3 ms·
I'm pretty sure no one here thinks what you proposed. The issue is that those protesting are also claiming to have the objective truth when most likely their "t
by rorykoehler 6y ago
I'm pretty sure no one here thinks what you proposed. The issue is that those protesting are also claiming to have the objective truth when most likely their "truth" is even further removed from the object truth than the mainstream media's is.
- aww_dang 6y agoI don't accept the premise that we are qualified to judge the veracity of another man's truth. Nor do all those who protest fit within your generalization of assuming to have an exclusive license on objective truth. There's a fair amount of people who simply like to bounce ideas around and have a discussion.
- rorykoehler 6y agoThe noise is significant enough that the signal is irrelevant.
- aww_dang 6y agoIf I understand your implication correctly, I'll say: Discussion becomes futile if we can't engage with good faith with those we disagree with. Assuming that someone's view is 'noise' is starting from a position of bad faith. If you take the position that you have an exclusive license on truthiness when debunking/disagreeing, then you're no better.
- rorykoehler 6y agoI think you misunderstand if you think I think I have the objective truth. I see it more as a spectrum and within the spectrum there are bounds of rationality. If you happen to fall outside of that spectrum I’m not going to pay attention to you for long. Life’s too short to waste time on nonsense. I don’t owe anyone my attention.