4 ms·

Hard disagree. I would prefer that politicians be required to run every statement in their speeches (not impromptu interview answers) through a fact checker. B

by EGreg 2y ago

Hard disagree. I would prefer that politicians be required to run every statement in their speeches (not impromptu interview answers) through a fact checker. But failing that, AT THE VERY LEAST can we please have transparency in government? Hiding information is A FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE and it supports lies that get countries into wars via the spy agencies and cover up the failures of the elected officials to deescalate. And later it is “declassified” and “mistakes were made.” Look: https://community.qbix.com/t/transparency-in-government/234 https://community.qbix.com/t/transparency-in-government/234

constantcrying 2y ago
>through a fact checker Facts are the subject of political debate. If there is no disagreement about facts politics ceases to exist. It would be just one group saying "I believe A" and another group saying "I believe B", no communication could take place.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  There's ongoing disagreement because people lie when they say "I believe x" (when it's actually "I've been paid to support y") On most subjects people would come to an agreement after a while, if they were forced to be honest.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    But you can’t trust the “fact checkers” to be honest.
    - g-b-r 2y ago
      Most "fact checkers" actually rarely get it wrong. As with any law anyhow, of course there have to be enough judicial safeguards.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >On most subjects people would come to an agreement after a while, if they were forced to be honest. This is completely delusional. Genuinely surprised to hear such a ridiculous thing.
    - g-b-r 2y ago
      Well I see your opinions similarly...
caseysoftware 2y ago
The US Congress is very specifically allowed to lie about policy and not allowed to be punished over it. Seems preposterous, right? See the Speech & Debate Clause.
hermitdev 2y ago
Except "fact checkers" are just as corrupt and biased as the politicians they supposedly check.
- EGreg 2y ago
  Better to have peer review in science than having someone tweet their article at 3am

by EGreg 2y ago

constantcrying 2y ago

>through a fact checker Facts are the subject of political debate. If there is no disagreement about facts politics ceases to exist. It would be just one group saying "I believe A" and another group saying "I believe B", no communication could take place.

g-b-r 2y ago
There's ongoing disagreement because people lie when they say "I believe x" (when it's actually "I've been paid to support y") On most subjects people would come to an agreement after a while, if they were forced to be honest.
- rayiner 2y ago
  But you can’t trust the “fact checkers” to be honest.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    Most "fact checkers" actually rarely get it wrong. As with any law anyhow, of course there have to be enough judicial safeguards.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >On most subjects people would come to an agreement after a while, if they were forced to be honest. This is completely delusional. Genuinely surprised to hear such a ridiculous thing.
  - g-b-r 2y ago
    Well I see your opinions similarly...

caseysoftware 2y ago

The US Congress is very specifically allowed to lie about policy and not allowed to be punished over it. Seems preposterous, right? See the Speech & Debate Clause.

hermitdev 2y ago

Except "fact checkers" are just as corrupt and biased as the politicians they supposedly check.

EGreg 2y ago
Better to have peer review in science than having someone tweet their article at 3am