@XH558 @Robarano @Exige Just in case you missed it, it was this thread, but there has been the most offensive post deleted, thanks to El Toro and rightly so. Although there is another one in there from the same poster that is on similar lines but not quite as offensive. Heaven knows what they put in the water in Warwickshire! https://www.ducatiforum.co.uk/threads/crossing-the-channel.67102/
I have a different perspective of the world from my points of conviction & views. It would be nice to have a book section on this site. So some semblance of discussion of facts or fiction can be shared. There is a block function if you can't handle reading alternative but provable information.
alternative I'm happy to read alternative views and opinions all the time and interested to know why you have different perspective of the world.
I've nothing to add to the spat, however the block function needs work. Perhaps a stiky unignore function, per thread. For instance when I look at the brexit thread it appears that the sensible side of our membership have all gone schizophrenic. Everyone agreeing, but then arguing. Click show "show ignored content".... and all becomes clear.
I have a negative view about this, particularly on a self described "Ducati Forum UK". Yes we wander off in threads of course into diverse fields, but if you want in-depth discussion on political/historical/philosophical issues there are no shortage of other platforms on which to do so. Another pet hate of mine is that people do not observe, when talking about serious and emotive topics the dictum that " You can have your own opinion but not your own facts". Too often in contested areas of serious debate people will reference sources of stats or stories from fringe groups which do not pass any rigour at all as being factual. At least peer-reviewed journals, although fallible, do have some mechanism for fact-checking by people who have studied at length in the area before recommending publication. Posts reciting unverifiable or demonstrably false claims only get others hot under the collar and spread disinformation even when properly corrected. Too often the initial inflammatory post sticks in the mind of those not familiar with the field and the IP's mission is accomplished no matter how competently and thoroughly it is rebutted.
I absolutely agree. We should all be more ‘reader beware’. Because, on the whole, people are not, we have the existence and power of fake news disseminated via the internet and social media. Fake news and fake facts that can distort elections and referenda and often times, unfortunately, emanating from Putin’s internet troll workshop in St Petersburg. The initial post that sparked things off in this instance by A N Other was a) so far off topic it was from another planet and b) full of dubious facts and c) arguably just plain racist.
That depends entirely on the content. This phrase "fake news" has been popularised by Trump as a way of dismissing any report you don't like - irrespective of whether you believe it or not, the debate never gets that far nor is it intended to. Whether a report is "fake" should be determined by reference to whether it contains factual inaccuracies, distorted inferences drawn from facts etc. In the world of politics, it is naturally the case that that one side quotes from reports that favour their point of view and vice versa. The media in this arena entangles ideology/vested interests/facts to such a degree that the "Newbie" reader needs to know where the writer is coming from, the perspective of the publisher employing him etc to be wary of the perspective brought to the finished piece. Pieces about climate change ( I exclude opinion pieces) are a perfect example: on the advancement in battery technology you can read "reports" in one "paper" (online, whatever) dripping with sarcasm over limitations cost etc, whilst in another a brightly optimistic "this is the future of humanity" piece from the opposing POV. So, to your question, at least in my view, "believe" is neither here nor there when it it comes to news. You can either ascertain useful and verifiable facts from it or you can't.
