The problem doesn't lie with any one of Dave's questionable assertions. The problem lies with his narrative arc. That arc argues that *others* (not Dave) claim non-credible expertise. Yet Dave implies over and over again that he has such credibility. Each list item and conclusion are replete with subjective perspective, but are stated with absolute authority.
For example: "mainstream media outlets in the US assume their audience is composed of idiots ..." Never mind the unjustified generalization in lumping, say, MSNBC with Fox News. The idea that there even is such a thing as "mainstream media" given that many people get their news from Facebook or Twitter (for whatever that's worth) is just nonsense. One of the signals for "fake news" is whether or not it tweaks you, triggers you. Dave's post is chock full of trigger phrases intended to pluck at the tiny little drawstrings that evoke one's prejudices. It could have been submitted as an authentic *rant*. Had Dave peppered the post with qualifiers like "I think", "It seems to me", or "In my opinion", it would be easier to read as such an authentic rant. Instead, Dave is authoritatively presenting his beliefs as if they are facts, either rigorously established during a 2 day road trip or patently obvious to those in the know. To be clear, I'm not claiming any of Dave's questionable beliefs are false, only committing a bit of tu quoque. Dave's rant is as guilty of authoritarianism as his targets. On 4/13/20 9:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Among Dave's odd remarks, -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
