4 ms·

The Trumpian opposition to fact checkers is not based on some principled disagreement of substance. Trump, and by extension Republicans, oppose fact checking be

The Trumpian opposition to fact checkers is not based on some principled disagreement of substance. Trump, and by extension Republicans, oppose fact checking because the facts are in contradiction to their goals. Trump himself exists in some post-modern environment where "facts" aren't real and all that matters is spin. He wants what he says to go unquestioned. That's why instead of having a debate about facts, supported by evidence, he simply seeks to remove facts from the discussion entirely.

eastbound 2y ago
[flagged]
- ourmandave 2y ago
  Really? Greenpeace says it's because X platforms conspiracy theorists and climate change skeptics. [1] “But this tool, initially perceived as a new arena for free speech, has become a serious danger to it and to the respect for personal dignity,” point out organizations such as Cimade, France Nature Environment, Greenpeace France, and APF France Handicap in an op-ed published in Le Monde. Their primary concerns include “the lack of moderation and the configuration of algorithms” which “encourage the spread of hateful content and the circulation of conspiracy and climate skeptic theories.” [1] https://glassalmanac.com/87-french-groups-including-emmaus-greenpeace-exit-x-ex-twitter-heres-why/ https://glassalmanac.com/87-french-groups-including-emmaus-g...
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > Trump and the Republicans are very much in favor of checking facts. It is the opposite of censorship: Expose everything. You know that you're writing this in a post about how the current Republican administration has been scrubbing massive amounts of scientific data from government websites, right? I don't see how Greenpeace is at all relevant here.
  - grepfru_it 2y ago
    I'm not saying this is right, but after every party change everything on the government websites change and links/data disappear. This is not limited to this one election, we just happen to notice it now because someone brought it up. Kinda like small chips on your car's windshield. Notice how things like eg the federal reserve data does not disappear because it is protected by legislation. We should be asking not why is it disappearing, but why didn't we enshrine preservation of data in law?
    - hackyhacky 2y ago
      False equivalence. This is not some cosmetic change. No administration has ever done a bulk removal of scientific data from all government websites solely because it conflicts with their policy goals. This removal expresses not just a differing policy but a contempt for facts themselves.
      - grepfru_it 2y ago
        When Bush took office all of the data about climate change disappeared from government websites. So this is not a post about false equivalence but a question why the previous party did not protect this specific data like other government agencies. I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
        hackyhacky 2y ago
        Now you're just gaslighting. There is no "protection" that can prevent a new presidential administration from modifying government websites as they see fit. > I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise, they make you look like you're making stuff up to win internet points.
        grepfru_it 2y ago
        Ok this is getting a little too...hot for HN so just a heads up I will not reply after this one. You are absolutely right that there is no protection that can prevent administrations from modifying websites, otherwise websites would never get redesigned! However, there is a federal law that requires government agencies to retain records and different agencies have different requirements. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader on what could facilitate a records retention change within different agencies.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  So why are they taking so much data offline?
_heimdall 2y ago
I don't believe that is a one party issue. Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture. It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  > Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture. Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have. What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts: * A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else. * A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes. So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]). EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare)
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    > People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system. Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.

eastbound 2y ago

[flagged]

ourmandave 2y ago
Really? Greenpeace says it's because X platforms conspiracy theorists and climate change skeptics. [1] “But this tool, initially perceived as a new arena for free speech, has become a serious danger to it and to the respect for personal dignity,” point out organizations such as Cimade, France Nature Environment, Greenpeace France, and APF France Handicap in an op-ed published in Le Monde. Their primary concerns include “the lack of moderation and the configuration of algorithms” which “encourage the spread of hateful content and the circulation of conspiracy and climate skeptic theories.” [1] https://glassalmanac.com/87-french-groups-including-emmaus-greenpeace-exit-x-ex-twitter-heres-why/ https://glassalmanac.com/87-french-groups-including-emmaus-g...
hackyhacky 2y ago
> Trump and the Republicans are very much in favor of checking facts. It is the opposite of censorship: Expose everything. You know that you're writing this in a post about how the current Republican administration has been scrubbing massive amounts of scientific data from government websites, right? I don't see how Greenpeace is at all relevant here.
- grepfru_it 2y ago
  I'm not saying this is right, but after every party change everything on the government websites change and links/data disappear. This is not limited to this one election, we just happen to notice it now because someone brought it up. Kinda like small chips on your car's windshield. Notice how things like eg the federal reserve data does not disappear because it is protected by legislation. We should be asking not why is it disappearing, but why didn't we enshrine preservation of data in law?
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    False equivalence. This is not some cosmetic change. No administration has ever done a bulk removal of scientific data from all government websites solely because it conflicts with their policy goals. This removal expresses not just a differing policy but a contempt for facts themselves.
    - grepfru_it 2y ago
      When Bush took office all of the data about climate change disappeared from government websites. So this is not a post about false equivalence but a question why the previous party did not protect this specific data like other government agencies. I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe
      - hackyhacky 2y ago
        Now you're just gaslighting. There is no "protection" that can prevent a new presidential administration from modifying government websites as they see fit. > I think the answer to that question is more nuanced than we may like to believe What is this, the X Files? Vague allusions like this don't make you look wise, they make you look like you're making stuff up to win internet points.
        grepfru_it 2y ago
        Ok this is getting a little too...hot for HN so just a heads up I will not reply after this one. You are absolutely right that there is no protection that can prevent administrations from modifying websites, otherwise websites would never get redesigned! However, there is a federal law that requires government agencies to retain records and different agencies have different requirements. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader on what could facilitate a records retention change within different agencies.
anigbrowl 2y ago
So why are they taking so much data offline?

_heimdall 2y ago

I don't believe that is a one party issue. Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture. It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hackyhacky 2y ago
> Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture. Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have. What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts: * A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else. * A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes. So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]). EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare)
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system. Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.