2 ms·

I should have been more clear: the author is conflating the ways one can be wrong in a vein I find distasteful. In Silicon Valley it is not a sin to be wrong b

I should have been more clear: the author is conflating the ways one can be wrong in a vein I find distasteful. In Silicon Valley it is not a sin to be wrong because in being willing to be wrong you are embracing reality--the accountability is that you will suffer from your mistakes. Palin's just a loose cannon on the ship of factuality, and that shit needs to get tied down before she punches holes in Wikipedia and sinks our ability to see reality clearly. The author is saying that the types of wrongness are equal, which is clearly not so. We expect people who inform our knowledge, our leaders and government, to be devoted to the truth. Politicians must have accountability. edit: The fundamental point is that Palin _should not have said that stuff about Revere in the first place_, because being that wrong is just _depressing_.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case-- whether you are a Silicon Valley leader or a faux-politician-celebrity, if you are wrong, you should own up to it, and suffer the consequences (and, one would hope, learn the lessons). I think everybody should be devoted to the truth. Could you elaborate on what you found distasteful in the OP, because I'm not getting it.
- Helianthus 15y ago
  Any method in which Palin could own up to being so disastrously wrong would be admitting that she was being idiotic with her knowledge of history. She just isn't going to do that, because being as wrong as she was ought to (and will, eventually) get her tossed. Being able to own up to your mistakes only works when you're trying really hard to be right. That's the difference between the two forms of being wrong; one's a consequence of trying, and the other's the sin of political drudgery. Either OP doesn't get that Palin's not trying very hard to be right so she can't realistically admit she was wrong, or he thinks that it's ok for her not to be devoted to the truth.

michael_dorfman 15y ago

I hate to be dense, but I am not following you here. What are the two ways of being wrong that the author is conflating? It seems to me that in either case-- whether you are a Silicon Valley leader or a faux-politician-celebrity, if you are wrong, you should own up to it, and suffer the consequences (and, one would hope, learn the lessons). I think everybody should be devoted to the truth. Could you elaborate on what you found distasteful in the OP, because I'm not getting it.

Helianthus 15y ago
Any method in which Palin could own up to being so disastrously wrong would be admitting that she was being idiotic with her knowledge of history. She just isn't going to do that, because being as wrong as she was ought to (and will, eventually) get her tossed. Being able to own up to your mistakes only works when you're trying really hard to be right. That's the difference between the two forms of being wrong; one's a consequence of trying, and the other's the sin of political drudgery. Either OP doesn't get that Palin's not trying very hard to be right so she can't realistically admit she was wrong, or he thinks that it's ok for her not to be devoted to the truth.