3 ms·

I...don't know how to respond to that. Truth is truth. Yes, there is right wing fascist parties that are trying to nullify the meaning of the word, and introdu

I...don't know how to respond to that. Truth is truth. Yes, there is right wing fascist parties that are trying to nullify the meaning of the word, and introduce subjectivity where there should not be any, sowing doubt on the very idea of Reality. But this is not the new normal for society or humanity. I refuse to believe that, or we're truly doomed. This is a temporary hurdle made by desperate people trying to hold on to a world they are being left behind in. If Facebook doesn't take a stance on facts, lies, reality, and fiction. Then they are by definition agreeing with those that say all these things are subjective, and are therefore themselves unimpeachable and above repercussions. Not taking a stand is taking a stand in this case.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you recognize the possibility of good-faith disagreements on matters of fact, or do you expect that every reasonable person should agree in all cases about what's true and false? In the latter case I agree I don't see a productive discussion to be had here.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  In ALL cases? Certainly not. But this isn't a mathematical proof. Just because we cannot guarantee something in 100% of the time, doesn't mean it should not be attempted. Truth is being degraded not about ethically controversial subjects with a clear scientific consensus, and not even controversial subjects with SOME scientific doubt. We're talking about situations where leaders of hundreds of millions of people will deny statements they made, and everyone falls along, in an Orwellian fashion. These are not good faith disagreements. There is a massive contingent out there in the world that are not arguing in good faith, they care not about the argument, but about the results. And if you want to give them all the benefit of the doubt, and say that "there are fine people on both sides", then you are correct, there is no productive discussion to be had here.
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  People who deny climate change and other settled science and don't wear masks because they think it's a political statement aren't "reasonable people".
  - splintercell 6y ago
    Oh you're throwing climate change into the group of "absolute truth". Philosophy of science isn't that objectively finalized btw. The whole Vienna school which got obliterated by philosophers because it said that only valid scientific statements are those which can be empirically verified. I understand that majority of the people making a certain viewpoint may be stupid but don't take it as the strength of your scientific statements. Even theory of evolution may need major corrections tomorrow and could even turn out to be completely false.
- NotSammyHagar 6y ago
  People argue about how much of a social safety net or welfare are good for society in different ways in the us. But people also argue about whether forcing masks is good or bad. The second one is extremely clear yet is still predominantly argued by one side.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Is it really extremely clear? And why should we consider "sides" when evaluating the scientific validity of a particular point? https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... To be clear I am not arguing against wearing masks, but rather against a misrepresentation of the clarity of current scientific evidence.
concordDance 6y ago
Truth is truth, but not everyone agrees on whether particular things are true. The majority of people can be wrong about something (Berenstein Bears anyone?), ignorant about things (e.g. the exciting things the USA did in South America in the last century) or can be misinformed even by reputatable organizations (e.g. WHO advising against face masks). They can also be misinformed about what the science indicates (e.g. anything about intelligence and heritability). The truth is often not obvious, can be unintuitive or can go against deeply held values. Would you be ok with Facebook censoring anything talking about equality because people aren't all equal?
nradov 6y ago
The Earth orbits around the Sun. That is an indisputable truth right? Except it really isn't quite true and is only an approximation. In reality the Earth and Sun both orbit around their common center of gravity, and both orbits are perturbed by other celestial bodies in a complex n-body interaction. So what is "truth"? If I post on Facebook that the Earth orbits around the Sun should they censor my post for not being 100% true? If not then where is the dividing line?
- deanCommie 6y ago
  You act as if Facebook is the first organization in the history of time to have this challenge. Where is the dividing line? Somewhere between "The Sun orbits around the Earth" and "The Earth orbits around the Sun". Where the first is clearly not the truth, and the second clearly is for 99.9% of contexts.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you recognize the possibility of good-faith disagreements on matters of fact, or do you expect that every reasonable person should agree in all cases about what's true and false? In the latter case I agree I don't see a productive discussion to be had here.

deanCommie 6y ago
In ALL cases? Certainly not. But this isn't a mathematical proof. Just because we cannot guarantee something in 100% of the time, doesn't mean it should not be attempted. Truth is being degraded not about ethically controversial subjects with a clear scientific consensus, and not even controversial subjects with SOME scientific doubt. We're talking about situations where leaders of hundreds of millions of people will deny statements they made, and everyone falls along, in an Orwellian fashion. These are not good faith disagreements. There is a massive contingent out there in the world that are not arguing in good faith, they care not about the argument, but about the results. And if you want to give them all the benefit of the doubt, and say that "there are fine people on both sides", then you are correct, there is no productive discussion to be had here.
DonHopkins 6y ago
People who deny climate change and other settled science and don't wear masks because they think it's a political statement aren't "reasonable people".
- splintercell 6y ago
  Oh you're throwing climate change into the group of "absolute truth". Philosophy of science isn't that objectively finalized btw. The whole Vienna school which got obliterated by philosophers because it said that only valid scientific statements are those which can be empirically verified. I understand that majority of the people making a certain viewpoint may be stupid but don't take it as the strength of your scientific statements. Even theory of evolution may need major corrections tomorrow and could even turn out to be completely false.
NotSammyHagar 6y ago
People argue about how much of a social safety net or welfare are good for society in different ways in the us. But people also argue about whether forcing masks is good or bad. The second one is extremely clear yet is still predominantly argued by one side.
- nradov 6y ago
  Is it really extremely clear? And why should we consider "sides" when evaluating the scientific validity of a particular point? https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/ https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-... To be clear I am not arguing against wearing masks, but rather against a misrepresentation of the clarity of current scientific evidence.

concordDance 6y ago

Truth is truth, but not everyone agrees on whether particular things are true. The majority of people can be wrong about something (Berenstein Bears anyone?), ignorant about things (e.g. the exciting things the USA did in South America in the last century) or can be misinformed even by reputatable organizations (e.g. WHO advising against face masks). They can also be misinformed about what the science indicates (e.g. anything about intelligence and heritability). The truth is often not obvious, can be unintuitive or can go against deeply held values. Would you be ok with Facebook censoring anything talking about equality because people aren't all equal?

nradov 6y ago

The Earth orbits around the Sun. That is an indisputable truth right? Except it really isn't quite true and is only an approximation. In reality the Earth and Sun both orbit around their common center of gravity, and both orbits are perturbed by other celestial bodies in a complex n-body interaction. So what is "truth"? If I post on Facebook that the Earth orbits around the Sun should they censor my post for not being 100% true? If not then where is the dividing line?

deanCommie 6y ago
You act as if Facebook is the first organization in the history of time to have this challenge. Where is the dividing line? Somewhere between "The Sun orbits around the Earth" and "The Earth orbits around the Sun". Where the first is clearly not the truth, and the second clearly is for 99.9% of contexts.