3 ms·

What exactly is your position? That no one should believe any statement from any politician ever and so there is no reason to demand that politicians live up to

by czzr 6y ago

What exactly is your position? That no one should believe any statement from any politician ever and so there is no reason to demand that politicians live up to any standards? How exactly is a society with those principles supposed to function?

bzb3 6y ago
We can do that or we can sit and wait for the electorate to pick a president who never lies. Only one of the two is realistic.
supportlocal4h 6y ago
A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever B: don't demand that politicians meet standards Your argument (not mine): A -> B Then you argue that B is dysfunctional so A leads to dysfunction. Can you not imagine some C such as C: demand that politicians live up to some standard Wherein A->C makes everything better? The fact that you concocted B to discredit A is a logical fallacy called "strawman". Either you already understood this, but hoped for an audience that did not, or you didn't even realize what you had done. I point it out here for your possible benefit and for the possible benefit of anyone else who doesn't understand this flawed reasoning. I apologize to everyone who recognized it immediately and has then suffered through this response.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  You seemed to have missed the context that you're arguing the "against" position in a thread about social media fact-checking, i.e. a "demand that politicians live up to some standard [of truth]" Language has implied meaning, it's one of the maxims of conversation in the field of linguistics, of the Cooperative principle [1]. If you're going to immediately jump to technical dissection of a conversation, you should probably consider the relevant field first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of_relation_(or_relevance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of...
- bananabreakfast 6y ago
  Your "strawman" was very clearly directly implied by what you said. And the fact that you just attacked the argument instead of just responding like a normal person does not help your case.
mc32 6y ago
All modern administrations maybe aside from Jimmy Carter’s have had shenanigans going on. None of them are clean. So it’s clear there will be lies from everyone. Some intentional, some mistaken. That said. I don’t see a solution to this dilemma. It has no satisfactory solution.
- krapp 6y ago
  Calling a President out on their lies seems like a satisfactory solution to me. Unfortunately, the modern political climate is such that even that is considered censorship. We can't even dare claim that lies exist, because obviously no one person or institution can be trusted to define what is and isn't truth without an ulterior motive. So the only politically correct solution is to assert that all politicians are equally (maximally) corrupt, all statements are equally valid, all attempts at nuance are motivated by partisan hypocrisy, and any possible solution is a slippery slope to an Orwellian dystopia, so we have no option but to simply let the fire burn. Although I must say, it is strange how none of this seemed to be the case prior to 2016.
  - iratewizard 6y ago
    Melodramatic. Big tech has appointed itself as the gatekeepers of truth, and has regularly added new creative types of censorship. Look at his Twitter, where positive comments are reparented so professional noise makers can whine. Look at all of the content creators who have been deplatformed, demonitized, and algorithmically deprioritized in favor of allowed speech. Creative, right? Now is an opportune time for Trump to make a big claim to get attention and frame reality to his advantage. Politics 101. Trump is actively being attacked by a well established and well funded machine. Reminding people of this as election time approaches mobilizes them.

by czzr 6y ago

bzb3 6y ago

We can do that or we can sit and wait for the electorate to pick a president who never lies. Only one of the two is realistic.

supportlocal4h 6y ago

A: no one should believe any statement from any politician ever B: don't demand that politicians meet standards Your argument (not mine): A -> B Then you argue that B is dysfunctional so A leads to dysfunction. Can you not imagine some C such as C: demand that politicians live up to some standard Wherein A->C makes everything better? The fact that you concocted B to discredit A is a logical fallacy called "strawman". Either you already understood this, but hoped for an audience that did not, or you didn't even realize what you had done. I point it out here for your possible benefit and for the possible benefit of anyone else who doesn't understand this flawed reasoning. I apologize to everyone who recognized it immediately and has then suffered through this response.

LordDragonfang 6y ago
You seemed to have missed the context that you're arguing the "against" position in a thread about social media fact-checking, i.e. a "demand that politicians live up to some standard [of truth]" Language has implied meaning, it's one of the maxims of conversation in the field of linguistics, of the Cooperative principle [1]. If you're going to immediately jump to technical dissection of a conversation, you should probably consider the relevant field first. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of_relation_(or_relevance) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle#Maxim_of...
bananabreakfast 6y ago
Your "strawman" was very clearly directly implied by what you said. And the fact that you just attacked the argument instead of just responding like a normal person does not help your case.

mc32 6y ago

All modern administrations maybe aside from Jimmy Carter’s have had shenanigans going on. None of them are clean. So it’s clear there will be lies from everyone. Some intentional, some mistaken. That said. I don’t see a solution to this dilemma. It has no satisfactory solution.

krapp 6y ago
Calling a President out on their lies seems like a satisfactory solution to me. Unfortunately, the modern political climate is such that even that is considered censorship. We can't even dare claim that lies exist, because obviously no one person or institution can be trusted to define what is and isn't truth without an ulterior motive. So the only politically correct solution is to assert that all politicians are equally (maximally) corrupt, all statements are equally valid, all attempts at nuance are motivated by partisan hypocrisy, and any possible solution is a slippery slope to an Orwellian dystopia, so we have no option but to simply let the fire burn. Although I must say, it is strange how none of this seemed to be the case prior to 2016.
- iratewizard 6y ago
  Melodramatic. Big tech has appointed itself as the gatekeepers of truth, and has regularly added new creative types of censorship. Look at his Twitter, where positive comments are reparented so professional noise makers can whine. Look at all of the content creators who have been deplatformed, demonitized, and algorithmically deprioritized in favor of allowed speech. Creative, right? Now is an opportune time for Trump to make a big claim to get attention and frame reality to his advantage. Politics 101. Trump is actively being attacked by a well established and well funded machine. Reminding people of this as election time approaches mobilizes them.