3 ms·

My bad; I've edited my comment above accordingly. > Trump's claim was analyzed. Independent experts were consulted. It's obvious why the ruling went against hi

by rdancer 10y ago

My bad; I've edited my comment above accordingly. > Trump's claim was analyzed. Independent experts were consulted. It's obvious why the ruling went against him. > I don't think distinguishing between hyperbole and lies is Politifact's problem. It's simply calling a lie a lie. When I was growing up in the Eastern Bloc, we looked up to the U.S. for their people's ability to think critically and to have their own informed political opinions. I am horrified at your implying that you outsource your thinking. We used to say, "experts were consulted", "it's obvious", "the ruling went against him". That's totalitarian language, describing a totalitarian concept. Why would you throw away your freedom of thought, willingly to boot? Let me invite you to analyse that statement by Mr Trump and its analysis by Politfact and my comment above. What is your opinion? Can you give good arguments for it, and anticipate counter-arguments against it?

scholia 10y ago
Nobody is throwing away their freedom of thought, and consulting independent experts is what journalists do. That's how we work (source: I am one). > we looked up to the U.S. for their people's ability to think critically and to have their own informed political opinions. Don't confuse opinions with facts. Opinions are personal and facts are (as far as possible) universal. However, I'm unlikely to have a good opinion of someone who says too many things that are factually untrue, which is the case with Trump and Cruz. > When I was growing up in the Eastern Bloc Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eastern Bloc had rulers who could say things that weren't true and not have those things exposed as lies by the MSM. That's why we fact-check both Trump and Clinton. That's what democracy is based on. > "the ruling went against him". That's totalitarian language, describing a totalitarian concept. No it isn't. There's absolutely nothing totalitarian about it. It's exactly the reverse. On the evidence presented by Politifact, what Trump said wasn't true. If you want to dispute that, you have to disprove the existing information or find more information that contradicts it. Merely having an opinion about it adds nothing: it's not worth a damn.
- rdancer 10y ago
  This is not complicated. My opinion (the statement nicely sums up a defensible political position, and the Tampa Bay Times' assessment is wrong) is based on the facts they brought to the fore, as well as a few of my own — as any argument would be —, but I also show my own reasoning: Same-day voter registration puts a pressure on the bureaucracy to be more forgiving and less thorough; that's a fact. But is that driven by the political elements who benefit from illegals voting, and do people on either side actually believe that it has an effect? That's not a factual question, that's a question for a political debate. Mr Trump's hyperbole captures this with a surprising pith. Politifact [...] is [...] not a[n independent] third-party watchdog. [... Further, f]act-checking cannot provide [data about speakers' telling the truth] for [statements using] hyperbole [...]. Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own, and you need to rely on other (presumably qualified) people to do some of your analysis (I disagree); Politifact provides a good unbiased, trustworthy, well-sourced, and most importantly impartial set of facts (I disagree); and the candidates that have the most fraught relationship with truth just happen to be those who you oppose politically (we may agree on that one). That's, I believe, at the core of a big problem with American journalism: the intellectual trepidation to analyse facts independently, based on all available evidence, and present a conclusion that is one's own; in a word, the pretence that a journalist can escape bias by simply choosing between what others are saying, without ever directly challenging their reasoning or assumptions. That is not really important: all I'm asking of you is to present, preferably without swearing, your own reasoning for why you think Mr Trump gave anything but an honest answer on this particular occasion?
  - scholia 10y ago
    > Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own Now you're just being stupid. And insulting. > preferably without swearing Since I've shown no propensity to swear so far, I take it you feel your message is patronizing enough to prompt a swearing response?
    - dang 10y ago
      Both of you broke the HN guidelines badly in this trainwreck of a political flamewar. Please don't do this kind of thing on HN again.

by rdancer 10y ago

scholia 10y ago

Nobody is throwing away their freedom of thought, and consulting independent experts is what journalists do. That's how we work (source: I am one). > we looked up to the U.S. for their people's ability to think critically and to have their own informed political opinions. Don't confuse opinions with facts. Opinions are personal and facts are (as far as possible) universal. However, I'm unlikely to have a good opinion of someone who says too many things that are factually untrue, which is the case with Trump and Cruz. > When I was growing up in the Eastern Bloc Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Eastern Bloc had rulers who could say things that weren't true and not have those things exposed as lies by the MSM. That's why we fact-check both Trump and Clinton. That's what democracy is based on. > "the ruling went against him". That's totalitarian language, describing a totalitarian concept. No it isn't. There's absolutely nothing totalitarian about it. It's exactly the reverse. On the evidence presented by Politifact, what Trump said wasn't true. If you want to dispute that, you have to disprove the existing information or find more information that contradicts it. Merely having an opinion about it adds nothing: it's not worth a damn.

rdancer 10y ago
This is not complicated. My opinion (the statement nicely sums up a defensible political position, and the Tampa Bay Times' assessment is wrong) is based on the facts they brought to the fore, as well as a few of my own — as any argument would be —, but I also show my own reasoning: Same-day voter registration puts a pressure on the bureaucracy to be more forgiving and less thorough; that's a fact. But is that driven by the political elements who benefit from illegals voting, and do people on either side actually believe that it has an effect? That's not a factual question, that's a question for a political debate. Mr Trump's hyperbole captures this with a surprising pith. Politifact [...] is [...] not a[n independent] third-party watchdog. [... Further, f]act-checking cannot provide [data about speakers' telling the truth] for [statements using] hyperbole [...]. Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own, and you need to rely on other (presumably qualified) people to do some of your analysis (I disagree); Politifact provides a good unbiased, trustworthy, well-sourced, and most importantly impartial set of facts (I disagree); and the candidates that have the most fraught relationship with truth just happen to be those who you oppose politically (we may agree on that one). That's, I believe, at the core of a big problem with American journalism: the intellectual trepidation to analyse facts independently, based on all available evidence, and present a conclusion that is one's own; in a word, the pretence that a journalist can escape bias by simply choosing between what others are saying, without ever directly challenging their reasoning or assumptions. That is not really important: all I'm asking of you is to present, preferably without swearing, your own reasoning for why you think Mr Trump gave anything but an honest answer on this particular occasion?
- scholia 10y ago
  > Your overarching position seems to be that this stuff is too complicated for you to reason about on your own Now you're just being stupid. And insulting. > preferably without swearing Since I've shown no propensity to swear so far, I take it you feel your message is patronizing enough to prompt a swearing response?
  - dang 10y ago
    Both of you broke the HN guidelines badly in this trainwreck of a political flamewar. Please don't do this kind of thing on HN again.