4 ms·

Determinedly divining the real truth while helpfully pointing out the errors of others.

by danjc 4y ago

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
> [Trump always lied and everyone but the MAGA zealots could see it!!!] Yea... I almost tuned out right then. It would have been a FAR stronger article if it took some actual stance on truth, like "If truth actually matters, here are all the times Trump was right and the media lied or kneejerked the other way, so did we go along with it?". I don't like Trump, but that article would have convinced me the author actually cared about objective truth. Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else.
- epgui 4y ago
  Who cares if Trump was right about one or two things? Everything that came out of his mouth was bullshit (in the academic sense of the word [1]). But he said a lot of things, so obviously he’s going to come close to the truth once in a while. These accidents are no cause for celebration. When you care about truth, bullshit is the opposite of what you celebrate, regardless of whether it’s accidentally true or not. [1] The difference between bullshit and lies is that the person who lies tries to cover up of fabricate truth, but the bullshitter doesn’t care about the truth-value of the statements that are made.
  - SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
    I suggested a different path for the exactly the reason you are coming off as as an ideologue now. No one had to bring up Trump, but the author chose to. It makes his argument weaker by saying "WE NEED THE TRUTH!!" but then just talks like someone who spent years with their screen saying "IT'S ALL LIES, HE IS HITLER". As much as I don't like him, it's plain as day that it wasn't "all lies" or "academic bullshit". I work in an industry that was drastically albeit temporarily changed for the better by a couple policy decisions the last admin made, they were shit on endless by the media that was dead-wrong. Seeing it first hand was a noticeable moment for me. Both you and the author can't even take a moment to see past yourself, but that's what the point of the article is about. How bizarre.
    - epgui 4y ago
      What’s ideological about not liking people strictly on the basis that they bullshit a lot? It’s a basic, basic, trust thing. You can pass this judgment completely outside any consideration of politics (and I am not even an American).
    - ourmandave 4y ago
      Obviously he didn't lied 100% of the time or every policy was bad. But he's still lying about the 2020 election being stolen 2 years after leaving office.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else. Are you advocating for a world where no one is allowed to be opinionated, hold contrasting views or even have some cognitive dissonance? If one won't entertain other ideas or include additional facts/data into their world view, discussion about the universe, our place in it and compromise become impossible. But that's not to say there's no such thing as objective facts (note I said "facts" not truth). There absolutely are. Truth is (often) something else altogether. But many ideas aren't fact-based. Rather they are based on religious/philosophical/social doctrines which are often reduced to a sentence or a soundbite. Which is a ridiculous thing to do as most ideas are more nuanced and complicated than a single statement can elucidate. E.g., "BLM members are Marxists" or "all Republicans are racists", etc. are all just tropes used to signal membership in a tribe. But reality is much more nuanced. I wish more folks would look at the world through the lens that a variety of view are critical to the human condition -- as long as those views can be investigated/discussed/addressed in a reasoned way. Holding beliefs that differ from that of others is the human condition. That you disagree with the author's stance doesn't mean that they need to change their stance, rather it means that there are discussions to be had to arrive at both understanding (which doesn't imply agreement) and, hopefully, the ability to either agree or agree to disagree. That's not always possible, but the humanity is in making the effort to do so. If one is unwilling to modify their beliefs based on new information and synthesis of that information with their own knowledge/understanding, that's sad.

Determinedly divining the real truth while helpfully pointing out the errors of others.

by danjc 4y ago

Determinedly divining the real truth while helpfully pointing out the errors of others.

> [Trump always lied and everyone but the MAGA zealots could see it!!!] Yea... I almost tuned out right then. It would have been a FAR stronger article if it took some actual stance on truth, like "If truth actually matters, here are all the times Trump was right and the media lied or kneejerked the other way, so did we go along with it?". I don't like Trump, but that article would have convinced me the author actually cared about objective truth. Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else.

epgui 4y ago
Who cares if Trump was right about one or two things? Everything that came out of his mouth was bullshit (in the academic sense of the word [1]). But he said a lot of things, so obviously he’s going to come close to the truth once in a while. These accidents are no cause for celebration. When you care about truth, bullshit is the opposite of what you celebrate, regardless of whether it’s accidentally true or not. [1] The difference between bullshit and lies is that the person who lies tries to cover up of fabricate truth, but the bullshitter doesn’t care about the truth-value of the statements that are made.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  I suggested a different path for the exactly the reason you are coming off as as an ideologue now. No one had to bring up Trump, but the author chose to. It makes his argument weaker by saying "WE NEED THE TRUTH!!" but then just talks like someone who spent years with their screen saying "IT'S ALL LIES, HE IS HITLER". As much as I don't like him, it's plain as day that it wasn't "all lies" or "academic bullshit". I work in an industry that was drastically albeit temporarily changed for the better by a couple policy decisions the last admin made, they were shit on endless by the media that was dead-wrong. Seeing it first hand was a noticeable moment for me. Both you and the author can't even take a moment to see past yourself, but that's what the point of the article is about. How bizarre.
  - epgui 4y ago
    What’s ideological about not liking people strictly on the basis that they bullshit a lot? It’s a basic, basic, trust thing. You can pass this judgment completely outside any consideration of politics (and I am not even an American).
  - ourmandave 4y ago
    Obviously he didn't lied 100% of the time or every policy was bad. But he's still lying about the 2020 election being stolen 2 years after leaving office.
nobody9999 4y ago
>Instead, it was "You need to follow the truth I agree with!" which is just more post-modernism in the name of something else. Are you advocating for a world where no one is allowed to be opinionated, hold contrasting views or even have some cognitive dissonance? If one won't entertain other ideas or include additional facts/data into their world view, discussion about the universe, our place in it and compromise become impossible. But that's not to say there's no such thing as objective facts (note I said "facts" not truth). There absolutely are. Truth is (often) something else altogether. But many ideas aren't fact-based. Rather they are based on religious/philosophical/social doctrines which are often reduced to a sentence or a soundbite. Which is a ridiculous thing to do as most ideas are more nuanced and complicated than a single statement can elucidate. E.g., "BLM members are Marxists" or "all Republicans are racists", etc. are all just tropes used to signal membership in a tribe. But reality is much more nuanced. I wish more folks would look at the world through the lens that a variety of view are critical to the human condition -- as long as those views can be investigated/discussed/addressed in a reasoned way. Holding beliefs that differ from that of others is the human condition. That you disagree with the author's stance doesn't mean that they need to change their stance, rather it means that there are discussions to be had to arrive at both understanding (which doesn't imply agreement) and, hopefully, the ability to either agree or agree to disagree. That's not always possible, but the humanity is in making the effort to do so. If one is unwilling to modify their beliefs based on new information and synthesis of that information with their own knowledge/understanding, that's sad.