Slashdot Mirror
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.
Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.
But that might lead to critical thinking.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
"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.
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.
No surprise here. Kids can't get sarcasm either.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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.
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.
This signature is false.
And worst of all, they keep standing on your lawn.
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.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
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.
Somebody's been eating the memberberries again.
"Member how smart we were as kids?"
"Yeah, I member."
You are welcome on my lawn.
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...
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
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.
Ignorance and confidence, that's always a winning combination.
Sadly, it seems to be one lately.
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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
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.
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.
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...
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is it is hard to validate their authenticity" - Abraham Lincoln
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
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.
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.
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.
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.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
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'.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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 . . . .
"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.
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.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
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...
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.
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.
You mean those with decades more experience with a subject are more skilled, knowledgeable and adept? Colour me shocked.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"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.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
And that is exactly the problem: People that do not know their limits. "Incompetent and unaware of it" captures this extremely well.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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?
And yet, in a free and self-governing country, you have to convince these people too... (Hint, calling them names is not helping.)
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...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.