4 ms·

I’m sure this is a topic you could write volumes on, but in the nature of “what is truth”. It seems like during the campaign there was this basic question that

I’m sure this is a topic you could write volumes on, but in the nature of “what is truth”. It seems like during the campaign there was this basic question that people wrote authoritatively on trying to in a binary way say “this was his plan” vs “his plan was agenda 47” I suspect this is just he crucial hard question in the age of misinformation, but like, there are times when I see certain opinions on social media, where I think “things are bad, but not that bad, but I see how they could become that bad. You can rationalize any catastrophizing, but most catastrophe’s won’t come to be. It’s sort of both unsolvable, and deeply responsible I think for much of the polarization in society. By the way, this could be said about COVID and climate change and the national debt and the economy and every issue that people feel deeply about.

sho_hn 2y ago
I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say.
- bithive123 2y ago
  I think they are saying that people have a tendency to react to their impressions about what is going on, which may not resemble what is actually going on. Being reactive, they are prone to over-reacting. This seems trivially true in the way people of every political stripe work themselves up into a froth over misconceptions about how government works, how the monetary system works, etc. It's a fair observation, but I personally don't think we should take a wait-and-see approach to the breathtaking corruption and everything else going on.
- techpineapple 2y ago
  "Trump's plan is not project 2025, but is Agenda 47 which is on his website" is an objectively true statement. If a reporter were to write a report saying "I think that Trump is likely to implement Project 2025, because half of his staff worked on the project, and he regularly goes to meetings with the people who work on it" This would be an inference. But the inference is probably more true than the objectively true statement.

sho_hn 2y ago

I honestly couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

bithive123 2y ago
I think they are saying that people have a tendency to react to their impressions about what is going on, which may not resemble what is actually going on. Being reactive, they are prone to over-reacting. This seems trivially true in the way people of every political stripe work themselves up into a froth over misconceptions about how government works, how the monetary system works, etc. It's a fair observation, but I personally don't think we should take a wait-and-see approach to the breathtaking corruption and everything else going on.
techpineapple 2y ago
"Trump's plan is not project 2025, but is Agenda 47 which is on his website" is an objectively true statement. If a reporter were to write a report saying "I think that Trump is likely to implement Project 2025, because half of his staff worked on the project, and he regularly goes to meetings with the people who work on it" This would be an inference. But the inference is probably more true than the objectively true statement.