4 ms·

Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting p

by jl6 4y ago

Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting people into questioning whether a spade is really a spade.

selfhoster11 4y ago
This. "Reality is a shared perception" works only for as long as reality is comfortable enough to indulge your misperception. You cannot wish yourself into having more money in your bank account, or out of an energy crisis. Reality will validate your perception, and if you fail that validation, you will be the one who will have to take the consequences for it.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share. I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc. You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.
- jl6 4y ago
  I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
      - LAC-Tech 4y ago
        As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion. Chapter 1, Article 1: "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0] Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1]. The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote: "2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2] [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=78B780093633B347C12563CD005177B6 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-330024?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33... [2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
- executesorder66 4y ago
  What are your favourite examples of this?
  - rospaya 4y ago
    In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
      - jimmygrapes 4y ago
        > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?
wongarsu 4y ago
So is a strawberry really a berry? But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society
- ben_w 4y ago
  > the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.
james4k 4y ago
edit: nevermind, i misunderstood!
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  GP here. To be clear I wasn't trying to construct some narrative that we're all living in the matrix, and we're all mass deluded about everything. Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.
  - james4k 4y ago
    i thought the parent jumped in with an insinuation that mainstream viewpoints are somehow always objective which would be weird, but i misunderstood
coldtea 4y ago
That's not what mere observation shows... Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go... Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.
kortilla 4y ago
> Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth. Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever. Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.

by jl6 4y ago

selfhoster11 4y ago

This. "Reality is a shared perception" works only for as long as reality is comfortable enough to indulge your misperception. You cannot wish yourself into having more money in your bank account, or out of an energy crisis. Reality will validate your perception, and if you fail that validation, you will be the one who will have to take the consequences for it.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share. I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc. You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.

jl6 4y ago
I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.
- coldtea 4y ago
  They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
  - _djo_ 4y ago
    If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention I think you're confusing the Hague Convention of 1907 with the London Declaration concerning the Laws of Naval War in 1909. Regardless, the text of that treaty does not support your assertion. Chapter 1, Article 1: "A blockade must not extend beyond the ports and coasts belonging to or occupied by the enemy."[0] Chapter 2, Article 2 deals with contraband of war - food is not on the list.[1]. The UK signed this, as well as the 1856 "Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law" - which itself was explicitly referred to as being extended in the 1907 Hague Convention. Again I quote: "2. The neutral flag covers enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy’s flag;"[2] [0] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=78B780093633B347C12563CD005177B6 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs... [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-330024?OpenDocument https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/255-33... [2] https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Paris_Declaration_Respecti...
executesorder66 4y ago
What are your favourite examples of this?
- rospaya 4y ago
  In my case it was a discussion on this site about the existance of Jesus as a historical person. Historians are fairly certain about this but people have a hard time believing it, as if it would confirm the religious aspect of it all. In more than one situation I just got "well, the historians are wrong".
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    FYI, those """historians""" who are doing "biblical history" are often (but not always) theologians in their respective religions. The bible only has like 2 actual stories that can be dragged into reality, and the other sources of those stories don't mention "Jesus", they make a vague reference, often using a completely different name, and could very well be different people. We just don't have strong historical, non-biblical evidence of THE jesus described in the bible. We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative.
    - jimmygrapes 4y ago
      > We should be honest that biblical historians may be interested in a certain narrative. We should also be honest that there are many people heavily invested in making sure biblical narratives are not viewed as history, and not always for the purpose of true historicity. You said yourself there are only "like 2" (I forgive and appreciate the vagueness) stories in the bible (not going into translations, revisions, etc.) that can be dragged into reality. I would need to know which ones you refer to in order to counterpoint, but I'm fairly certain there's quite a bit more than like 2 stories that can be corroborated by secular means. Though I guess we'd end up quibbling over what you meant by "stories" or something if we got that far. My point is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, strongly desire to stifle any consideration of "the bible" (and I lowercase that on purpose) as Truth. I'm alright with that, but I wanna chat about it, too. That said, anyone got a link to a good forum or some such where I can do such chatting?

wongarsu 4y ago

So is a strawberry really a berry? But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society

ben_w 4y ago
> the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.

james4k 4y ago

edit: nevermind, i misunderstood!

LAC-Tech 4y ago
GP here. To be clear I wasn't trying to construct some narrative that we're all living in the matrix, and we're all mass deluded about everything. Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.
- james4k 4y ago
  i thought the parent jumped in with an insinuation that mainstream viewpoints are somehow always objective which would be weird, but i misunderstood

coldtea 4y ago

That's not what mere observation shows... Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go... Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.

kortilla 4y ago

> Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth. Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever. Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.