2 ms·

I see. It feels quite funny though to be so specific about the ramblings of a man, who clearly says whatever comes to his mind without further thought. He might

by tekkk 7y ago

I see. It feels quite funny though to be so specific about the ramblings of a man, who clearly says whatever comes to his mind without further thought. He might as well have said it and nothing would change. Definitely though there is a difference, and I should have probably worded myself a little differently. But it's quite hard to adhere to a high level of truthfulness when the other side clearly has no regard for it. And just to be clear: I'm not very biased person to either sides, and I think it's amusing to see Americans get so riled by their opposing political side. I treat all of the US media to be biased in some direction, and never to reach the level of objectivity I myself would enjoy. It would be nice though that they would, I agree, but this is the reality of the current world I guess. If I could decide, I would just break apart the whole two-party system and give people actual options in voting. Perhaps then at least those who can think for themselves could vote for a candidate they believed in, instead of just voting the "least-worst" candidate.

smsm42 7y ago
> It feels quite funny though to be so specific about the ramblings of a man, He either said it's a hoax or he didn't. In this case, he didn't. If you don't care what he rambles about, that's fine, but then don't say he said something he didn't as a proof to some point, as if it were a well-known fact. > He might as well have said it and nothing would change But he did not. So don't say he did. It's a lie. It's not ok for Trump to lie, why it's ok for somebody else to lie about Trump? > But it's quite hard to adhere to a high level of truthfulness when the other side clearly has no regard for it. So far the side that says the facts don't actually matter and whether he said what you claim he said or not is immaterial seems to be you. I think allowing yourself to disregard the truth because "the other side is doing it anyway" is not a right way to do things.
- tekkk 7y ago
  Well I just noted your reply, 2 days later, but I'll still reply just because I feel annoyed. Oh please, you are fighting windmills here. How I was phrasing myself in my opinion was vague enough to let the reader know, that I was not really sharing scientifically exact information. I expected somebody to write a short reply to correct me had I been wrong, not get so worked up on this. Eg "If somebody of your friends told you that, please keep loving them as friends but accept anything they say with a grain of salt as they may be more gullible than you thought." What? I think you have overdosed on political zealousness as that's not something I would really care about. But perhaps as a European it's impossible for me to understand. And if I did care enough to correct them, I could just tell them and they wouldn't get upset. Unless you do it a like a nit-picking asshole that is. It's nice you are trying the right the wrong, but seriously a less passive-aggressive reply would have been enough. Bless your heart.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > How I was phrasing myself in my opinion was vague enough to let the reader know, that I was not really sharing scientifically exact information. You were not sharing scientific information. The problem is not that your information was unscientific, it's that it was a lie. And instead of saying "well, sorry, my bad, I goofed up, should have checked my sources better, will do better in the future" you still are trying to prove it's somehow OK to tell untruth and I was unreasonable ("a nit-picking asshole") for calling you out on telling a falsity, and somehow now me "getting worked up" (you must be really psychic knowing that via the internet! maybe you should make billions betting on stocks instead?) is the problem, not telling false things. I don't think this has much to do with being a European. I myself have been born in Europe, and I have many European friends, and I know in Europe truth means the same as everywhere else in the world.

by tekkk 7y ago

smsm42 7y ago

> It feels quite funny though to be so specific about the ramblings of a man, He either said it's a hoax or he didn't. In this case, he didn't. If you don't care what he rambles about, that's fine, but then don't say he said something he didn't as a proof to some point, as if it were a well-known fact. > He might as well have said it and nothing would change But he did not. So don't say he did. It's a lie. It's not ok for Trump to lie, why it's ok for somebody else to lie about Trump? > But it's quite hard to adhere to a high level of truthfulness when the other side clearly has no regard for it. So far the side that says the facts don't actually matter and whether he said what you claim he said or not is immaterial seems to be you. I think allowing yourself to disregard the truth because "the other side is doing it anyway" is not a right way to do things.

tekkk 7y ago
Well I just noted your reply, 2 days later, but I'll still reply just because I feel annoyed. Oh please, you are fighting windmills here. How I was phrasing myself in my opinion was vague enough to let the reader know, that I was not really sharing scientifically exact information. I expected somebody to write a short reply to correct me had I been wrong, not get so worked up on this. Eg "If somebody of your friends told you that, please keep loving them as friends but accept anything they say with a grain of salt as they may be more gullible than you thought." What? I think you have overdosed on political zealousness as that's not something I would really care about. But perhaps as a European it's impossible for me to understand. And if I did care enough to correct them, I could just tell them and they wouldn't get upset. Unless you do it a like a nit-picking asshole that is. It's nice you are trying the right the wrong, but seriously a less passive-aggressive reply would have been enough. Bless your heart.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > How I was phrasing myself in my opinion was vague enough to let the reader know, that I was not really sharing scientifically exact information. You were not sharing scientific information. The problem is not that your information was unscientific, it's that it was a lie. And instead of saying "well, sorry, my bad, I goofed up, should have checked my sources better, will do better in the future" you still are trying to prove it's somehow OK to tell untruth and I was unreasonable ("a nit-picking asshole") for calling you out on telling a falsity, and somehow now me "getting worked up" (you must be really psychic knowing that via the internet! maybe you should make billions betting on stocks instead?) is the problem, not telling false things. I don't think this has much to do with being a European. I myself have been born in Europe, and I have many European friends, and I know in Europe truth means the same as everywhere else in the world.