I'm getting a bit tired of people who think that criticism of some institutions justifies embracing "alternative" institutions as rational. Even if institutions are flawed people far too often embrace "alternative" institutions uncritically, with little skepticism. 1/

It's something I've noticed with lots of online contrarians - they think that since the "MSM" are flawed or liberal democracies are flawed or politics in a corporate-friendly field are flawed (which is true) then EVERYTHING they do or say is forever tainted and unreliable 2/

Instead they completely embrace the "alternative" media or the propaganda of various authoritarian regimes or "populist" policies acritically, without verifying their claims, because "if the flawed institutions want to suppress it/deny it/debunk then it's true". 3/

This isn't skepticism, and isn't rational. It's feeling betrayed by the "mainstream" and feeling enlightened for uncovering deceptions. But the truth is that every institution on Earth is flawed, everyone lies, every groups misleads and is hypocritical for some gain 4/

The difference is never between something or someone that is pure as snow and something or someone that is evil - but about verifying things in context, and the quantity and the quality of deceptions, violations of trust, deeds committed - not everyone is equally bad 5/

Moreover just because someone or some institutions agrees with you about some specific criticism it doesn't mean that they're overall reliable - you have to ask yourself why they agree with you, and what's their track record. 6/

At the end of the movie "Falling Down" the protagonist, a man who has committed a long series of violent crimes (assault, manslaughter, kidnapping, vandalism) has managed to retain some of the sympathy of the audience by being somewhat justified from his POV 7/

Yet it's clear that he's a danger to himself and others - as the police detective who has cornered him points out to him in a plain way. The protagonist complains that he worked hard and he's been lied to 8/

The detective replies: " Is that what this is about? You're angry because you got lied to? Is that why my chicken dinner is drying out in the oven? Hey, they lie to everyone. They lie to the fish. But that doesn't give you any special right to do what you did today." 9/

And he's right! The protagonist himself acknowledges he went way too far in letting his frustration and anger dominate him and has put himself and others in danger - "I'm the bad guy? How did that happen? 10/

Now I don't think that online contrarians are "bad" morally - that's way too harsh. However I think that even though they call themselves "skeptics" many online contrarians have become quite naive, out of resentment for being lied to. 11/

It's fine to be angry about being lied to but you have to realize that some people will do that - you'll often find mistakes and things you think are stupid, too. Point it all out - but don't fall for the lies and mistakes of who SAY they're being "alternative" truth tellers /END