Category : Articles

Sub Category : Miscellaneous

   I often feel like more people are using social media's as a form of voicing opinions as facts. Issues with facts being transparent to the mines of the people. Then we have those who ignore the facts, and one to make up their own in order to push an idea. The problem with what's going on today, is many people assume that these people who are voicing opinions as actual facts. There are three different kinds of sources on social media. You have the outlets which try to give the actual facts, you have sources who point things out by using feeling and fact, and than you have the outlets who give feelings.
   I fall in the point where I give feeling with fact, where most people commonly fall under. The first one, giving the actual facts are very rare sources to find. It tends to be a difficult process to use facts, when most of them are  obscured to our the outlets we receive information. We must be careful on who we who we believe in as adults or children, because we may act out inappropriately if we are misguided. Already, we have seen several journalists and civilians harmed by releasing stories or even the smallest fraction of information to the public.
   You're probably wondering on how to tell the difference between fact and feeling sources. The most important way to assess whether something is fact or just feeling is by reading the way they're writing or speaking. Sometimes you'll have to read in between the lines to see if it's fact or feeling. An example of this would be Fox News, and an aired footage talking about Rosenstein flying with Trump to a meeting. After mentioning that, they suggested that he intended to fire Mr. Rosenstein at that meeting. This was not true, it was because Mr. Rosenstein was asked to make sure nothing inappropriate was released at that meeting. It is because of stunts like this, which lead people to say and do nasty things. They use these types of suggestions to push fiction instead of facts. They aren't the only mainstream media Outlet which pulls these types of stunts. CNN, ABC, NBC and Fox all responsible for these types of blatant incidents. If someone is suggesting something, than it is most likely void of facts. Just because he is going to a meeting with Mr. Rosenstein, does not mean he has any intention of firing him.
   Not only are some guilty of inciting these attacks, but some are guilty of deliberately misinforming people. It's a shame nowadays, because most of the MSM sources which most Americans use have been corrupted by the selfish desire of pushing certain behaviors. A clear example of this would be gay pride movements. Certainly I understand the want and the feeling of need for acceptance, but to force it on people as a lifestyle is inappropriate. The same goes for Fox, pushing and more conservative form of lifestyle. I believe in God, but I don't think they have the right to be pushing our beliefs on people who don't want to accept him. The same goes for being gay. The difference between a CNN and Fox, is they have two different outlooks. Neither of which has the right to force the lifestyle on people, if they don't want to accept it. This doesn't mean you shouldn't treat someone with different beliefs badly.
   Where the line ends is important, because we need to judge people based on good morals. Just because I don't like the idea of gays, does not mean that I think all gays are bad people. Most genuinely gay people are actually very friendly. It is when you get to the extremists who try to force movements on you which lies in the problem. I try not to wish any harm on anyone, even though it does happen from time to time on a bad day. Usually if someone smiles at me, I try to smile back. It's become a natural reflex. Next, let's discuss those who use both like myself.
   Those who sit in the middle back up their suggestions by pointing out facts. Here's an example of how this works. I noticed during the hearing that Mr. Kavanaugh did not make eye contact and kept looking down during his hearing. This is a common sign of when someone is lying. Apparently, many people said they noticed the same thing with Mrs. Ford. A problem with suggesting she is lying, was she was looking at the notes to keep up with the Congressional members holding the hearing. This could have simply been because of nervousness, because whenever you are a plaintiff talking about being victimized by another person it is somewhat frightening. After all, you don't know these people that you were talking to. That is commonly frightening to live through, and I dislike the fact that many people try to use this as an excuse to refer to her as line. When Kavanagh was approached though, he denied that was what he was doing. This makes me believe he may have been lying. This doesn't mean that her story was completely accurate though. She may have been hiding information which could change the outlook of the entire incident. Truth be told, I defend her because you shouldn't be attacked instantly for these types of allegations. Even if she was lying, we should ask ourselves why a well known psychology professor would risk her professional standing over this.
   We are often pushed into believing that some suggestions are facts. We should know better than that is people to place our trust in some immediately. We should carefully examine sources for ourselves, to find if we notice the ambition of the sources and if the information sounds believable enough to be true. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe some conspiracies are true. There are many things that we do not know about which go on behind closed doors. Who we place our trust in is more important though, then whether or not we believe something is true. Know that we are always watching for the truth or the lies.