We live in an age where we have access to SO much information, but as a society we are so much lazier than any of our ancestors ever were or even could be.
We come from men and women - yes, men and women - who had very little information but were a million times harder working and resourceful than the majority us alive today. They had to be or WE would not be here.
Our ancestors were hard working, brave, adventurous and more often than not, they only understood well what they knew intimately or somewhat intimately. Whether they were familiar with a subject through stories and tales or first hand experience, they knew little of anything else.
Of course one can always be more trustful of first hand experience than stories and and/or tales. Why? Because storytellers themselves may or may not believe in the stories that they are dispensing. They may even believe themselves that they are telling a factual story when in it is not. How would anyone be able to verify it unless they had first hand experience with it as well?
Eventually there were books and they were written on average by the victorious and not the losers. In many cases history has been skewed throughout to portray the ruling side in a most favorable light.
Which brings us back to the world we live in today.
The victorious still write the script today, however as a society we are in an extraordinary position of having access to almost all the information and documents. We might not have everything but we have enough to get the real story out before the book is closed on the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries.
As you would expect with this much information available, everybody literally knows everything.
Or close to everybody, knows everything...At least that is how it feels talking to literally everyone...myself included most likely.
By and large, it is not because of first hand experience however, but because of stories that other people are telling, claiming to be true.
In today’s day and age we do have the best of both worlds, there is so much information available and we can find information on literally any topic that we want. We can collaborate with other like minded people, who by the way, have much more impressive credentials on average than a “reporter” or “news anchor”.
This is our time to use the information age for what it should be used for, to better our world and society.
Or we can let other people tell us stories and sink farther into the entertainment age.
WARNING!!!
MSM WILL TELL YOU THAT YOU CANNOT LOOK FOR YOURSELF. CNN SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL FOR YOU AND I TO LOOK BUT NOT FOR THEM. MSM SAYS TO LET THEM TELL US A STORY.
Do you know you don’t need any formal training to be a journalist?
Be your own journalist.
Please feel free add points in the comments.
You lose credibility when you make claims like this. When did CNN say this? I would suggest revising this.
My other, more general observation is this. Yes, we live in a time when everyone has access to everything (pretty much).
But the problem with that is, we cannot see the forest for the trees. There are too many rabbit-holes to go down.
That's why we have 'experts' who dedicate their lives to specific topics, whether it be ancient historians, drug researchers, scientists, or whatever. It's great saying we are all citizen journalists, but we are simply not qualified in many cases. I read the other day a person arguing about 'flat earth'. He said something like, it makes no sense that we are spinning at high speed, and that the earth is spinning around the sun, etc etc. One has to agree, intuitively, it's a bit strange to think we are spinning like that. But consider the situation with regards to atoms, molecules, etc. Does that seem a bit hard to grasp also? It took a team of fucking geniuses to figure out how to split the atom and build the atom bombs. Intuitively, can you imagine that taking a small handful of a material, and squashing it violently, could result in a bomb capable of destroying an entire city? I find it hard to comprehend even as a trained physicist and engineer. But I accept that there are experts who know this stuff, and that I'll never have the training to fully understand this. Or how to put a rocket into space, or how to create a vaccine. It seems madness to think that 'citizen journalists' can second-guess this sort of thing.
Cuomo said on air in relation to the pizzagate/clinton emails/wikileaks scandal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQllunHssEk
Agree with the rest of your post. Thanks for chipping in.
You beat me to it.
Ah, got it. OK - here's how I interpret that, FWIW. Certain documents are indeed illegal to possess; I'm sure you would agree it's illegal to possess top secret military documents, as an example. But more generally, it is illegal to possess any document marked by the government or military as 'classified'. So in that context, if these documents were deemed / marked / stamped 'classified', then it's a true statement that it is illegal to possess them (or traffic in them). Wikileaks intentionally released thousands of classified docs, some benign, some actually damaging to the government. The Emails in question (Clintons) were deemed classified because she was SOS at the time.
But I agree, the CNN context was kinda bogus; and Cuomo is s dick.
If some 'citizen journalist' got his/her hands on a truly top secret military doc that revealed that the US was about to invade China, for example, and leaked it out on some YT channel (and blew the cover of the op), I would expect everyone would be quite happy for that person to be arrested / charged. My point being - documents being illegal seems reasonable to me in some contexts.
My last paragraph above wasn't a critique at all on your letter, of course - it was just something that was triggered in my mind when I read your words. And to add to it, I have friends who are doctors, friends who are biologists, Chemists, etc. I've known them since I was at University with them - 40 years ago, so I trust them explicitly. When I talk to them about some of the stuff being discussed here (in relation to vaccines), by self-described experts, they pretty much fall off their chair laughing. This notion that the vaccines are mind-controlling, or location tracking, is just completely nuts to them. But can they DISPROVE it? No. And that raises yet another issue - it's virtually impossible to prove a negative. It came up on another thread that John Roberts is a pedo. My question in response is, how could he ever PROVE he was NOT a pedo? If I accused you of being a pedo, how would YOU go about proving that I was wrong? Once I make that accusation, I've potentially damaged your reputation and nothing you do or say can recover it, despite the total false nature of the accusation. These are the things that really bother me about today's 'everyone is an expert' mentality.
Dr. Fauci is an 'expert'. Why the reversal on face diapers?
Well, that's a huge topic, but one line of thinking is this. Early in the pandemic, there was a massive shortage of ALL PPE - masks, gowns, you name it. What they didn't want to have happen was every tom/dick/harry (joe public) rushing out to buy masks, like they did with toilet paper, because that would have exacerbated the shortage of masks for hospital workers. So the message was, don't bother with masks. Later, as masks became available for hospitals, it was OK to have the public start acquiring them. Also, more studies were carried out on the transmission and masks were found to have LIMITED use in limiting the trajectory of expelled (sneezed / coughed / shouted) particles. Pretty minor benefit in the scheme of things, but a slight advantage. Personally I believe they do stop longer-distance spread of particles FROM me TO others; they are useless at protecting ME from OTHERS. But I'm not trying to force that opinion on anyone, just giving my take.
Face diapers are a placebo. Dr. Fraudi is the other kind of expert.
I like it. I think it's great. If I was forced to suggest something I'd say change bajillion to a million or millions or billion but I don't think it's that important. Good luck!
Agreed. Thx.
CNN SAYS IT’S ILLEGAL FOR YOU AND ME TO LOOK
(...for me to look not for I to look.)
Trite expression. Avoid. Also avoid using "literally" and "by and large".
Thanks for chipping in. Is it really 'you and me' not 'you and I'?
Yes. A handy way to check is remove the ‘you’ ... it’s illegal for me... not it’s illegal for I