6 ms·

> I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I had a bit of a different take. I actually th

> I often see these clean, easily provable anecdotes from those who support some kind of suppression of speech. I had a bit of a different take. I actually think even this simple statement is incredibly difficult to verify. First, we have to define what the Green New Deal even is. I don't mean this to be snarky, but even that is difficult. Then we have to define what support means. Does it mean positive comments in the press? Do we need to go lookup in Lexis-Nexis every statement the candidate has made about the Green New Deal? Even if we limit it to actual votes, it's still problematic. Did the candidate vote for the markup in committee? Did they vote to move it to the floor? In the Senate, did they vote for cloture, but vote against it on the floor? Did they vote for the bill out of conference? Some might recall, we spent a good portion of the 2004 campaign arguing over whether John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. This stuff is extremely subjective. It's probably something like a day's work for a seasoned reporter to accurately fact check a claim like this, and even then it's open to interpretation, which is easy enough to express in a fact check, but pretty hard in a binary judgement of truth.

siosonel 7y ago
"binary judgement of truth" I think people should be more comfortable with non-binary truth, based on the likelihood that something is a lie or not based on historical record. I would put more trust in a statement from someone with a record of telling unbiased truth versus someone with a record of frequently spewing lies or having ingrained bias. Otherwise, if you don't make these types of initial simplifications, it becomes too complicated to start evaluating the truth of any statement, including scientific ones. And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data. There is a danger in deferring a "truth" assessment: a community loses a sense of shared truth leading to polarization, doubt, confusion. And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative, which may be a lie after all.
- anon73044 7y ago
  >comfortable with non-binary truth Careful, getting a bit too postmodernists in here. If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy. >And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data. And how many politicians on both sides of the aisle double-down on an issue just to remain consistent to their base? Or worse, change their position thanks to millions of dollars worth of lobbying or the promise of a high-up position once they're out of office? >And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative, which may be a lie after all. Maybe the Stoics were on to something. If the masses believe the lie, doesn't it become the truth?
  - neltnerb 7y ago
    > If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy. Isn't the point of seeing the truth as non-binary that they cannot become false? Just less likely to be true? This seems intrinsically more amenable to changing one's mind on the truth of something, though I agree that not having an opinion on the truth of something is apathetic. Just because you strongly believe that you're about 60% sure that something is true doesn't make it less strongly held. I do this all the time in scientific analysis... estimating how likely I am to be correct is part of the job.
    - ralusek 7y ago
      I think what they mean by truths becoming false is rather that all certainties become uncertainties. Delving too deep in postmodernism is like taking all of your legos and melting them. If I want to have a conversation about free speech, and a postmodernist begins questioning if we even actually have free will, or if it's even valid to discuss morality if it's entirely possible we exist in a simulation...you haven't actually advanced anything. You've just made soup. Postmodernism is a tool for turning building blocks into soup, and that is more often than not extremely counterproductive. Though it is, to some degree, necessary. I think the fundamental problem is that aggressive postmodernism will often disregard presuppositions with absolutely no interest in understanding the utility/value of the presupposition.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  > And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative Strongly disagree, this would imply that an individual's support of a narrative can change simply by the environment around them changing while the individual stays static. Three Christians, two athiests, and an agnostic are sitting at a bar. Does the agnostic support Christianity? Two of the Christians leave. Does the agnostic now support atheism?
  - usaphp 7y ago
    People in your example are not “neutral” in the first place.
  - siosonel 7y ago
    Did the Christians try to convince the agnostic about something? If not, nothing changes before or after they leave. Anyway, the OP was about political ads that can affect how people vote, a decision to vote or not affects the community. Being agnostic about something (aliens) does not necessarily have the same gravity of effect as believing in a political ad.
  - philipov 7y ago
    If the Christians are bullying the athiests, and the agnostic does nothing, then yes, they are implicitly supporting the actions taking place in their vicinity. If they're just all sitting around doing nothing, the implicit support is of them sitting around doing nothing.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      Every moment you're not actively working for the FBI homicide department, you're commiting implicit murders.
      - philipov 7y ago
        Yes, people are fine with all sorts of murders and other atrocities taking place, as long as its not happening to them. As long as the right kind of people suffer. Your phrasing is wrong, of course, because you're conflating support for something with committing the act yourself, but you're not too far off the mark.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. In this context, the question is whether something is political speech or something else. What is included and excluded from that category will get pretty interesting. We saw the same thing with compelled union dues in the public sector. Were those for political speech or just routine union activity? SCOTUS said it couldn't tell the difference, so a public institution couldn't compel employees to pay dues. I guess twitter thinks they can tell the difference, but I suspect there will be a lot of controversy.
  - fabianhjr 7y ago
    > The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. For a general view: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Probabilistic_logic https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Probabilistic_logic Bayesian side: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_priori_probability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_priori_probability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayesian_inference https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayesian_inference (Bayesian Updating)
    - dariosalvi78 7y ago
      No, there are formal systems for handling uncertainty, Bayesian inference, fuzzy logic etc. Even informally we do apply similar rules all the time (though we are not free of biases)
  - philipov 7y ago
    > The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. To me, this seems like less a problem with degrees of truth, and more a problem with faith in simplistic arguments.
  - kazagistar 7y ago
    Degrees of truth aren't some option you can choose, it's just an observation about how the world already works, where information is universally not perfect. The point is by acknowledging it, you will be more willing to update bad information and bad conclusions as you get updated information.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
1) Get sympathetic media to print a claim 2) Plaster claim over grainy black-and-white photo, with attribution. Run TV/internet campaign with it. If you're having a lawyerly debate about the technicalities of the accusation, you've already lost.
comex 7y ago
“X supports the Green New Deal” is indeed highly subjective for some values of X. But that doesn’t include most Republicans, who have been consistently against the whole thing from start to finish.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  I think the parent's point is that the variable is for some values of "Green New Deal". It's like how Republicans (tend to) oppose "socialized health care" but support Medicare. A lot of politics is just playing with words, and "Green New Deal" offers plenty of ambiguity.
  - chillwaves 7y ago
    Given many republicans do not agree that climate change is caused by humans, I don't see the substance of your point.
    - gbear605 7y ago
      For example, say that the Green New Deal is a specific bill in a House committee. For some political reason (maybe the Democrats aren’t ready to vote on it yet), the Republican chair of the committee, Representative X, votes in favor of it. Thus an ad saying “Representative X voted in favor of the Green New Deal” is factually accurate while an ad saying “Representative X supports the Green New Deal” is debatably true.
- xkcd-sucks 7y ago
  But if it wasn't called the Green New Deal, would those same Republicans oppose constituent parts?

siosonel 7y ago

"binary judgement of truth" I think people should be more comfortable with non-binary truth, based on the likelihood that something is a lie or not based on historical record. I would put more trust in a statement from someone with a record of telling unbiased truth versus someone with a record of frequently spewing lies or having ingrained bias. Otherwise, if you don't make these types of initial simplifications, it becomes too complicated to start evaluating the truth of any statement, including scientific ones. And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data. There is a danger in deferring a "truth" assessment: a community loses a sense of shared truth leading to polarization, doubt, confusion. And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative, which may be a lie after all.

anon73044 7y ago
>comfortable with non-binary truth Careful, getting a bit too postmodernists in here. If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy. >And it's okay to be make a mistaken evaluation, just reevaluate and adjust the simplified "truth" assessment model based on more recent data. And how many politicians on both sides of the aisle double-down on an issue just to remain consistent to their base? Or worse, change their position thanks to millions of dollars worth of lobbying or the promise of a high-up position once they're out of office? >And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative, which may be a lie after all. Maybe the Stoics were on to something. If the masses believe the lie, doesn't it become the truth?
- neltnerb 7y ago
  > If you look at it too hard all "truths" become false eventually, and that can pave the way to apathy. Isn't the point of seeing the truth as non-binary that they cannot become false? Just less likely to be true? This seems intrinsically more amenable to changing one's mind on the truth of something, though I agree that not having an opinion on the truth of something is apathetic. Just because you strongly believe that you're about 60% sure that something is true doesn't make it less strongly held. I do this all the time in scientific analysis... estimating how likely I am to be correct is part of the job.
  - ralusek 7y ago
    I think what they mean by truths becoming false is rather that all certainties become uncertainties. Delving too deep in postmodernism is like taking all of your legos and melting them. If I want to have a conversation about free speech, and a postmodernist begins questioning if we even actually have free will, or if it's even valid to discuss morality if it's entirely possible we exist in a simulation...you haven't actually advanced anything. You've just made soup. Postmodernism is a tool for turning building blocks into soup, and that is more often than not extremely counterproductive. Though it is, to some degree, necessary. I think the fundamental problem is that aggressive postmodernism will often disregard presuppositions with absolutely no interest in understanding the utility/value of the presupposition.
blotter_paper 7y ago
> And a so-called "neutral" person is, by not taking action, implicitly supporting the dominant narrative Strongly disagree, this would imply that an individual's support of a narrative can change simply by the environment around them changing while the individual stays static. Three Christians, two athiests, and an agnostic are sitting at a bar. Does the agnostic support Christianity? Two of the Christians leave. Does the agnostic now support atheism?
- usaphp 7y ago
  People in your example are not “neutral” in the first place.
- siosonel 7y ago
  Did the Christians try to convince the agnostic about something? If not, nothing changes before or after they leave. Anyway, the OP was about political ads that can affect how people vote, a decision to vote or not affects the community. Being agnostic about something (aliens) does not necessarily have the same gravity of effect as believing in a political ad.
- philipov 7y ago
  If the Christians are bullying the athiests, and the agnostic does nothing, then yes, they are implicitly supporting the actions taking place in their vicinity. If they're just all sitting around doing nothing, the implicit support is of them sitting around doing nothing.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    Every moment you're not actively working for the FBI homicide department, you're commiting implicit murders.
    - philipov 7y ago
      Yes, people are fine with all sorts of murders and other atrocities taking place, as long as its not happening to them. As long as the right kind of people suffer. Your phrasing is wrong, of course, because you're conflating support for something with committing the act yourself, but you're not too far off the mark.
jeffdavis 7y ago
The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. In this context, the question is whether something is political speech or something else. What is included and excluded from that category will get pretty interesting. We saw the same thing with compelled union dues in the public sector. Were those for political speech or just routine union activity? SCOTUS said it couldn't tell the difference, so a public institution couldn't compel employees to pay dues. I guess twitter thinks they can tell the difference, but I suspect there will be a lot of controversy.
- fabianhjr 7y ago
  > The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. I can chain together a handful of things that are 99% true and arrive at an absurd conclusion because the 1% is the interesting bit. For a general view: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Probabilistic_logic https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Probabilistic_logic Bayesian side: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_priori_probability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/A_priori_probability https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayesian_inference https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bayesian_inference (Bayesian Updating)
  - dariosalvi78 7y ago
    No, there are formal systems for handling uncertainty, Bayesian inference, fuzzy logic etc. Even informally we do apply similar rules all the time (though we are not free of biases)
- philipov 7y ago
  > The problem with degrees of truth is that they aren't composable into an argument. To me, this seems like less a problem with degrees of truth, and more a problem with faith in simplistic arguments.
- kazagistar 7y ago
  Degrees of truth aren't some option you can choose, it's just an observation about how the world already works, where information is universally not perfect. The point is by acknowledging it, you will be more willing to update bad information and bad conclusions as you get updated information.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

1) Get sympathetic media to print a claim 2) Plaster claim over grainy black-and-white photo, with attribution. Run TV/internet campaign with it. If you're having a lawyerly debate about the technicalities of the accusation, you've already lost.

comex 7y ago

“X supports the Green New Deal” is indeed highly subjective for some values of X. But that doesn’t include most Republicans, who have been consistently against the whole thing from start to finish.

stickfigure 7y ago
I think the parent's point is that the variable is for some values of "Green New Deal". It's like how Republicans (tend to) oppose "socialized health care" but support Medicare. A lot of politics is just playing with words, and "Green New Deal" offers plenty of ambiguity.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  Given many republicans do not agree that climate change is caused by humans, I don't see the substance of your point.
  - gbear605 7y ago
    For example, say that the Green New Deal is a specific bill in a House committee. For some political reason (maybe the Democrats aren’t ready to vote on it yet), the Republican chair of the committee, Representative X, votes in favor of it. Thus an ad saying “Representative X voted in favor of the Green New Deal” is factually accurate while an ad saying “Representative X supports the Green New Deal” is debatably true.
xkcd-sucks 7y ago
But if it wasn't called the Green New Deal, would those same Republicans oppose constituent parts?