Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[kat]

The difference here, as I have seen it, has to do with credibility of sources and refusals to examine things posted on 'suspect sites'.

I have seen comments statin that ... Oh, that is a left wing site and I refuse to even go there.'

At the time that happened, I followed that link and found an AFP article that had been preserved by that site that had 'scrolled off the regular news systems'.

And so, the debate had gone like this ...

A: 'I maintain that XXXX is true.'
B: 'I don't believe you. Prove it'
A: 'Look here [link].'
B: 'I won't look there because it is a leftist site.'​

That is the difference between 'investigation in the real world' and here.

I want to take a moment to clarify something. I had made a comment on some thread somewhere in regards to...erm something. The link was to commondreams.com, I believe. I stated that I would not click through to that site. I won't...because I refuse to click through to it and increase it's hit ratings. I've found it..to be an unreliable site. Also, there's been some issues raised by the AP and Reuters in regards to sites posting their reports on their sites and changing the contents of reports. So, it's no longer adequate to link to a site that says it's report came via this or that source. Of course..this ignores the fact that mainstream media is often erroneous as well..*Shrug*

 

[vanesch]

Of course. The main point being that this is pretty much what we do here. I'd venture to guess that almost no one posting in the Politics subforum is interested in conducting an investigation.

The Politics subforum is (at least to me) the smoky bar of PF, where you chat with others about improving the world, after a few drinks. Sometimes it is a bit serious, most of the time it is half serious and sometimes it is lunatic.
Nevertheless, in doing so, you learn stuff. Also a great exercise in rethoric

 

[alexandra]

:rofl: Perfect example how perception is everything.

I have not read the whole thread yet (but am carefully working my way through it - wow, it's long!). But some things people have pointed out so far regarding the allocation of 'guilt' for the Holocaust reminded me of the Social Psychology experiments exploring this very issue that were conducted after WWII by Solomon Ash ( http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/s/so/solomon_asch.htm )and Stanley Milgrim (http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/milgram.htm#Theory ).

These experiments basically support the hypothesis that it is what Stanford professor Philip Zimbardo calls 'the power of the situation' (or the pressure to conform/listen to authority) that shapes social reality and influences people's behaviour - and that can (to some extent) explain how an 'entire nation' can be complicit in the violences done in Nazi Germany.

I don't think these social psychology theories adequately by themselves explain the complexity of the situation prevailing in Europe from before WW1 to after WWII (one needs also to look at the economics and politics of the time, and the imperialist rivalries between the major nation players). These theories do, however, offer some sort of psychological explanation for the actions of individuals involved and swept up in the course of historical events they felt they had no control over.

If any of you click on the above links and find them interesting (I found the outcomes of the experiments absolutely fascinating), you may also be interested in exploring Zimbardo's 'Prison Experiment' website: http://www.prisonexp.org/

alex

 

[Smurf]

I want to take a moment to clarify something. I had made a comment on some thread somewhere in regards to...erm something. The link was to commondreams.com, I believe. I stated that I would not click through to that site. I won't...because I refuse to click through to it and increase it's hit ratings. I've found it..to be an unreliable site. Also, there's been some issues raised by the AP and Reuters in regards to sites posting their reports on their sites and changing the contents of reports. So, it's no longer adequate to link to a site that says it's report came via this or that source. Of course..this ignores the fact that mainstream media is often erroneous as well..*Shrug*

Well you've got all your base's covered then don't ya. Yup, no lefty sites for you (or any site at all that disagrees with you)

 

[Townsend]

The Politics subforum is (at least to me) the smoky bar of PF, where you chat with others about improving the world, after a few drinks.

Yes...drink comrade, drink.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/9940/frontlable7ro.jpg

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2294/leninaide5jn.jpg

I here by nominate leninaide as the official drink of the United PhysicsForums Socialist Party.

 

[vanesch]

Yes...drink comrade, drink.

http://img335.imageshack.us/img335/9940/frontlable7ro.jpg

http://img311.imageshack.us/img311/2294/leninaide5jn.jpg

I here by nominate leninaide as the official drink of the United PhysicsForums Socialist Party.

Haha, funny pictures

 

[kat]

Well you've got all your base's covered then don't ya. Yup, no lefty sites for you (or any site at all that disagrees with you)

I realize that it might be difficult for you to grasp the difference between a site that "disagrees" and a site that is "unreliable"...but maybe you could give it a try...hmm? :yuck:

 

[TRCSF]

I realize that it might be difficult for you to grasp the difference between a site that "disagrees" and a site that is "unreliable"...but maybe you could give it a try...hmm? :yuck:

I think you mean commondreams.org

So what is it that makes it unreliable?