance.

Re:Clearly We Need Government Intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said...only tweets from Trump tell the truth.

Anything that contradicts them is a liberal conspiracy.

Re:Clearly We Need Government Intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism isn't democrat biased, it's truth and rationality biased.

Global warming isn't a democrat position, it's foremost a scientific position.

You are in essence also saying good riddance to science and the search for truth and facts.

Re:Clearly We Need Government Intervention

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. Trump's campaign promise to loosen libel will allow us to go to pre 1960s, when the government could sue media for articles that went against their narrative.

Re:Clearly We Need Government Intervention

[strikethree]

... and our public education system is one of the worst in the world (not news).

Um... definitely not the worst in the world. There are severe problems, such as NOT teaching logic and critical thinking, but it succeeds in many other areas.

Hey! At least we do not let schoolgirls burn to death because they do not have their hijab handy. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I am pretty sure there was one in Pakistan where over a hundred girls died, but I can not find the article right now. Meh. The point is that those religious schools surely are not teaching critical thinking either and have other things that make them worse than American schools.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[__aaclcg7560]

The participation awards and the focus on self-esteem have done their part, certainly.

I was the special little snowflake in the fifth grade who didn't received a participation award on Awards Day. I was truant too many days to get that one or any of the other made up awards that day.

TFA gives the answer

[s.petry]

Education.

Hell, even my generation lacked in critical thought training. I think like most public schools we covered some basic logic at one point, circular logic and simple stuff. Those things take continual training and updates. It's easier not to think about an appeal to emotion that it is to question it, especially if it fits your particular bias.

Socrates stated in the Republic that it was necessary for the public to ensure all citizens were trained in rhetoric. Up until the US move to Prussian education system it was taught as part of the Classical education system. Today, it's barely touched in public schools unless you are on the debate team. Due to budget cuts most schools don't even have debate teams, so...

Re:TFA gives the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you aren't familiar with modern 'debate'. There is no rhetoric. It's just two teams spewing cherry-picked parts of articles (that don't necessarily say what the team claims, so it's maybe a quarter fraud anyway) at speeds so high that you can't even make out the words if you aren't practiced in doing so. There's no importance assigned to any real discussion; it's just a question of who countered the other team's points better, for a definition of 'better' that is entirely mathematical (more potentially-bogus cited articles*) and not rhetorical. Alternatively, you can argue all sorts of technicalities, most of which are nonsense and only serve to waste the opponent's time. It's basically lawyer practice, if lawyers were robots unable to appeal to the human nature of the judge and/or jury. And talked like squirrels on crack.

By the way, my school won the national championship. I take no pride in this, because there is none to be had.

*In fairness, you can also argue quality of publication, but that tends to be harder for a bunch of reasons.

Re:TFA gives the answer

[gzuckier]

Education.

Hell, even my generation lacked in critical thought training. I think like most public schools we covered some basic logic at one point, circular logic and simple stuff. Those things take continual training and updates. It's easier not to think about an appeal to emotion that it is to question it, especially if it fits your particular bias.

Socrates stated in the Republic that it was necessary for the public to ensure all citizens were trained in rhetoric. Up until the US move to Prussian education system it was taught as part of the Classical education system. Today, it's barely touched in public schools unless you are on the debate team. Due to budget cuts most schools don't even have debate teams, so...

There was something in the paper the other month; when given a word problem to which the final question was something like "Is it more likely that the person is a feminist, or a feminist and a woman?" the majority of the students tested (I cam't remember if it was high school or college) picked "feminist and a woman" even though that is obviously mathematically impossible, even without advanced set theory.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[BarbaraHudson]

It is if you're the teacher, and you need to have a certain percentage of students pass or you could lose your job. All you need to do that job is ignorance and confidence, don't think or you'll commit suicide at how hopeless it is.

I guess we have to fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should set up some sort of government department or ministry devoted to removing things that aren't true.

Re:I guess we have to fix it

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, we could call it the ministry of truth.

Sage Words

[ArhcAngel]

"The problem with quotes on the internet is it is hard to validate their authenticity" - Abraham Lincoln

Re:Sage Words

[The-Ixian]

"Eat at Joe's" - Joe

Re:Sage Words

[gzuckier]

"The problem with quotes on the internet is it is hard to validate their authenticity" - Abraham Lincoln

"I cannot tell a lie. All I know is what's on the internet." - George Washington

Fascinating to watch

[Okian Warrior]

Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...

This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.

...and it's fascinating. From a psychology point of view, if you can figure out the forces and rationalizations involved it's an interesting exercise in crowd manipulation and competition for readership.

This almost looks orchestrated.

Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)

This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.

Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.

So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,

Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.

Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.

The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.

As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[kqs]

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[ClickOnThis]

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

Facepalm. I was tempted to stop reading at this point. But then you said:

Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.

And I call BS. Where did you read this? In the comments section? I just looked at several Trump articles on HuffPo and did not see the quote you mentioned.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[DarkOx]

I never knew about Breitbart news [breitbart.com] until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

I'll second this. I have had the same experience with it. It is more than a little right-wing slanted, especially their choice of head lines. One thing to always consider with a site like Breitbart is "what stories are they not publishing?" I would not recommend anyone make it their only source for news but it certainly deserves a place in a well informed persons news diet. One thing about Breitbart is their writers do a pretty good job of linking sources and citing facts you can corroborate elsewhere, unless the article is very clearly a pure opinion piece.

Conversely, the traditional media has done nothing but discredit themselves in my eyes since pretty much the middle of the primary season. The totally unbalanced reporting and all the coverage of "OMG Trump said something that might offend somebody" rather than focusing on actual potential crimes and potentially actionable violations of law (on both sides of the political isle). Now the anti Trump coverage is even more Pollyanna insane!

The other day I watched NBC air an interview with Glenn Beck about Steve Brannon, the under laying current clearly being "see we have told you for years Beck is right wing conspiracy nutter (he is) and see if he thinks Bannon is dangerous, us decent, intelligent liberals should really be scared! Boo! They managed not mention Breitbart is a direct competitor to Beck's on media efforts. They did not mention Beck was a #NeverTrump guy, which most NBC audience members probably don't know, in short they failed utterly to contextualize what Beck was saying with the fact he almost certainly has if not an axe to grind at least a dog in the fight. It was really shabby reporting.

Just like when NBC said "putting his children in charge of his companies might not be enough to clear him" when talking about Trump's conflicts of interest. "Clear him" is clearly language designed to make use think either there is some obligation he has to meet or imply some kind of wrong doing. It would appropriate to mention conflict laws don't apply to the president. Precedent and tradition do but not the law. Unlike for example Secretary of State, while they were busy not covering the wikileaks pay to play allegations.

I will close with this. I did not vote for Trump in the primaries. I was really sad to seem him get the GOP nomination when that happened. Possibly as say as lot of Clinton supporters where when she lots the general election. The main stream media made me go out and vote Trump rather than stay home or only vote on local issues and the Congressional election. There were two serpents at the heads of the major parties, and given the media was completely in the tank for HRC and the best they could come up with was minor BS about Trump, it became obvious which of the two serpents was more venomous. All I can say is I think the best candidate won.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[caseih]

I was disappointed with your link of a list of fake news stories from "mainstream media." I thought Breitbart had put together a list of recent falsehoods perpetrated by the media, but it's just a list of large, well-known fake stories that are quite (in)famous and garnered a great deal of scandal.

I'd be more impressed with a list of fake stories from the last year that were propagated by the so-called main-stream media. The reason everyone is talking about fake news now is because in the last few months many more fake memes than ever before have popped up on social media that got accepted as news by social media netizens. And some of these memes were picked up by web sites, some "mainstream" and others not. The problem absolutely is worse now than a year ago. There are now thousands of shrill voices saying anything they want, which Google and Facebook incorrectly repeated as news to their users. That's the problem, not the occasional giant made-up story that eventually gets widely discredited, as all the fake news stories in that list were.

The problem is further that extreme voices on both left and right (though from what I can see it's more prevalent on the right), though they are repudiated and discredited, are still believed fervently by many. Of course that's a bigger problem than fake news.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[DarkOx]

I have to call BS on your BS

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

It really was there for a long time, but they took it down after the election.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Brietbart's news is - I'd agree, better than many media outlets, and no worse than most. But the thing is: the actual news content itself is buried under so much trolling and editorializing, that anyone with liberal sensibilities simply won't get to it. They'll look at the top of the page and see:
"12 FAKE NEWS STORIES FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA"
"Caddell: Post-Election Media ‘Appalling,’ and ‘Not Doing Anything to Heal the Country’
"Fake News: CNN, Tapper apologize for ‘unacceptable’ banner text"
"DJT: Investigating Hillary ‘Would Be Very, Very Divisive for the Country’" ...

and so on, all of which is simple editorializing. Then you get the "Trending Now" clickbait, which is similarly empty (and similarly slanted). Then you get some more editorials. And only then, more than 2000 pixels down the page - and after you've been told everything you could possibly imagine about "what to think" - do you get to the content that can plausibly be called "news".

Re:Fascinating to watch

[ljw1004]

For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.

We never actually saw evidence that Scott was shadowbanned. He said that some of his readers had claimed that his stories weren't on their twitter feeds. He issued a challenge to the CEO of Twitter to respond within three days. No response was reported, and Scott didn't explain the resolution. I personally continued to see Scott's tweets on my twitter feed just fine throughout that time.

I think a more likely explanation is that Scott was never shadowbanned, and that some of his followers didn't notice a tweet from him or it got buried under a load of other things. It matched their cognitive bias about twitter following a shadowban agenda against right wing folks, and it matched Scott's cognitive bias about him being important, and so he went ahead and "asked the question" (i.e. "I'm not saying I've been shadowbanned, I'm just asking the question"). And that naturally laid the cognitive bias for it to evolve into a statement of fact.

...shadowbanned for having insightful views on the election.

That's a pretty dishonest misrepresentation. Scott says he was probably shadowbanned because he asked people to tweet him examples of Clinton supporters being violent. (Indeed Scott has had insightful views on the election both before his alleged shadowbanning, and after, so I don't know how anyone could think he was banned because he had those views.)

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's not gonna bring your pension back grandpa.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/01/huffpost-to-publish-anti-trump-kicker-with-all-trump-coverage-218345

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/11/the-huffington-post-ending-its-editors-note-about-donald-trump-231044

This only took one google search to find.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-voters-huffpost-racism-misogyny-xenophobia_us_5728de49e4b016f37893b698

Here's the article saying that the editor would post that note on every Trump-related article on the site. Okian Warrior was 100% right. They did post that quote all over their site. Take your fact-checking machine and trash it. It's failed you.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to read up on the Big Lie, it is the propaganda technique most used by breitbart, that and sucking up to people who are suffering from cognitive dissonance and flock to the lies so that they do not have to face reality

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Anonymous Coward]

You are just a Trump fan. All of your comments and submissions are related to Trump, Clinton, Obama, or politics. I guess you come to Slashdot for the politics, not the technology. Which is a shame since this site does better when it discusses technology and leaves you and the other the_donald fans to reddit.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[ClickOnThis]

Well, thanks for that. I must admit that is uncool on HuffPo's part. Uncool, but accurate.

But you know what's uncool and often inaccurate? Breitbart:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/1...
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

Re:Fascinating to watch

[strikethree]

I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.

You should avoid the obvious trollery; you almost had me for a second there.

I have seen breitbart news spoken of here at Slashdot numerous times. it has been denigrated as a histrionic right wing site. I have never investigated it... until now.

The parent's characterization appears to be spot on. Granted, I only gave it a cursory overview, so I could be wrong. Perhaps you would care to share why you think he is trolling?

Re:Fascinating to watch

[Magius_AR]

But you know what's uncool and often inaccurate? Breitbart

Incendiary, certainly. But that doesn't automatically make thing inaccurate.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[rtb61]

The biggest flaw with Breitbart news is they routinely report fake left wing politics activities as real left wing activities and fall into the trap of reporting fake conservative activities as real conservative activities. Not that they are the only one to do it nor that it just happens to the political right. There are many left leaning web sites who report blatant fake conservative activities as being real conservative activities. This is quite a mutual problem and steps need to be taken to ensure the fake left and fake right are properly reported as such. The political fakers are frauds who simply use politics for personal advantage, exploiters who should be reported as such and not foolishly defended or promoted. Often with extreme and radical views taking positions the majority does not desire but that those individuals can scream about to draw attention and provide nothing ie abortion, sexual behaviour between adults, immigration, religion whilst ignoring the destruction of the war industries and extremely corrupt financial sector.

Re:Fascinating to watch

[DeVilla]

I hadn't heard of them until I heard Chris Matthews mention them as evidence that the mainstream media wasn't mostly liberal. On a later night he slammed them as not being a legitimate news source. I can't say I know anything about Breitbart, but I think I learned something unsurprising about Matthews.

"able to tell fake news from a real one"

[Anonymous Coward]

"able to tell fake news from a real one"

I found fake English, does that count?

And quit blaming Facebook

[tomhath]

All the major new outlets are guilty of publishing opinion pieces as if they're real news. Maybe not totally made-up fake, but just as bad.

Re:And quit blaming Facebook

[budgenator]

All the major new outlets are guilty of publishing opinion pieces as if they're real news. Maybe not totally made-up fake, but just as bad.

Worse because it's plausibly correct and masquerading as fact on an outlet that's professionally operated. At least when something is attributed to some Alt-right echo chamber with a "30 hot teachers that had sex with their students" ad at the bottom, you know to be sceptical.

Channel One News

[Joe_Dragon]

has fake news reporters being used in Channel One commercials.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[HBI]

I'm sure there are many websites that can cure your ill. :-)

My school was pre-participation awards, so we got actual awards for good grades. I got a very few, but my penmanship (yes, that's what they called it) was always poor, so i'd get great grades in everything except for that - straight Ds - and miss out on the certificates as a result. Oh well.

My view has always been that the good grades were a reward in and of themselves and didn't need to be celebrated.

I'm Not Fake News, I'm Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

No damn American Loyalty at all. ZERO. you all fail my Security Clearance test. ALL OF YA.
I would be comparing faces right now to get you the hell out of .gov and into Fort Leavenworth.

Starts in the mornin with the LGBT birds chirping Love Trumps Hate. Bring your kids. (that's actually a tactic)
Ends at 3:23 AM with cars exploding blackbloc rioting, and now the 211's

why again do you protest?
So you can replace the current government
So you can get rid of the EC now that it failed you.
that $15 an hour from Trans National Terrorist George Soros
So you can have hillary (who commit treason) instead of trump

Show me a Degree from Chicago, or Berkley, or one of these liberal trash dumps. Seriously your degree is nullified now. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's conspiracy fact.

You just lost your degrees and all respect. Your teachers are subversive domestic trans national terrorists. Freedom of speech ends when you and pals do the domestic terrorism bit.

You ARE toast!

Here we go: define "Fake"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, really. Define what you mean by "fake" please. Do you mean 100% fake, or do you mean some percentage of the news isn't true? Perhaps you mean the "slant" of the story might be untrue because the story is using this thing called "irony". Maybe you mean the "news" isn't actual news at all, but just a fluff piece or even opinion.
Of course you could mean you don't agree with what the "news" says and so any trivial inaccuracy or hear-say could lead to the "news" being labeled as "fake".
You are all just a little too blaze with that word. I need it nailed to the wall, please, or you can all just f-off.

Those not learning from history....

[aepervius]

You are confusing propaganda with news. Trump saying something on twitter isn't news. Somebody posting an article on facebook isn't news. You have to have a vetting process, and a check/verification process, be it at the editor, but more rpeferably at the reading end too. And no matter what side of the political process you, both Democrate and republican are faulty of using hoax stories, let us call them by what they really are. You take trump as example, but even he fell down the trap with that so called "jihadist" video which was an hoax.

During the hayday of journalism , say 1940 to 1970-80ish , this vetting and verification process was understood, and serious journalism rose above the yellow press. But starting 1980ies and strongly 1990ies, it declined because people are pretty damn cheap. So vetting and serious investigation dropped, dropped and dropped until the cost are so much cut that every damn idiot copy/paste one source be it a AFP , Reuter or a 3rd party rag, check it, they even don't bother changing the wording. Heck now people are considering the shit out of facebook news. It isn't. They are just stories, as likelies to be hoax, taken out of context, or even news, without vetting or fact checking you can't tell. Since there is no vetting process on either side (writing/reading), no double check , those hoax get spread. heck scam too. Steorn. Rossi eCat. And so forth. How often I tried to get people to spot the warning sign ? And get ignored because I am a "liberal" or a "rightwingnut" (depending on the slant of the story I try to point out has problem) or even a "close minded scientist" ?

And frankly, I have been saying for years it is a problem, albeit in skeptical forums, not here. The problem is that critical thinking is a skill one need to learn because it is pretty damn easy to fall into one's bias as long as they go the way one politically think. Nobody Is teaching critical thinking. So for years we have been seeing hoaxes rise as stories and being handled seriously. Heck among skeptic group, what do you think we try to fight for ? Critical thinking is THE skill everybody should be getting. And yet again I predict that this will fall by the byside , being seen as propaganda from butthurt people.

The only point where you are right, is that a lot of media are butthurt now and see that as a problem. But that does not mean the problem is not real. It is real, and I have seen the rise of hoax and scam being treated very seriously , far more than previously in spite of fact checking being so easy nowadays.

So WTF is the non-fake news, Einstein?????

[sgt_doom]

What is all this sudden bullcrap about "fake news" in a country where it is LEGAL to fictional ALL news (thanks to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation's multiple lawsuits in federal court) and where the Koch brothers are responsible for most of the "content" on NPR, and everything on PBS and Frontline?

I mean, WTF is all this Prof. Elizabeth Sindars/Merrimack College (WTF that is????) bullcrap about???? This is the Land of Fake News, and has been during my lifetime.

And now . . . for some Non-Fake News . . . .

Re:So WTF is the non-fake news, Einstein?????

[Anonymous Coward]

The F is about setting up excuses to shut down opposing voices. When Google stops listing "fake news", and Twitter and Facebook agree to not publish their announcements, then those sites will die unseen, their news (true or false) forever suppressed.

They don't actually care if the news being published is true or not, they just want anything that hurts their side to disappear. And this is how they've decided to justify it.

Re:So WTF is the non-fake news, Einstein?????

[phantomfive]

the Koch brothers are responsible for most of the "content" on NPR

Uh....what?

Re:So WTF is the non-fake news, Einstein?????

[gzuckier]

What is all this sudden bullcrap about "fake news" in a country where it is LEGAL to fictional ALL news (thanks to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation's multiple lawsuits in federal court) and where the Koch brothers are responsible for most of the "content" on NPR, and everything on PBS and Frontline? I mean, WTF is all this Prof. Elizabeth Sindars/Merrimack College (WTF that is????) bullcrap about???? This is the Land of Fake News, and has been during my lifetime. And now . . . for some Non-Fake News . . . .

And for American News, the rest of the world pretty much doesn't exist.

But propaganda still works

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point: Make a fuss about fake news to get leverage over the press.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[Anonymous Coward]

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

Blah-blah-blah. Nothing new to your lines.

Odds are you probably don't have clear memories or experiences with the idiocy of children 40 years ago, let alone 60, 70, or 100. Or 200. Or 400.

Whether or not you remember it or not, ignorant and stupid adults exist today, and as kids were the ones who were begging their parents for the latest Sugar-frosted cereal, the latest toys (how along ago was the Cabbage Patch kids craze?), and so forth back then. The same as kids today.

People have been pushing sophisticated bumfuckery for quite a long time, it's just now instead of being a transient flim-flam artist trying to get out of town before being tarred and feathered, it's easy to reach the whole world, and nobody around you cares enough to give you what you deserve. And yes, we can see a lot more stupidity too, since everybody can get a camera and put it on Youtube.

Same with language. It's always been a pretense that language is somehow supposed sophisticated and proper, and a true sign of intelligence is who can follow the rules best. That is not the case. Math, history, current events? I wish you could be transported back in time to see things as they were. Not that you couldn't tell how ignorant the aforementioned adults are today, or look in the papers to see how ignorant the adults were, but it'd be more authentic if you could truly see things as they were.

And actually, since you mention IQ, the 100 being the median is entirely a matter of choice, as the whole process is a constructed one. At least thermometers are based on actual physical principles at some level, IQ is far more divorced from that, but far too many people don't realize that.

Trusting people on what you don't understand

[mi]

If an article says someone has discovered a liquid form of a higgs-boson condensate, how would I know different? I mean, it's a condensate , obviously it must condense somehow.

You could as well have used Global Warming in your example...

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[Layzej]

True enough. Scientists have been fighting fake news for decades. Peter Sinclare documents the birth of a climate denial meme here: https://youtu.be/khikoh3sJg8 . The meme was picked up and echoed by the supposedly legitimate media despite the fact a cursory review of the source material would quickly dispel the myth.

It's no wonder there is such a disparity between the public perception of the scientific consensus and the actual scientific consensus.. How could the general public be expected to understand the basic science when the media isn't even bothered to perform a quick source check.

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[gweihir]

That is not the problem. The problem is the mass of morons that think they have what it takes to judge the quality of a scientific result, when that actually takes at least a PhD in a not too remote field. Of course these people are then easy to manipulate because they are clueless about how extremely clueless they are. Dunning-Kruger far-left side is where you find everybody of these idiots. Science is _not_ easy. Judging the quality of scientific research takes advanced knowledge. All a non-expert can do is find out how many actual scientists in the respective field think a result is valid or not. And, for example regarding climate change, there is no debate at all in the respective scientific circles whether it is happening and whether it is man-made. All that debate is by people that would not pass climatology 101.

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[mi]

The problem is the mass of morons that think they have what it takes to judge the quality of a scientific result, when that actually takes at least a PhD in a not too remote field.

And yet, in a free and self-governing country, you have to convince these people too... (Hint, calling them names is not helping.)

Of course these people are then easy to manipulate because they are clueless about how extremely clueless they are.

Absolutely true. The vast majority of people can not judge the quality of the the climate-related arguments themselves — and must trust someone else. Trust to be a) sincere; b) competent... Politicians are generally the best at making themselves appear to possess these qualities...

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[gweihir]

Scientists have no time for this. They have to do science, which already takes most/all of their time. Getting public exposure and then making statements that the public understands is not something they usually have the time or personality for. Hence in a self-governing country that respects science, either there are other working mechanisms (e.g. smart, educated citizens that actually understand they need to listen to actual scientists about the validity of scientific results and not to politicians), or that country is doomed. You cannot reasonably expect scientists to duplicate what politicians spend their whole waking time on in addition to their other work.

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[mi]

smart, educated citizens that actually understand

But smart and educated electorate are a hindrance! Wouldn't an obedient and worshiping populace be easier to both maintain and lead — without having to spend too much effort explaining things to them?

they need to listen to actual scientists about the validity of scientific results and not to politicians

Didn't you just say, actual scientists have no time for such explanations? Who are we to listen to then? Our media is full of climate-related articles, most of them very alarming. Unfortunately, very few (if any) are penned by the scientists — the vast majority is by professional journalists, politicians, and popularizers. None of them apparently have a Ph.D., which you claimed is required to even understand the arguments — forget about verifying them. Even they talk to the actual scientists first hand — and I doubt, Al Gore ever had, for example — they are no more than first tier.

The rest of us are the second tier, if you will. We are expected to trust these people, who themselves can only take it on faith. No wonder, both proponents and detractors view the public debate on climate as more Religious than Scientific.

or that country is doomed

Could you offer some examples of such calamities from the past? Or are our times unique?

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[gweihir]

Our times are unique. Know what happens to a bacterial colony if you let it grow in a petri-dish? It grows to the edges, but then its starts to die off from it own pollution. We have reached that stage, and it never happened before.

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[gzuckier]

The problem is the mass of morons that think they have what it takes to judge the quality of a scientific result, when that actually takes at least a PhD in a not too remote field.

And yet, in a free and self-governing country, you have to convince these people too... (Hint, calling them names is not helping.)

Of course these people are then easy to manipulate because they are clueless about how extremely clueless they are.

Absolutely true. The vast majority of people can not judge the quality of the the climate-related arguments themselves — and must trust someone else. Trust to be a) sincere; b) competent... Politicians are generally the best at making themselves appear to possess these qualities...

Which is why one of the societal rules which is not universal but pretty common among societies is to love your neighbors, fellow countrymen, etc ; patriotism as love of your fellows, etc. Not necessarily love of all mankind. Because you can't know for sure whether the guy telling you the news is lying or not, and the guy describing new medical treatments, and the guy printing new recipes. You have to assume benevolence as a default and assume that all about you are as devoted to the general welfare as you yourself are. Because once the default flips the other way, there is no way to achieve societal cohesion

Re:Trusting people on what you don't understand

[mi]

You have to assume benevolence as a default

That certainly is a good rule — indeed, a very "Thanksgivingly" one.

And yet, there are certain signs and indicators, which give justified grounds for suspicion in the case of Climate Science.

One such is a conflict of interest. A scientist coming to a conclusion, that global warming is not a big deal, risks his very livelihood — the rest of us will politely thank him for his past work and eliminate funding for more of it. America's spending on climate research, for example, has about tripled since 1993 — is it unreasonable to suspect, that the vast body of people may be at least partially concerned about their careers and mortgages? Would they not frown on and denounce anyone breaking ranks, regardless of whether he is correct or not?

We dismiss judges and jurors because of the conflict of interest — and we are right. But a replacement juror unrelated to suspect is easy to find, whereas finding an independent group of scientists in the era of government paying for 100% of research is impossible...

The above is why we can — should! — question their collective sincerity. But what about their competence? Try as you might to find an actual scientific prediction made by these folks, that turned out to be true, and you'll fail...

Few people realize this, despite me posting this challenge on Slashdot every once in a while. Try it yourself. A valid citation would include a pair of links, one to prediction, the other — to its confirmation:

1. The prediction must be publicly made — you'll need to include a link to it.
2. A separate link should point at the confirmation of the predicted events happening or values achieved (within, say, 20% of the predicted).
3. The prediction and the confirmation publications must be a few years or more apart — predicting tomorrow's weather does not count.
4. The prediction needs to be marginally useful — claiming, it will get either colder or hotter next year is not acceptable

Could you come up with two or three such citations? Don't you think, after spending tens of billions of dollars on it, we are entitled to expect some such results from climate scientists? And, if they can not come up with anything, begin suspecting their competence and sincerity?

Add to that the growing calls by these scientists (not just their hangers-on) to criminalize skepticism, and our suspicion ought to develop into a full blown alarm!

You can't handle the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it was the Washington Post that was caught with their pants down by wikileaks when they released DNC written stories as news.

You're part of the problem.

Re:You can't handle the truth

[__aaclcg7560]

And yet it was the Washington Post that was caught with their pants down by wikileaks when they released DNC written stories as news.

It isn't unusual for news organizations to present or rewrite PR notices as news articles. Lazy journalism is less work for them and a win for the PR company.

You're part of the problem.

Uh, no. I have the ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. People who accept whatever they want to hear as facts are the problem.

Re:You can't handle the truth

[unixisc]

That wasn't the issue. The issue was the WP giving the DNC a draft of what they had written about something, and giving the DNC person a carte blanche to edit it any way s/he chose. Something that they would never dream of giving the RNC

Re:You can't handle the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

He's acknowledging that the problem exists on the right as well as on the left. I think that's a bit more "part of the solution" than your response, which distills down to "but the DNC got caught doing it, so my party can't possibly be doing it too!"

There are people at the fringes of all political parties who think in strikingly similar fashion, with the only differences being the particular ends they think justify the means. They dismiss or even cheer the bad behavior of "their team" while angrily condemning the same behavior on the "other team". If you ask these people to take a peek from another perspective for a minute ("What would you think if Obama/Trump did this thing that Trump/Obama is proposing?") their response is "Well he would never do that", when what would actually happen is they would dismiss it as benign if it came from their party, or even secretly hope that it might gain them some sort of advantage over their perceived rivals.

The type of people I'm describing are, along with those who put up with such behavior in their own ranks, the *entirety* of many of the political problems we face today.

Re:You can't handle the truth

[__aaclcg7560]

The issue was the WP giving the DNC a draft of what they had written about something, and giving the DNC person a carte blanche to edit it any way s/he chose.

If you read the actual email, the DNC didn't edit anything. It was a courtesy call that someone's name will be appearing in print, especially since the line in question looks like an accusation. One aspect of the story wasn't mentioned because another source didn't call back to confirm or deny. That's fairly routine journalistic practice.

"Fake news"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just the new term from the left which implies they want to censor their political opponents. If you were to look at their lists of "fake news" sites, you would see a large group of conservative web sites.

Get over it losers, you lost. The more you try to censor people, the digger the hole you dig for the next elections.

Re:"Fake news"

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL *deeper

Not ready yet

[Tablizer]

It's because they're still in school. The smartitivity hasn't finished being installed yet.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not new news...
www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

Who decides...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any outlet that published an article stating that Clinton had a 98% chance of winning is a fake news outlet, right?

Spotting fake new is easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just check the corner of the screen for the FOX watermark.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[__aaclcg7560]

My view has always been that the good grades were a reward in and of themselves and didn't need to be celebrated.

That didn't became obvious until I went back to college for a second time to learn computer programming while working 60 hours per week. I made the college president's list for maintaining a 4.0GPA in my major upon graduation.

But Trump!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's going to destroy the country!

Like that Abe Lincoln fucker.

History repeats. Get yourself worked up into hysteria, and hysterical is what you will be. The Democrats have done so before with dire consequences for the nation. They're doing it again, though thankfully, I'm pretty sure nobody's going to go to war over Trump.

The irony

[hipp5]

the link between an unsourced photo and the claims attached to it

The irony of the Slashdot article next to the ads screaming, "12 celebrities you didn't know were dead", with a photo of a celebrity who is most certainly not dead.

Re:The irony

[gzuckier]

the link between an unsourced photo and the claims attached to it

The irony of the Slashdot article next to the ads screaming, "12 celebrities you didn't know were dead", with a photo of a celebrity who is most certainly not dead.

It didn't say they were dead, just that you do not know that they were dead. That happens a lot, when they are actually not dead.

Alternately branded communist and racist ...

[drnb]

I had an amazing teacher in middle school. He'd teach us exactly that--how to spot propaganda, false advertising claims, etc. It was probably the best set of lessons I ever learned because now I'm impervious to all the crap.

Of course, if he was teaching today they'd try to brand him as a communist or a "leftist" (whatever that means) ...

Actually he would alternately be branded a communist/leftist and a racist/misogynist/[something]-phobe depending on whose propaganda was being scrutinized.

There, I reject your implication that it is only the right offering false claims. :-)

The original is out there...

[Anonymous Coward]

The original is somewhere on /r/The_Donald and those items to the right were hyperlinks to the Podesta & DNC leak emails.

You can find that, e.g. the email on the "WaPo party" wherein the DNC holds a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers forbade by putting donors on the list for the WaPo party. You can find the DKIM-validated emails in which Donna Brazille & CNN rigged the debates (and yes, the DKIM hash covers the body, look at the b and bh parameters thereof).

So yes, you'll have to actually find the original and click the links, but the list isn't even exceptional if you've been reading the Podesta email dump.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[nitehawk214]

I like how people like to scream at millennials about their participation awards...

What generation do you think gave them those awards?

Still think GenX is superior?

Decisions

[DaMattster]

It isn't always that easy to spot fake news right away. Some hints can be dubious websites but simply because a site is small or obscure, doesn't mean it is a source of yellow journalism. When researching, you have to compare sources.

Actual Fake News Or Just Nonapproved?

[Scarletdown]

In this study, what is their standard for determining which news is fake and which is real? Are they just referring to actual blatant fake news, or are they including all news from any sources that are not approved by the planet's owners (aka sources the likes of Soros, Rothchild, and other upper echelon entities can not control)?

Common Fucking Sense.

[geekmux]

This just in...study finds that humans who haven't experienced life on this planet that long are rather ignorant.

"A Stanford study of 7,804 middle school, high school and college students...

I mean fucking seriously, what did they expect to find? Wisdom and experience are some of life's greatest teachers, and this test group has obvious limits with both.

49+% voted for trump

[Anonymous Coward]

This means almost 1 out of 2 people you speak to voted for trump and just wont tell you because your an asshole.

Re: 49+% voted for trump

[Anonymous Coward]

49% of voters had their votes recorded or him. Only half of eligible voters voted. Not every citizen is eligible to vote (e.g. Kids). About 19% voted Trump vs 20% Hilary.

There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[rsilvergun]

repeating the same right wing talking points that have been used since Regan to cut funding to education and public services.

Let's see, where do I begin:

1. Real wages are down. Way down. You can't spend money on sh*t you need if you don't have it in the first place. You can't budget what isn't there. And you can't pay your way through college on $17k/yr (full time min wage) when tuition alone is $11k of that, scholarships are dried up or hyper competitive and even borrowing doesn't pay enough to get you through.

2. Kids have learned plenty about cause and effect. See above. They've got the math skills to see they can't afford higher education. Why don't you?

3. Did it ever cross your mind that that 2nd year college kid might just be exhausted from working and studying full time?

4. The "precious little snowflake" movement was an educational movement started by real teachers who had actually studied real students. As opposed to knee jerk armchair commenters like yourself. What they found were millions and millions of unwanted children who existed because their parents had sex. Kids who got little or no positive reinforcement at home and who'd been conditioned to failure. It's a solution for combating that. If you knew anything about teaching or education you would know this. This is what happens when you take something that looks easy (teaching) but is actually really, really fucking hard and don't leave it in the hands of experts. This is gonna get me modded down but fuck it, I got karma to burn: Elites are elite for a reason. Donald Trump is not elite. My friend's mom who just finished her Doctorate in education? Yeah, she's mother fucking bad ass elite.

Re:There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[Phasedshift]

Love the generalizations on both sides of the issue. In short, it's possible (as long as you don't have young children.)

Living with relatives and/or roommates, smart financial decisions (picking where you go to college, what degree you get, what food you eat, etc.) along with student loans allow people below the poverty line to go to college from a financial perspective. Depending on the circumstances, you may have to take the first two years at a community college, but, it is more than feasible. I know, from personal experience.

The issue is, it is "hard". You (potentially) have to sacrifice things like going out, having cable TV, some of your privacy, and eating out for long periods of time. However, for many people it isn't nearly as bad, especially if they have assistance from relatives (living at home, free food, etc.) In my case I didn't have that luxury, but, many do.

The debate shouldn't be whether or not it is possible, but, it should instead be:
* Is it realistic for most people to do that? People tend to take the path of least resistance and it is pointless (from a general perspective) to say "you should do XYZ", if only a small percentage do. Most will see it as too overwhelming and not even try.

* Do we as a society think it is "right" and "just" for someone to have to go through that in order to obtain a better life for themselves, or should society as a whole pay for some or all of it.

My personal opinion is based on my observations is that it really is cultural. Most people either get discouraged (don't think they can do it/get overwhelmed) after starting, or don't start at all.

If you have young children, it is a different story though.. My opinion is, just give free day-care, ensure community colleges and state colleges have a reasonable tuition, then lead by example. Make sure people know it IS possible, and offer some type of support system through the colleges to set people up with roommates, etc.

Re:There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[AthanasiusKircher]

While I agree with much of your critique of GP, there are still some problems here:

Kids have learned plenty about cause and effect. See above. They've got the math skills to see they can't afford higher education. Why don't you?

Uh, if that were true, why do we currently have this "student loan crisis"? College costs are higher than ever. Percentage of young people enrolled in college has just declined slightly in the past year or two after achieving record levels in the past decade. The chances of getting entry-level jobs for young college grads have been decreasing, yet people keep going to college in numbers that are almost the highest in history.

Basically, I don't see evidence to support your assertion.

Moreover, if average people were able to use logic and reasoning for their finances, we wouldn't have had the mortgage meltdown a few years back. Yes, some people were tricked into loans with bad terms, but many never even bothered to read the terms in the first place -- probably because they couldn't understand them. And yes, I've taught high-school math. I KNOW from experience how many kids actually understand even basic loan terms, let along a complex mortgage. I see it as a huge failure of our educational system that we graduate so many kids who can't do basic financial math and other basic life skills.

Re:There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[William Baric]

1. The problem is not that "real wages" are down, it's that kids nowadays are born with a taste for luxury. I'm not that old, but when I was in college we didn't have cellphones, computers, the vast majority of us didn't have cars, and we didn't spend much on clothing or leisure.

2. I'm not American, but can't students borrow money in order to pay for their tuition fees in the US? I just did a search and I can see the annual tuition fee for community colleges is $3,357/year, which can then be followed by two more years at a state college for $9,139/year. This means a total of $24,992 tuition fees to get a full degree. Can you explain to me why American kids can't afford higher education?

3. And you think we were not "exhausted"?

4. The "precious little snowflake" attitude is simply because kids nowadays are overprotected and don't face any hardship. Guess what, when we were kids, we never had "positive reinforcement" at home. We were constantly told our opinions were worthless because we were just kids. We were told to obey and shut up. Also, our parents were not always there to constantly take care of us. Kids act now like "precious little snowflake" because they are treated like royalty.

Re:There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[BarbaraHudson]

So take fewer courses and pay them as go go along, since you'll have more time to make money. So what if it takes you a year or two more. You graduate with no debt, half a decade or more experience in the work place, and self-sufficiency.

Without that last one, your education is pretty much worthless.

Re:There are also jack-holes like you on /.

[gzuckier]

While I agree with much of your critique of GP, there are still some problems here:

Kids have learned plenty about cause and effect. See above. They've got the math skills to see they can't afford higher education. Why don't you?

Uh, if that were true, why do we currently have this "student loan crisis"? College costs are higher than ever. Percentage of young people enrolled in college has just declined slightly in the past year or two after achieving record levels in the past decade. The chances of getting entry-level jobs for young college grads have been decreasing, yet people keep going to college in numbers that are almost the highest in history.

Basically, I don't see evidence to support your assertion.

Moreover, if average people were able to use logic and reasoning for their finances, we wouldn't have had the mortgage meltdown a few years back. Yes, some people were tricked into loans with bad terms, but many never even bothered to read the terms in the first place -- probably because they couldn't understand them. And yes, I've taught high-school math. I KNOW from experience how many kids actually understand even basic loan terms, let along a complex mortgage. I see it as a huge failure of our educational system that we graduate so many kids who can't do basic financial math and other basic life skills.

But that's why mortgage brokers and the like exist; "this subject is so complex, you need me to steer you through it" Who in the world is going to reply to a mortgage broker who tells them they can indeed have the house they want with "no, i don't think so, you're wrong"?
same story for lawyers. "this subject is so complex, you need me to steer you through it" Who in the world is going to reply to a lawyer who tells them they can indeed be found not guilty with "no, i don't think so, you're wrong"?

And in other news: People are superficial

[gweihir]

... regardless of age. Age does not make people any smarter, just a bit more adept as hiding their lack of insight.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[ClickOnThis]

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

Great quote, but it has more impact if you cite your source: Socrates, 469-399 BC.

None of what you just wrote is true

[rsilvergun]

and saying it on /. doesn't make it so.

If you knew anything about our education system you'd know that the reason math scores, grammar scores and even writing and history scores are down is because we're no longer abandoning kids to life in the factories. Teachers work hard and relentlessly to give all kids not just a chance at an education, but an actual education.

Well, public teachers do. If you look at the charter schools you'll find higher scores. You'll also find kids below a B average getting expelled. _Especially_ the poor ones.

So yeah, bigger sample size and taking care of the disadvantaged is where your scores are dipping. Throw those little shits back in the gutter like the good 'ole days and you too can have back your pretty statistics.

Yes, it has

[rsilvergun]

It's massively improved outcomes for poor and disadvantaged kids. Especially those from broken homes that are predisposed to low self-esteem.

Treating people like shit in the hopes that adversity will make them better only works when you don't care about the ones that fall in the gutter and get devoured by rats. Sure, Lincoln went to a log cabin school, but what about the other kids that die before the age of 12 (look up the survival rates past childhood in the 1800s sometime).

Somebody who spent a lot more time and effort than you did on your /. post figured out that shitting all over people doesn't really make things better. They're called teachers. Who knew?

The polls say you're wrong

[rsilvergun]

Trump got the exact same voters Romney did. Look it up. Hilary lost because she wasn't charismatic enough to get the swing state voters out for her like Obama did. Also, having a vagina didn't help. Women don't really care about having one of their own in the white house but men don't like bossy chicks.

That said, I'm sure the 20 year long multi-billion dollar campaign of character assassination that at best turned up some very, very mild corruption didn't help things. Seriously, we Dems have to run Jesus H Christ to win against the smear machine the Right Wing Media brings to bear. Look at Obama. I fully expect him to be carried aloft on Angel Wings when he finally does leave office. The best your side could come up with was Sekret Muzlem. You did manage to make that one stick though, so bravo.

Re:The polls say you're wrong

[unixisc]

Trump got more voters, including w/ groups that Romney lost w/, like Blacks, Hispanics, women. Also, Trump not only won back states like FL and OH but bested even the Bushes in winning back WI and PA (has MI finally been called in his favor?) Romney was an overrated choke artist, nothing more

Re:The polls say you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump got more voters, including w/ groups that Romney lost w/, like Blacks, Hispanics, women.

Check out the totals, Trump still isn't ahead of Bush in 2004. Ok, down to 20,000 now, but still, no great gains on his part.

And the exit polls are questionable, seeing as they are statistical inferences, not actual direct counts.

At my job this week

[rsilvergun]

my coworkers were talking about how Hilary lost the popular vote. This is a lie, and a useful lie. It was started on a right wing blog with ties to other right wing propagandists.

If you really think fake news didn't help put Trump in office you're not paying even a little attention. Hell, you don't want to. You're old enough and cynical enough to spot it.

As for Trump, all the things you don't like he's going to do and more. He'll sell you out on a scale you can't even imagine. He's already back tracked on every promise and he's not even if office yet. What I don't know is how to keep you from blaming Obama for the damage Trump's about to do...

Wheres the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it interesting that an article claiming that students don't recognize whether a news source is credible doesn't post its source. In fact, many of the top results on google for this article didn't link to the original study. Here it is if you would like to read it from the direct source: https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf
-- A millennial who doesn't assume news is true

"Fake News"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean news ran BY JEWS FOR JEWS ?

It's not like jews own the entire propaganda network, with joseph gobbels being extremely proud.

Oh wait, they do.

BINGO

[Anonymous Coward]

All the MSM media lied about Iraq and WMD. Lots of politicos believed the BS.

Now these crocodiles come with tears. Tears about their cushy positions of lying under threat.

Who needs these whores ?

WORSE

[Anonymous Coward]

The globalist corporations and banks are "steering" the news. The journalists are paid by them via advertisements. So they write what the corpos want.

The mainstream media is simply doomed. I do not know the solution, but it seems we need a wholesale rebuild of the press.

We need rules which make it illegal to take money from anyone except the readers/viewers. Otherwise we will see even more whoring and consequentially a total loss of faith in the media. Then who trust ? Any media outlet could be faked !

At least we need some type of media outlets who promise to enforce this rule. Then the reader can chose.

In the end it boils down to some sort of secret police having to monitor the news outlets if this corruption continues. Not nice prospects. Or maybe this is a core function of the state: to communicate which information is legitimate.

Or maybe we are simply doomed, I do not know.

Slashdot editors have been offshored?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about gutting an organization. You can't offshore Slashdot editors, silly Dice Media -- people will notice.

*shrugs*

[DivineKnight]

We spend our lives being told so many lies, and then repeating (perhaps creating a few of ) them; it's little wonder that we do not recognize the truth.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[ewibble]

Really its hard to have a lot of confidence without ignorance,

once you realize how little you know, its hard to be confident.

Fake News Sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Most fake news sites started long time ago.
HeadLines=> " Iraq developed nuclear weapons."
News Flash => Iraq is a 3rd world country that doesn't even make enough monies to buy Microsoft Windows. They would have to work for 6 to 12 months saving all their pennies to buy Microsoft Windows. Why not just use Linux?
Where did Iraq get it's nuclear materials from? The Ocean?
* Most kids are not into news. It's video games and TV.
** American citizens believing fake news means that we need to improve our educational system like graduate from 15th grade.
12 grade + Vocational schooling
12 grade + college/university degree

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[0100010001010011]

There are more than plenty dumb adults.

Dumb children don't suddenly pass 30 and suddenly know how to think critically. If you work in an office environment you probably have a strong selection bias who you hang around. (Even the dumbest person in my office is smarter than a lot of people I've met).

There are plenty of older Americans that fall for Phishing tricks, send money to Nigeria, etc.

A good teacher

[Archfeld]

I too had a very good teacher in high school that taught a class referred to as civics or government, but was in reality a class in critical thinking. It was one of these epiphany provoking experiences that changed my whole outlook on life, for the better I'd like to think. Some call me a cynic, I rather think of myself as a realist. I am less apt to be disappointed in people and things, and am sometimes pleasantly surprised.

College enrollment is artificially raised

[rsilvergun]

by increases in foreign students. Many of these aren't actually students. They're here working full time jobs and with companies using student visas an paid internships as backdoors to get around visa limitations.

Moreover, college has a 60 % drop out rate (Citation). Kids can make it through the first year or two by working full time, borrowing money and hitting up mom or dad (that's an 'or' for most of them, bad economies break families up). But not a lot of them can keep up with that. Most college counselors will tell you to take a hike if they find out you're working even part time after year two. There's not enough spots in the 300+ level courses. They don't want to spend time on a kid they know isn't going to make it, and nobody wants to spend their tax dollars on those lazy little buggers anyway.

The education system isn't failing these kids. It's just taking a measure of how society as a whole abandoned them to their (very miserable) fate. It was always like this. There was no 'golden age' where this wasn't the reality. The difference is we're testing these kids now up through year 2 college and as a result we can not longer pretend that we as a society are not failing them...

Re:College enrollment is artificially raised

[Anonymous Coward]

a google search isn't really a good citation since it's unclear which link you are referencing and since the links can change over time since search results are not guaranteed to remain the same over time.

Here's a snapshot of the search results:

https://archive.is/dOcEx

Was there any link in particular you were referring to or just all of them?

Gag campus peitions

[Applehu Akbar]

Typically, fake college petitions to "end women's suffrage" or "ban dihydrogen monoxide" pull about a 30% signing rate.

This Slashdot story might be fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

Planted by people who wanted us to believe it

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[brewthatistrue]

Careful! You (and bartleby.com and GP) might be spreading a misattributed quote.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...

see also:
* You can't believe everything you read on the internet. - Abraham Lincoln
* Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Its not just kids

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

I have dozens and dozens of supposedly intelligent facebook friends who share news so fake I'm initially looking to see if its an Onion article. Really bad.

When I link a snopes article I get "Snopes is fake". No kidding. When I link an article from a credible source that contradicts, I get "Well it sounded interesting. Just passing it along".

Is this news fake?

[Anonymous Coward]

This article contains a lot of statistics, but I once read that 42% of all statistics in news stories are made up on the spot by the author

Re: But they definitely feel better about themselv

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for myself, I knowingly left it unattributed for that reason, however the sentiment was appropriate.

I just didn't feel like delving into its origins.

Donald Trump is provably all those things.

[Brannon]

What's the problem with a news site publishing it?

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[ClickOnThis]

Color me corrected. Thanks for the improvement.

Fake News: See the Bottom of the Slashdot Page

[Anonymous Coward]

Examples of fake news stories:
"This technology will be bigger than the Internet!"
"$10 Billion Hole Too Big to Fly Over"

Can you spot fake news either?

[SoftwareArtist]

So you just read a summary on slashdot. I bet you believed what it said without question. Am I right?

Did you follow the link to see what the original story said? Did you check the URL to make sure it was really Engadget, not a fake page designed to look like it? Did you look up the study to see if it really said what the super short, not at all detailed article claimed it said?

No? Then you can't spot fake news either. You just believe what you read, as long as it sounds reasonable, without doing the work to find out if it's true or not.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[Anonymous Coward]

The very article you link to says that quote is spurious.

As in, no one's been able to find it in any of Socrates' actual writings.

Not that it matters. A true pearl of wisdom is good regardless of who said it first -- and whining about children doesn't qualify. Everybody is born ignorant; from the perspective of old people the young do tend to look stupid, loud, and arrogant.

Honest old people can remember what annoying shits they were sometimes when they were younger, and because of that, they are willing to cut the youngsters some slack while they're dealing with the challenges and wrong turns of growing up.

Doesn't work

[rsilvergun]

you'll fall behind. You're forgetting that employees have a shelf life, and that with declining wages you need to be moving up or you're moving down. This isn't the post WWII 1950s job market (for white males). Stuffs changed. Nobody gives a damn about your life experience. They'll look at the 10 years you spent trying to get through college and pass you by for promotions. Meanwhile you won't be able to afford to buy a house, which is how the working class build wealth in this country. You're pretty much boned.

Kids are trapped right now. Unless somebody like Bernie steps in they're going to get crushed under the load. Same as most do in China and India and most of the world. It's a nasty race to the bottom.

Re:Doesn't work

[BarbaraHudson]

A difference of 2 years when you're in your 20s is not a factor. If you spend 10 years trying to get through college while working you're an idiot anyway, so who cares?

Education for this generation is no longer a good investment in most fields, and that's just going to get worse. Sanders wouldn't have been able to change that, unless you look at most education as a make-work scheme.

so many fake liberal sites

[Anonymous Coward]

just a matter of time before they're taken offline i'm sure.

Fake News - Who determines?

[pgnas]

Fake news this is just another means of our mainstream propaganda media agents to secure their position as the experts as to what news is. This suggestion that there needs to be some sort of filter or mechanism to identify "Fake news" is a completely contrived notion that attempts to censor free speech. If students are having a problem identifying what the real news is and what's fake news is the answer is not to filter the answer is to better educate these idiots I cannot think for themselves and determine what his news and what is not. Unfortunately the major news corporations within the United States are the experts at delivering fake news, Those caught interviewing crisis actors, those wrapped up in false claims of being under fire in a war zone yet somehow still hold a job. These are the institutions that are suggesting there needs to be some type of standard and definition of what real news is. How about this? How about we think for ourselves for once, How about we use our brains, How about we use common sense? Does their really need to be a formal tribunal that designates what "Real news" is? Have any of you ever listened to radio in the 1940s and 1950s? It wasn't uncommon for newscasters to advertise goods and services and would almost be confused for news. I would challenge anyone who turns on the television and watches mainstream news to be able to identify what is public-relations, What is an advertisement, What is a political statement and what is news. I think that you will find there is very little news in any of the broadcasts. It's time to put on the big boy pants, It is time to actually think for yourself and take responsibility. It is time to use your brain and it is time to start critically thinking about the things that are happening around us. This world exists beyond a smart phone and computer screen, we spend more time in a constructed reality then we do in the world at large. With the hell cares what is real news and one is fake news if you're armed with the ability to think for yourself and know the difference.

BREAKING NEWS

[Anonymous Coward]

Inexperienced students who don't follow the news not good at seperating wheat from chaff! This just in; guy who can't spell "Metallurgist" unable to tell zirconium from titanium!

Communist Slashdot deleting my comments

[Anonymous Coward]

When you post something to Slashdot that shows some true information, like http://deliberatedumbingdown.com in which Charlotte Iserbyt outlines how this came about (free ebook) it is immediately removed from slashdot. Yet comments that have no substance are eternal. God save our republic.

All the little snowflakes had their feelings hurt

[HBI]

You know it's true in your heart, though.

Nice try...

[14erCleaner]

But this story is clearly fake.

Young adults don't need financial help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like it's Stanford that can't spot fake news. It's a fact that young adults don't know how to handle money and do basic math skills because the school is too busy indoctrinating them to love the left. Basic things like how to balance a checkbook. How to budget. I know, I rent out a bunch of houses. I offer a complimentary mathematics course to educate them. Those that take it are far better off, and I get paid, on time. Others in my group that rent properties are considering doing this now because so many people can't deal with numbers.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[cfsops]

Are you sure that's not a fake story about a fake investigation by the Anti-Socrates movement?

Today's voters & socialism

[unixisc]

Yeah, b'cos the only people opposed to socialism are those who lived before 1991 - the end of the Soviet Union. Since then, everyone has lived in a post Socialist era, except from people fresh off the boat from Cuba, Venezuela and China. People don't react to Socialist/Liberal/Communist today the way they did during the times Mondale or Dukakis ran. As far as the millennials go, they have no idea what socialism even is: they think it has something to do w/ social media.

On the guns issue, Sanders is more accommodative of the Second Amendment than his bi-coastal comrades, since he comes from a state where that matters. The average person living in the Green Mountain National Forest probably doesn't have a nearby police department that's always there to respond to calls, so like in most red states, the rural person in VT would need his guns, and Sanders understands that. Another issue where Sanders is very much compatible w/ mainstream America is immigration: he's clearly stated that we can't have jobs for immigrants when there are so many citizens out of work. That totally flies in the face of party doctrine.

Besides, I described elsewhere in this page how the election would have played out had Bernie been the candidate. While Trump would have held the Romney states, the battleground states would have been a different story. For instance, WI, MI and PA, which swung for Trump by their union workers, did so due to his opposition to TPP, NAFTA and a few other populist themes - themes not supported by Hilary but definitely supported by Sanders. Things like Gay Rights would have split evenly b/w Trump and Sanders, since Trump himself is not anti-LGBT, so that wouldn't have been an issue. Minimum wage would have been an issue, and that would have worked Sanders' way.

My bottom line is that had Sanders been the candidate, the election would have been on purely ideological lines, as opposed to personality the way it was b/w Clinton and Trump. And there happen to be more left leaning Americans today than right leaning ones. Even if one allows for the fact that many of them are in CA, NY and MA, there are still enough in battleground states to make it work for a Sanders. Like had Ted Cruz been the candidate, he would have mobilized all conservatives, but Sanders would equally have mobilized most millennials, as well as more elderly people on the left, who in the absence of a Soviet Union, are less fearful of Communism than they once were.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[Anonymous Coward]

penmanship

The blatant sexism in this word makes my moobs ache.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[brewthatistrue]

I'm not sure.
It's some guy's blog.
Who is he to question Bartleby?

All sarcasm aside, I think this is an example where a motivated individual can spend more resources researching a niche topic than a larger organization will choose to allocate. One would expect a quotation dictionary to be more accurate, but they have thousands of quotes to deal with while this Yale Doctoral graduate with his avocation has the luxury of picking and choosing which quotes to research and to what lengths he will go until he is satisfied.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[gzuckier]

Careful! You (and bartleby.com and GP) might be spreading a misattributed quote.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...

see also: * You can't believe everything you read on the internet. - Abraham Lincoln * Never, never be afraid to do what’s right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. - Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

This must be a lie, i've searched twitter for socrates' account and can't find anything like this.

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[gzuckier]

Ignorance and confidence, that's always a winning combination.

Sadly, it seems to be one lately.

ignodence? or confignorance? we absolutely need a new word for that particular combo.

VERIFY and TRUST;

[NewYork]

"Media does not spread free opinion; It generates opinion" --Oswald, 1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West

Re:But they definitely feel better about themselve

[brewthatistrue]

Looks like I thought "Bartlett's" when I read "Bartleby" but the same point stands. The link is to a book of quotations which one would assume to have been researched.