4 ms·

Fiery but mostly peaceful protests, Biden's dementia is actually just a speech issue, Russia hacked our brains, peaceful Muslims (after a massacre), etc, etc.

mmooss 2y ago
Isn't that just journalists not supporting your personal narrative? That isn't the measure of truth (and neither is mine).
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Biden having dementia isn't a personal narrative, it's a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years but most US based journalists refused to report on. The position you're staking out here is called postmodernism, and is based on the idea that there is no objective truth. There is only my truth and your truth. This is a highly ideological and contentious position, in fact to people who don't subscribe to postmodernism, postmodernism is an objectively untrue belief system. Biden shows all the symptoms of being in a state of advanced dementia. People who work with him say he's only cogent and capable of handling presidential business for a few hours a day at best, and that's probably an exaggeration. It is objectively true that he has dementia by the definitions of those words. When journalists refused to report that or pretended the problems were caused by other things, they weren't merely preferencing personal narratives of equal value to any other narrative, they were explicitly manipulating their readers in order to achieve their ideological goals via subterfuge. Which is why nobody rational trusts them anymore.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Spare me the postmodernism lecture and don't try to put me in your preconceived box. There is lots of ground between 'there is no objective reality' and assuming that you, mike_hearn, have some special access to to the Truth. If someone could have such special access, how do you know it's you and not me? It's not that voice saying you are right - everyone has it; it's part perceptual mechanism and part ego; why is your voice superior to mine? And we also know that political movements play to that voice, manipulate it, and then encourage it - 'you and I know the truth'. And aren't you the one just repeating an ideology? All you say I have heard many times as dogma of the current right-wing movement. And as you offer nothing else but insistence on it, is there any more to these claims? Where do you think for yourself and depart from it? What is your reasoning beyond 'nobody rational' would disagree with the movement - a strong signal of reason-by-mass-psychology. The essence of reason is another voice, which connects our intellect and knows, through experience and training, that the first voice is not trustworthy. It doesn't say, 'nobody rational would disagree with me'; it says, 'my perception and knowledge are limited and I need to base my beliefs on much more'. The core of reason and rational thought is resolving a dilemma: how do we find truth if our perceptions and beliefs are unreliable? What's worked very well and is widely accepted is to use something outside ourselves: publicly verifiable fact. > objectively untrue > nobody rational Those words aren't evidence, they are just signals that it's a dogma. A rational discussion would bring in evidence, and talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and talk about the strengths and weaknesses in your ideas. It would include curiosity about others' ideas. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas (and so do I), but it's impossible to explore anything if you won't. > journalists refused to report that I saw plenty of reporting about his age-related problems, for example in the New York Times and Fox News. Both got a lot of heat for it.
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      I said it's "a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years" which is the opposite of claiming to have special knowledge, so why the straw man? No special knowledge is needed to know that this claim is objectively true, you can just watch videos of him and see it for yourself. Why are you expecting me to cite evidence for something so widely accepted his own party didn't let him run for President again? If you really cannot see what everyone else can see - even his own party - then I'm not going to spend time on trying to convince you. As for seeing stuff in Fox News, I don't think that particular organization is what the people who started this thread were thinking of.
      - mmooss 2y ago
        Fox and the NY Times are both journalism. If you aren't talking about that, then it's just more evidence that it is just the angry mob of the right trying to force others to comply.

mmooss 2y ago

Isn't that just journalists not supporting your personal narrative? That isn't the measure of truth (and neither is mine).

mike_hearn 2y ago
Biden having dementia isn't a personal narrative, it's a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years but most US based journalists refused to report on. The position you're staking out here is called postmodernism, and is based on the idea that there is no objective truth. There is only my truth and your truth. This is a highly ideological and contentious position, in fact to people who don't subscribe to postmodernism, postmodernism is an objectively untrue belief system. Biden shows all the symptoms of being in a state of advanced dementia. People who work with him say he's only cogent and capable of handling presidential business for a few hours a day at best, and that's probably an exaggeration. It is objectively true that he has dementia by the definitions of those words. When journalists refused to report that or pretended the problems were caused by other things, they weren't merely preferencing personal narratives of equal value to any other narrative, they were explicitly manipulating their readers in order to achieve their ideological goals via subterfuge. Which is why nobody rational trusts them anymore.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Spare me the postmodernism lecture and don't try to put me in your preconceived box. There is lots of ground between 'there is no objective reality' and assuming that you, mike_hearn, have some special access to to the Truth. If someone could have such special access, how do you know it's you and not me? It's not that voice saying you are right - everyone has it; it's part perceptual mechanism and part ego; why is your voice superior to mine? And we also know that political movements play to that voice, manipulate it, and then encourage it - 'you and I know the truth'. And aren't you the one just repeating an ideology? All you say I have heard many times as dogma of the current right-wing movement. And as you offer nothing else but insistence on it, is there any more to these claims? Where do you think for yourself and depart from it? What is your reasoning beyond 'nobody rational' would disagree with the movement - a strong signal of reason-by-mass-psychology. The essence of reason is another voice, which connects our intellect and knows, through experience and training, that the first voice is not trustworthy. It doesn't say, 'nobody rational would disagree with me'; it says, 'my perception and knowledge are limited and I need to base my beliefs on much more'. The core of reason and rational thought is resolving a dilemma: how do we find truth if our perceptions and beliefs are unreliable? What's worked very well and is widely accepted is to use something outside ourselves: publicly verifiable fact. > objectively untrue > nobody rational Those words aren't evidence, they are just signals that it's a dogma. A rational discussion would bring in evidence, and talk about its strengths and weaknesses, and talk about the strengths and weaknesses in your ideas. It would include curiosity about others' ideas. I'm sure you have plenty of good ideas (and so do I), but it's impossible to explore anything if you won't. > journalists refused to report that I saw plenty of reporting about his age-related problems, for example in the New York Times and Fox News. Both got a lot of heat for it.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    I said it's "a matter of fact that was clearly visible for years" which is the opposite of claiming to have special knowledge, so why the straw man? No special knowledge is needed to know that this claim is objectively true, you can just watch videos of him and see it for yourself. Why are you expecting me to cite evidence for something so widely accepted his own party didn't let him run for President again? If you really cannot see what everyone else can see - even his own party - then I'm not going to spend time on trying to convince you. As for seeing stuff in Fox News, I don't think that particular organization is what the people who started this thread were thinking of.
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Fox and the NY Times are both journalism. If you aren't talking about that, then it's just more evidence that it is just the angry mob of the right trying to force others to comply.