3 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding. The point isn't about the ability to infer objective truth from a dissembling source, nor about how to prove an objective lie

I think you're misunderstanding. The point isn't about the ability to infer objective truth from a dissembling source, nor about how to prove an objective lie from that source. It's about cultivating an ability to detect when you are probably being lied to by an otherwise authoritative source. And it's something americans have traditionally been very bad at. (Including, I have to be honest, you. In fact it was reported just last week that Trump was sicker than the public was informed and that his blood oxygen did indeed drop into the low 80's. Your desire to believe the authority figures you trust led you to buy the spin. But people with this kind of "Autoritarian Muscle Memory" described were clued in much earlier.)

EricE 6y ago
>And it's something americans have traditionally been very bad at. As this comment thread is proving :p
pattrn 6y ago
I used the qualifier "assuming Conley told the truth" to establish an axiom, since the author did that implicitly. Everything else was pure deductive reasoning. That aside, I personally believe that the entire media and all public figures will lie on behalf of what they believe to be "the greater good." Their goal is not "truth." For that reason, I don't believe this interview communicated any meaningful information; I also don't believe the follow-up last week communicated any meaningful information. I don't assume Conley told the truth. My comment intended only to point out a flaw in the deductive reasoning of the article. (Regarding your assumption about me, this is the exact problem with trying to develop opinions by reading between the lines. It's easy to develop strong, unfounded opinions without any evidence.)