11 ms·

The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social con

by PaulAJ 6y ago

The truth is not a social construct. Either Hunter Biden received that "thanks for the meeting with your father" email or he didn't. Importance is a social construct. If that email is what it puports to be, then whether it is important is a point of view. The media don't (mis)lead us by telling us lies, they do so by deciding which parts of the truth are important enough to tell us.

darkerside 6y ago
You can argue about facts all day, but I would argue that "truth" ends up being something more. Innocence or guilt, vindication on the history books, really any assignment of a quality is done by a collection of people, and the results apply with the bubble of people who have agreed to no longer question what is agreed upon as true. I promise I could argue all day about whether your initial simple statement was true or not. What does received mean? What did the email say, and did it actually mean what you paraphrase? You'd probably view it as bad faith (and you'd be right), but that faith already implies the exact social consensus I'm taking about.
barrkel 6y ago
The accepted narrative is a social construct, and most people's understanding of the truth is closer to a narrative than a series of facts.
skybrian 6y ago
Our understanding of the truth of things we read online is a social construct. Whether or not Hunter Biden received an email isn’t something ordinary readers like us will ever know, having no direct access to any of the evidence. At best we can read accounts written by others and decide whether they seem plausible. Even our understanding of Hunter Biden’s existence is a social construct to most of us, since we have never met him and never will. (It’s much easier to make the call on that one, though, based on pictures and it being undisputed.)
comex 6y ago
The email didn't say "thanks for the meeting with your father"; it thanked Hunter for "inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father", wording that leaves it ambiguous whether the meeting had already occurred or was in the future. This is important because, even if it is authentic, it does not necessarily contradict Biden's claim that (according to his schedules) no such meeting occurred.
- cm2187 6y ago
  Biden's claim is that there is no trace of the meeting in the diary, but they did mention that the meeting could have happened informally. So they didn't claim no such meeting occurred. I am a bit puzzled that there wouldn't be a log of who comes in and out of government buildings. It should be easy to prove whether the said executives were at least in the building over that period or not.
  - zo1 6y ago
    Or better yet: Body cams for all politicians. Or camera + audio recordings of all government rooms and corridors. All encrypted, hashed and archived with a very specific and difficult to fake process that can "unseal" them. I don't think I'm a genius or anything, but why aren't we putting really smart people on this problem and giving them plenty of funding? I constantly think we're just a few steps away from putting in a small set of technological solutions that would over time solve all our political/criminal problems. E.g. Just imagine a world where all politicians, CEOs, major figure-heads are safely and securely recorded constantly. Think of all the ridiculous talking points and "Scandals" that would go away, be disproven, or never occur at all.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      That was tried (recording the oval office for historical purposes). Then it was immediately weaponised by the political opponents and the recording system promptly removed.
      - 6y ago
cm2187 6y ago
Unfortunately the notion of truth or lie is often less clean cut. For instance, when the media tell you "you can get reinfected by covid", is it a lie? As of today, there has been only 5 confirmed cases of reinfection worldwide, out of 50 millions confirmed cases. So it is technically possible but statistically insignificant. Are the media lying when they tell you it could happen to you? I think they do. But technically they don't. Also most of the lying is lying by omission. I present you one fact but you will never hear about that other fact that completely mitigates the first (the context, or the rest of the sentence, etc). So you can say something factually correct while completely misleading your interlocutor.

by PaulAJ 6y ago

darkerside 6y ago

You can argue about facts all day, but I would argue that "truth" ends up being something more. Innocence or guilt, vindication on the history books, really any assignment of a quality is done by a collection of people, and the results apply with the bubble of people who have agreed to no longer question what is agreed upon as true. I promise I could argue all day about whether your initial simple statement was true or not. What does received mean? What did the email say, and did it actually mean what you paraphrase? You'd probably view it as bad faith (and you'd be right), but that faith already implies the exact social consensus I'm taking about.

barrkel 6y ago

The accepted narrative is a social construct, and most people's understanding of the truth is closer to a narrative than a series of facts.

skybrian 6y ago

Our understanding of the truth of things we read online is a social construct. Whether or not Hunter Biden received an email isn’t something ordinary readers like us will ever know, having no direct access to any of the evidence. At best we can read accounts written by others and decide whether they seem plausible. Even our understanding of Hunter Biden’s existence is a social construct to most of us, since we have never met him and never will. (It’s much easier to make the call on that one, though, based on pictures and it being undisputed.)

comex 6y ago

The email didn't say "thanks for the meeting with your father"; it thanked Hunter for "inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father", wording that leaves it ambiguous whether the meeting had already occurred or was in the future. This is important because, even if it is authentic, it does not necessarily contradict Biden's claim that (according to his schedules) no such meeting occurred.

cm2187 6y ago
Biden's claim is that there is no trace of the meeting in the diary, but they did mention that the meeting could have happened informally. So they didn't claim no such meeting occurred. I am a bit puzzled that there wouldn't be a log of who comes in and out of government buildings. It should be easy to prove whether the said executives were at least in the building over that period or not.
- zo1 6y ago
  Or better yet: Body cams for all politicians. Or camera + audio recordings of all government rooms and corridors. All encrypted, hashed and archived with a very specific and difficult to fake process that can "unseal" them. I don't think I'm a genius or anything, but why aren't we putting really smart people on this problem and giving them plenty of funding? I constantly think we're just a few steps away from putting in a small set of technological solutions that would over time solve all our political/criminal problems. E.g. Just imagine a world where all politicians, CEOs, major figure-heads are safely and securely recorded constantly. Think of all the ridiculous talking points and "Scandals" that would go away, be disproven, or never occur at all.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    That was tried (recording the oval office for historical purposes). Then it was immediately weaponised by the political opponents and the recording system promptly removed.
    - 6y ago

cm2187 6y ago

Unfortunately the notion of truth or lie is often less clean cut. For instance, when the media tell you "you can get reinfected by covid", is it a lie? As of today, there has been only 5 confirmed cases of reinfection worldwide, out of 50 millions confirmed cases. So it is technically possible but statistically insignificant. Are the media lying when they tell you it could happen to you? I think they do. But technically they don't. Also most of the lying is lying by omission. I present you one fact but you will never hear about that other fact that completely mitigates the first (the context, or the rest of the sentence, etc). So you can say something factually correct while completely misleading your interlocutor.