4 ms·

Is that really what's happening "in today's era"? I think this is a smear tactic--an ad-hominem, if you will--employed by some parties to discredit others. Tak

by rexpop 8y ago

Is that really what's happening "in today's era"? I think this is a smear tactic--an ad-hominem, if you will--employed by some parties to discredit others. Take, for example, the following slogan: > Facts don't care about your feelings. To me, that reads as a straw man. The enemy is defined to be in opposition to fact, when a more generous reading might be the inclusion of feelings among the facts. After all, we are being sensitive to our environment, and the internal impact of that environment actually matters. I find it funny to think that a person would design any system that impacts humans without considering the feelings it might engender. Without consideration of feelings, we may as well design systems for lifeless rocks.

nilskidoo 8y ago
But so much of what gets branded as fake news really is just a matter of undesirable opinion or inconvenient truth though. Just because we really, really like the idea of a thing, or vice versa, does not make it concrete and provable. That's voodoo, not reality.
- nilskidoo 8y ago
  I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked so that there'd be no idea who was male or female or black or white, with the only variables observed being what they have accomplished and what they aim to get accomplished- and how they intend on going about it. Imagine if we did that in regards to politics.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    The anonymous CEO of Trump real estate running in 2016, the anonymous Senator from Illinois running in 2008, the anonymous head of Bain Capital... At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
    - rexpop 8y ago
      You've not done a very good job of pseudonymizing. It's clear where you stand, but try in earnest to imagine how we might limit the scope of the candidates' presentation to, e.g. a 60-plank, 3-dimensional platform (ie pro/con/neutral). Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
      - sokoloff 8y ago
        If I want to evaluate a candidate’s record (say as governor of a state), I can’t see how to make that pseudonymous and productive. If you tell me the state and the time, so I can judge whatever criteria I find relevant (job growth, infant mortality, population happiness, housing affordability, or 500 other things), you’ve told me who it is, of course. I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.
NegatioN 8y ago
Whether or not feelings should be included as proof for something depends a whole lot on: are the feelings of this person relevant to the argument at hand. 1. Global warming is not untrue because someone feels a certain way about it. 2. I might have offended someone based on how they feel. Or a system might be oppressive based on how someone feels That's as far as I'm willing to let feelings serve as proof anyhow.
- mistermann 8y ago
  This can get tricky though, and there's lots of "feelings" all over the place these days. There are a lot of somewhat vague "truths", some necessarily so, that have become largely considered as all encompassing, final, beyond debate truths, even though they may not necessarily be so. This seems a bit problematic to me.

by rexpop 8y ago

nilskidoo 8y ago

But so much of what gets branded as fake news really is just a matter of undesirable opinion or inconvenient truth though. Just because we really, really like the idea of a thing, or vice versa, does not make it concrete and provable. That's voodoo, not reality.

nilskidoo 8y ago
I remember a thread here from when I was just skulking years ago, where the importance for anonymity of candidates was weighed. Like, applicants would be masked so that there'd be no idea who was male or female or black or white, with the only variables observed being what they have accomplished and what they aim to get accomplished- and how they intend on going about it. Imagine if we did that in regards to politics.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  The anonymous CEO of Trump real estate running in 2016, the anonymous Senator from Illinois running in 2008, the anonymous head of Bain Capital... At some level, someone’s accomplishments uniquely identify them.
  - rexpop 8y ago
    You've not done a very good job of pseudonymizing. It's clear where you stand, but try in earnest to imagine how we might limit the scope of the candidates' presentation to, e.g. a 60-plank, 3-dimensional platform (ie pro/con/neutral). Not saying this exact implementation is ideal, only that it's a more accurate representation of a pseudonymizing solution.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      If I want to evaluate a candidate’s record (say as governor of a state), I can’t see how to make that pseudonymous and productive. If you tell me the state and the time, so I can judge whatever criteria I find relevant (job growth, infant mortality, population happiness, housing affordability, or 500 other things), you’ve told me who it is, of course. I’m trying to be charitable; I’m just not able to be creative enough to find how to expansively evaluate track record of relevant experience.

NegatioN 8y ago

Whether or not feelings should be included as proof for something depends a whole lot on: are the feelings of this person relevant to the argument at hand. 1. Global warming is not untrue because someone feels a certain way about it. 2. I might have offended someone based on how they feel. Or a system might be oppressive based on how someone feels That's as far as I'm willing to let feelings serve as proof anyhow.

mistermann 8y ago
This can get tricky though, and there's lots of "feelings" all over the place these days. There are a lot of somewhat vague "truths", some necessarily so, that have become largely considered as all encompassing, final, beyond debate truths, even though they may not necessarily be so. This seems a bit problematic to me.