Examples are researches, articles from media, youtube videos, podcasts etc. how do I know that what the people in these media outlets are saying is true? Do I just take the information at face value or do I need to do some specific research?
I’m asking this as I’ve come to information in the past that was then contradicted by some other information (apparently). Especially when it comes to debate and I would say that there are documents that the CIA has staged coups all around the world, the other person can just say “show me the proof I don’t believe you” and I’m just left standing there not knowing what to say or saying “saw it in a youtube video which showed the documents” which isn’t much of an answer I feel like.
Hope this makes sense.
Agree with most comments here, but to add another little point:
I think having a healthy dose of skepticism about everything is healthy. It might be hard to balance that with genuine belief and hope, but it’s possible.
I never 100% believe anything I keep in my mind. I always allow room to completely change my mind if enough evidence allows for it.
What I believe the most at any given time depends on the evidence for it, and the evidence for everything around it that connects to it.
you hit it with a “@grok is this true”
Usually I just come here lol, check around some corners to see if there’s an article or something to confirm or deny
Some books (and check their sources):
- Washington Bullets by Prashad,
- Jakarta Method by Bevins,
- Killing Hope by Blum,
- Shock Doctrine by Klein,
- Confessions of an Economic Hitman by Perkins,
- Overthrow by Kinzer
- Legacy of Ashes by Weiner
I’m sure there are youtube videos as well on most of the above books.
There’s also on the other side things likes Gene Sharp’s works such as from Dictatorship to Democracy which I understand are used by colour revoution movements, may be useful in understanding methodology.
Also, on persuasion: https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/
Definetly saving this post for future references and books, much appreciated!
Forgot to say - Grand Chessboard by Brzezinski; former national security advisor ie straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak.
Ask yourself who is funding this information, what their agenda is, what their bias is, why they’re spreading this information, what they could stand to gain from it, and what their sources are then do research to find the answer to these questions.
For example if you read a article about how the DPRK is suppressing religious expression but the article was published by a Christian missionary organization run by a millionaire televangelist, funded by the US government, and cites its sources as South Korean gossip magazines who in turn cite “anonymous sources” you can safely say that this isn’t reliable information on religious expression in the DPRK.
Locate the source of the information, no verifiable source no trustworthy. If it says anonymous sources it’s state department.
What is considered a verifiable source? For instance certain studies are funded by lobies that want a certain result from that study and will affect the final results because of that, how do I determine if those funded studies are actually worth trusting?
If the source isn’t fabricated or dead link, doesn’t cite NED, USAID, state department, or any other CIA linked organization, it’s probably a real source. You can just keep searching until you find the original ones.
That’s why you should always check out the references the video or podcast creators put in their descriptions. For the example of coups, you can go and check the declassified CIA documents including internal memos and whistleblower testimonies. They are all one google ( or whatever search engine you like) search away. The books like the Jakarta method also have mentions of those documents. It’s always good to verify the sources even if the info comes from your favorite creator/ online community. It also prevents embarrassing situations such as not being able to cite your sources during an argument. Here are some useful resources for further study/verification.
https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/ProleWiki:Main_page
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/1029073
Edit: Forgot to mention, Also check where the funding of such information is coming from. If Anti-socialist, anti-China news media outlet is funded/owned by a private corporate or even straight up, a billionaire, then they are always gonna side with the capital in the face of fascism. These outlets tend to be anti-Union as well. Crowdfunded and worker owned media is preferable.
Fantastic thank you! What if certain statements are made that have contradicting sources, which source do you then trust?
I don’t think you can, philosophically, know for certain that something is, without any doubt, Truth.
You can decide, for yourself, by finding the sources, seeing if they match other trustworthy sources, and seeing if they are sources that you find to have been trustworthy in the past.
A news report by the IOF is not likely to be believable to me because it disagrees with sources I find reliable (Middle East Eye or Al Jazeera or whoever), and is often found to have been untruthful.
*edit: there’s not a way to bridge the gap and prove your point to a disbelieving liberal. They believe state sources that a Marxist finds untrustworthy, and disbelieve sources we would typically find trustworthy. If they live under an idealist truth, you can’t sway them (in my opinion).
