Why fake-news are hard to deny?

Why fake-news are hard to deny?

The problems with fake news are quite simple. The main question is "who is right". And in this situation, we would need the facts, what is supporting us. But the main thing is that what if the opponent appeals in emotions? In the case, where against each other are research, what is made by using the empiric methodology, where is used the accepted methods and equipment, and the so-called self-experienced person, those things might make problematic to deny the person, who has the "experienced background".

Or those persons might have strong religious convictions, and other opinions are hurting that sensitive person. Those things are causing problems if we want to deny fake information. And one of the best ways is to use personal loss like ending the long-term relationship for keeping the opponent kindly, and of course, good rhetorics is helping the thing, that the audience reacts with the right way.

Then we must realize that criticism is not a negative thing. Why critics have so negative involving? When we are critically observing research, we must dare to ask, has some people seen all evidence? If we would want to deny some research, we must find the reason for that in the research report. Other things like leadership, personal property, and color of the skirt are meanless.

The error must be found from the words, what that person has put in that report. Has that person use many sources for collecting data, and does that person have access to the most modern equipment, what science has created, and then we must realize that we are not experts in everything in the world.

We are all humans, who are making mistakes. They are not a bad thing at all. But mistakes can become bad things if we don't confess and fix them. We must have the force and dare to look at the mirror and say, that we are human beings. Errors show that we are making our job ourselves. And we all have different interests. Some people are interested in medicine, other in history, and third is interested in technology like rockets or automobiles.

This means that we are facing very big paradoxes when we are talking about the engines. The thing is that nuclear-powered aircraft would not increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can cause radioactive pollution and cause cancer in large areas and change those areas inhabitable for a long time, but it would not raise the level of carbon dioxide.

When somebody is using the images, where is some kind of curves, the other person can just say, that "I felt that thing myself". This is one version of the pseudoscientific thing. The so-called person "self-experienced" is causing empathy. The thing is that kind of thing is really good arguments, and the problem with fake news is that it is ambitious. And they offer simple answers to complicated problems. One of the best answer, what fake news is giving is "just let them be". We cannot make any changes to the world alone, and that's why we must just follow the main flow. Why we should change anything because we are not on Earth when something happens.

In this case, I will use the environment and climate change as an example. I know that somebody expected anything else. There are people, who are denying this thing. So they can go to the jungle, and interview some villains, who are repeating the word "yes, yes". Then they would tell how positive things the rising temperature is to those people, who are living in the houses, what is on the top of pylons. They can say, that they are happy now because they can fish straight from their houses, and when the children would go to school by using rubber boats. We want to believe that thing. Those people have own experience, how positive thing is the rising temperature.

This makes them hard to deny. The negative context is causing interest, and if we have some kind of opinion about the thing, that thing causes that our opinion would get support from the fake news. Let's think about the cases, where a person has just bought a new car. That car is really expensive. Would we want to listen to the things about environmental chancing in that case? Then we see the article, where is a story about the slowing of the increase in temperature. We would read that thing because it will support our opinion, that we cannot do anything ourselves, or we can change bad things to the next generations.

This is the thing in pseudoscience and fake news. If we would start to think about the black holes they are far away. There are billions or at least hundreds of lightyears to the nearest black hole, so let them be. We cannot affect those things. But when we are denying the environment change, we can make two things, we can deny the research.

That is one version, but the second version is that we can say, that the environment changes, but there is the national interest before it. And then the result is that the national interest would be boosted with the opinion, that the generations of the future are not here, and the political leaders would not get any votes from them. So why we must think about them. This means that the thing is one version of popularity.

About the church of Scientology

About the church of Scientology

Under this text is a link to the article, what is telling about the escaping from the headquarters of Scientology. The story is very nice to read, and it's written in Finnish, and that's why you can use some translation program to find out the thing, what makes this kind of communities very dangerous. The thing is that the Scientology is the religion in the USA gives it freedom from paying taxes. 

If we think that religious societies are sharing manipulated data to their members, the purpose of that data might make the members more pledged. That means that those people might call the president as the "Jesus", and if somebody would have different opinions, that means punishment. And of course, that title is used also outside the society. 

This thing causes cheating at schools, and the members will leave education, which will raise the power of the leaders of the group. And this is a good way to isolate children from other people. The effect of these methods is that there are always two or three members of these societies, and they would report if a person uses another name of their leaders. And of course, the relationships to outsiders are prohibited. But I will return those things at the end of this text. 

But the problem is that this kind of societies, what is guarded by riflemen are always giving topics for urban legends, and even if those people are uneducated, the thing is that there is something scary in this article. The question is how people, who might not have more than base education can hack things? The answer would be in the methodology, what is called the "precision learning".  

This methodology is basing the idea, that person can learn things like programming languages very good if the schools are teaching only just those things. That means that if we would tech programming very effectively, we can simply make school, where every part of learning and teaching are orbiting around the programming. And that kind of things is really scary. Because if a person learns something very deeply, but doesn't know where to use those things, that makes people dangerous. 

And the second way to make a person dangerous is to teach that some leader is like Jesus in their society. This kind of thing seems extremely common in religious societies, but then the reality is that those societies had ever been so much technology in their hands than today. And the most interesting thing is that those societies have the right to maintain their homepages. The thing is that those homepages give a similar effect than banderoles gave in the 1970s. 

Those movements can share the information of themselves on the Internet, but they can also deny their members to take information, which is not accepted by the leaders of society. And there are rumors that some of those religious societies have the intranet-based system, what is used as the Internet. But the homepages, what is shared in those closed networks are only the duplicates, and also the information, what is shared by using those pages is manipulated. That means that some presidents might be called by using religious terms.

 And the thing is that kind of actions has a purpose. Its mission is to isolate the youngsters of those societies. They might seem a little bit funny at schools if they are calling the president of the nation as "Jesus". That thing might be used for the isolation process because of the cheating would be an effective method, to make those children leave school and pledge the community. 

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10982531

In the courtroom only facts are important.

In the courtroom only facts are important.

Social media has great power, as we have seen. In cases like a confession of AREA-51, social media had a vital role in the uncovering the secret, what might be bigger than we ever imagined. This case has been shown that the power of social media has a very large role to force the rulers to tell the truth for the people, and also Brexit has shown the force of this way to share opinions and thoughts.

But the thing is that social media has brought one problem in the mind of people. If we think that so-called traditional media would give one-side information of something, we must realize that the great mass of false information has more effect than the small mass of right information, if people are believing that kind of data. The confession is the key in this kind of way to act. If shared data confess people, it's the same, what people shares.

One way to make people silent is to claim that some people have taken to court because of their opinions. In the court is one rule what people must realize. Prosecuted are innocent until they are proven guilty. And proving the prosecuted guilty must happen by using facts, not appealing feelings. This is the thing, what is normally forgotten.

And that is a really interesting thing in social media. When we want to confess to people that our way to think is the only one and right, we must have only persons, who have authority to the system. Then we can use titles, what is not true, and get those "three persons" who can prove the thing, what has been discussed true. The thing is that those things seem very confessing, but then we can see something, what we don't want to see in this hypothetical case.

First thing is that the faculty or area, where professor works is not mentioned. Second, the source, what is used is somehow unique, it has been some lecture or something, and it has happened before digital recordings or recordings of the lecture have somehow destroyed. The third is that there are great feelings about this kind of cases. That thing is seen in the cases when some war criminal has been arrested.

In those cases, the media was full of brutal details what has been done to the victims, but a couple of things have been forgotten. One is the place where those things have been done, and second is the ranks and units, where those criminals served. Those things are really important for the justice system, which must give the judgment. And even if the cases where the crime is well known, the identities of the criminals must be proven, or those prosecuted persons are free to go. Sometimes I have thought that is the handling of war crimes by using brutal details mission to deny people to see those images?

 Well, that thing is a mystery, but the feelings are an extremely good weapon to keep people silent. "I was there myself" is a good argument in media, and "I want to forget". Those things are a good way to close the mouths of the people. We must forget to think about mafia and war criminals some kind of super demons. We must start to think about them as regular criminals, who had great support for their work. When we are handling cases like homicide detectives, we ever ask them to have they ever been battered? This is a really interesting thing to think when we are thinking about investigations and research.

The next there is a small example of about misunderstandings what are connected to Indians. What is the archeologist's relationship with the Mayan culture? Of course, European sociopaths destroyed that nice and famous Indian culture, which ruled the Andes of South America. By the way, Mayan Indians lived in Central America, and their culture was crumbling in when Europeans came. The Indians, who lived in the Andes were Incas and the reason why Pizarro could destroy those people was that Incas were conquered their area, and slaved the other Indians.

That allowed Pizarro to recruit those people in his army. The same thing happened in Central America, where Aztecs slaved other Indians, and then Cortez allowed to use force against Aztecs. But the thing is that the hate was a similar tool in the hands of Conquistadors what it was in the hands of Nazi-Germany and after that Allied forces benefit the hate in their actions. The thing is that crushing other opinions would happen by simply trolling them out from social media.

The second way is to appeal to feelings. If people see something happening that thing has a greater effect than if we would read some reports. If in the court would arrive, some 90 years old woman or man, would the counselor or prosecutors dare to interrogate them with full skills and force. But there is one thing, we can't believe that those old people were young sometimes. We always want to believe that somebody who we might know as the beloved man or woman was monster.

The thing is that the law says that every prosecuted must have the best possible defense. And the thing why defense must be used is that the also prosecuted person must be heard. But the motives have been changed in that kind of cases.

Murder is still murder and serious crime. If the merchandise of the person or the initial capital for business has been earned by using criminal methods, that capital would be returned to the families of victims, and the lawyers would get good profits for those cases. So the lawyer always wins. But the law says that murder can be prosecuted rest of a person's lifetime. This is the thing in law. In the courtroom, the moral has no mean, only facts are things what means something, and the rest of things are meanless. This is the rule in court.

How to handle feelings on the Internet?

How to handle feelings on the Internet?

Internet and own home are a very good place to handle things like feelings, and in that combination is sometimes very devastating. When we are tired, or somehow in very sensitive feelings, we might make mistakes, what we will shame in the next morning.

And this is the thing, why we should not write when we are tired, but as you know, when the inspiration strikes, you cannot resist emotion. Inspiration is the most important thing if the person is working in the creative area. And here we must say, that creative persons are sometimes somehow different than other people.

This is the thing, what we must understand when we are making texts or something else on the net. On the Internet is many people, who like to say, that hackers or somebody else would see everything, what we are writing in here. And why should we care about that thing? Why we must hide things, what we feel or what we like? Like in many other stories, there is a background in this column.

I just read some feedback, what I got in some blog, what have written, but as you know I have not updated that blog recently, and there was some hacker or something like that, who told that this person has been reading that text. And I was impressed because that blog or text is free to read on the Internet.

So that thing that somebody has read those texts doesn't mean that this person is somehow good hacker. So what must I afraid? That somebody would notice about writings about some Russian modern art? So if somebody says that the person is hacker, we must remember, that we must act in the same way, when somebody is telling to be a burglar.

What we should notice when we are looking at the writings?

There are many times told, that if people should not tell or share a thing on the Internet, and the reason is that their privacy has been a danger. But is this the truth and only truth? When we are looking as so-called qualified books and writings in the newspapers, we are facing the thing, that there are many times published information, what is somehow irrelevant or harmful.

One of the saddest examples about this thing is that the medical diagnosis of the scientists are published, and the only thing that means something is that diagnosis. The thing is that medical staff, who are handling that kind of information has professional secrecy about the diagnosis of people.

When we are thinking about things like psychic disorders, we must see that it's same, what kind of movies about that kind of things are made in Hollywood. There are no people, who are telling that movies like "Hannibal" are harmful to the social life of mental patients.

There is no patient association, which would even say a thing against those movies, but when somebody would make a little joke of the Parkinson patients, that causes very big media protests, that this kind of jokes is tasteless. But no media has been protested against movies, where serial killers are hunting people. Of course, those people are the most brutal and notorious people in the world, but only a couple of psychiatric patients are really that kind of people

One little thing about Stendhal-syndrome

One little thing about Stendhal-syndrome

https://kimmoswritings.blogspot.com/

Stendhal-syndrome or fascination in the front of art

When we are waiting for something we would be like adjusting to the mental condition, that the something, what we would be dreamed is coming in the front of us. And when we at least see something, we would face the situation, that there would be raised only the thought and worlds, what we are thinking as the most wonderful things, what we can ever create.

When that painting in front of the person, who has the Stendhal-syndrome, that adjusting would erupting as the trance, when the person is looking at the painting. Then that person starts to find out the hidden meanings from that painting, what is so impressive. In that situation, that person could repeat things like nobody ever created those wonderful paintings without reason.

Fascination in front of the painting. 

And in front of the wonderful paintings, we can let the "Pegasos fly" as we sometimes might think. When we are thinking about that situation, that we are facing some extraordinary thing, like wonderful paintings, we might release all our skills to make text. When we are facing the "grey man", who would want to write something, what would make an impression, that thing would cause because of those paintings.

They just release the will to write something extraordinary, and in the real world the people, who are "grey" are the most interesting persons. The reason is that those people would not need to make an impression because of their clothes or merchandise. Those clothes you can buy anywhere. They want to make an impression of something, what other people would not able to buy, and that thing is the writing or making something unique.

Writing is the way to introduce own ideas

Writing is the way to show something to other people. It's the way to introduce their own ideas and show people, how that writer sees things. And maybe those things would not ever interest other people, but there are always people, who are interested in the things, like what kind of creatures the werewolves might be. The thing is that sometimes the writers are only a little bit shy, and that means they are quite silent people, and the writing is their way to introduce the things, what they want to tell other people.

There are always people, who say that bad critique and feedback can terminate the will of writing. But at this point, I must say the thing that who cares about feedback what is given in the kilometers away. Nobody ever knows about that feedback, what is given to another person in the bar, and this thing is a really good thing. That would save us to listen to the feedback about the things, that our writings would not please some person, who would not tolerate that somebody will write something, without asking that inmates permission.