7 ms·

There's nothing more dangerous to dictatorships than the truth, so it's only logical.

by karlkloss 10mo ago

nephihaha 10mo ago
So called fact checking often is not about truth, but subjectivity.
- greggoB 10mo ago
  So what is your proposed mechanism for attempting to maintain a commonly-observable reality? People have shown throughout history that they have an incentive to bend truths to suit their narratives, often to the detriment of society. How would you address this?
  - mlrtime 10mo ago
    The folks that are selectively using "facts" to push a narrative can continue to do so, The US DOS is not stopping them.
    - greggoB 10mo ago
      I didn't quite get what you were saying here
      - mlrtime 10mo ago
        The fact checkers can continue to do what they are doing now, they just won't get a visa. They aren't being stopped from doing their job, just can't do it in the US. (Late reply, sorry)
        greggoB 10mo ago
        I get that your overall sentiment is fact-checkers aren't doing legitimate work, but I'm not sure if you see that the choice you describe can literally only reinforce that sentiment. If your opinion is that fact-checking as a concept is bad then that's one thing, but if not then I'd be interested to know what alternative(s) you'd suggest
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    The first would be being honest enough to say that many statements are not hard and fast facts, but opinions. If we say ice is frozen water, then that is a solid fact (leaving aside dry ice etc). But if we say such-and-such is a good/bad leader that is often mostly based on one's opinion of what good/bad leadership entails. In many cases, one person's good leader is another's bad leader.
    - aeonik 10mo ago
      While technically true, you have censored and suppressed the truth. Almost all ice has mineral impurities in it, and is therefore a mineral. Therefore water is actually lava (molten ice) and should be referred to as such. Your depiction of ice being merely "frozen water" as a fact, and not emphasizing it's equality with lava is classist and clearly agenda driven. /s
    - greggoB 10mo ago
      It's often not a hard and fast distinction. Calling a leader good/bad because of policy or manner would surely lean more to opinion. If that leader definitively partook in activities that are the subject of the Epstein files, then that's less opinion and more a question of the factual accuracy of the recorded material (assuming it exists). Regardless, said leader would obviously have incentive to cast it as a lie
- nutjob2 10mo ago
  Only the words that drip from Dear Leader's mouth are the golden truth. Every day I check Truth Social to find out what I think.
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    "Dear Leader" contradicts himself within the same sentence. I've witnessed it myself.
- croon 10mo ago
  I hear this a lot. I never see examples. The fact checking I've looked at starts with something like a claim, then dives into context, then lists supporting evidence of either verifying that claim or disproving it, leaning on that supporting evidence. For fact checking not to be valuable, either the supporting evidence is wrong, the reasoning leading from that to the conclusion is wrong, or something third is wrong. If that is the case in fact checking, that should absolutely be criticized, and any fact checker with integrity would put up a correction. For all the vague critique against "fact checking" I've heard, I've never actually seen anyone give examples. If the critique instead is "they selectively only fact check this and not that", the conclusion should not be that fact checking is bad, but that more is needed.
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    Surprisingly few things are solid facts. Many of them are opinions, especially in politics, culture and celebrity reporting. Snopes is one of the most beloved fact checking services, yet I have seen them make questionable claims. I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? It would have been more honest to say that most of them are fake. Not only would it be possible to make such a video, there is considerable evidence that some have been made. Saddam Hussein and his son are said to have enjoyed watching videos of executions. Now that may be propaganda against Hussein, but he would have been capable of sourcing such material and watching it. At least one murder was streamed on Facebook Live and someone was arrested for it. I'd say that counted as such.
    - croon 10mo ago
      > I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? I'm curious about that too. Is there an archive link or something you can provide? I can't seem to find that claim.
      - relaxing 10mo ago
        You’re going to argue with the Snuff Videos Truther? This is the funniest example of “Which views exactly? / Oh, you know the ones.”
account42 10mo ago
And there is nothing more dangerous to the truth than someone who claims authority over it.
- rs186 10mo ago
  Do fact checkers ever "claim authority" over anything (especially in news organizations)? Perhaps time to get that wild claim fact checked by yourself.
- aprilthird2021 10mo ago
  Which the President is doing with these orders right now
- metadope 10mo ago
  I will tell you the truth, and you will be safe, believe me, because I know what is true, from my personal experience. This is the truth over which I can claim authority. My personal experience, that small portion of objective and infinite reality that became mine, once I'd perceived and diced my tiny slice, stored and explored and retrieved and believed. I know what's true, just ask, I'll tell.
mlrtime 10mo ago
Where exactly is the dictatorship here? Or is this just a vague line meant to imply something without actually saying it? If you have a point to make, just say it plainly.
- aprilthird2021 10mo ago
  The man who constantly says he will find a way to have a 3rd term, who commits war crimes and also suggests the death penalty for his political opponents a few weeks before carrying out war crimes because his opponents said militaries should not commit war crimes even if ordered to. The leader who announces, illegally, that all his predecessors' orders are null and void. I mean we could go on and on, no?

There's nothing more dangerous to dictatorships than the truth, so it's only logical.

nephihaha 10mo ago

So called fact checking often is not about truth, but subjectivity.

greggoB 10mo ago
So what is your proposed mechanism for attempting to maintain a commonly-observable reality? People have shown throughout history that they have an incentive to bend truths to suit their narratives, often to the detriment of society. How would you address this?
- mlrtime 10mo ago
  The folks that are selectively using "facts" to push a narrative can continue to do so, The US DOS is not stopping them.
  - greggoB 10mo ago
    I didn't quite get what you were saying here
    - mlrtime 10mo ago
      The fact checkers can continue to do what they are doing now, they just won't get a visa. They aren't being stopped from doing their job, just can't do it in the US. (Late reply, sorry)
      - greggoB 10mo ago
        I get that your overall sentiment is fact-checkers aren't doing legitimate work, but I'm not sure if you see that the choice you describe can literally only reinforce that sentiment. If your opinion is that fact-checking as a concept is bad then that's one thing, but if not then I'd be interested to know what alternative(s) you'd suggest
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  The first would be being honest enough to say that many statements are not hard and fast facts, but opinions. If we say ice is frozen water, then that is a solid fact (leaving aside dry ice etc). But if we say such-and-such is a good/bad leader that is often mostly based on one's opinion of what good/bad leadership entails. In many cases, one person's good leader is another's bad leader.
  - aeonik 10mo ago
    While technically true, you have censored and suppressed the truth. Almost all ice has mineral impurities in it, and is therefore a mineral. Therefore water is actually lava (molten ice) and should be referred to as such. Your depiction of ice being merely "frozen water" as a fact, and not emphasizing it's equality with lava is classist and clearly agenda driven. /s
  - greggoB 10mo ago
    It's often not a hard and fast distinction. Calling a leader good/bad because of policy or manner would surely lean more to opinion. If that leader definitively partook in activities that are the subject of the Epstein files, then that's less opinion and more a question of the factual accuracy of the recorded material (assuming it exists). Regardless, said leader would obviously have incentive to cast it as a lie
nutjob2 10mo ago
Only the words that drip from Dear Leader's mouth are the golden truth. Every day I check Truth Social to find out what I think.
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  "Dear Leader" contradicts himself within the same sentence. I've witnessed it myself.
croon 10mo ago
I hear this a lot. I never see examples. The fact checking I've looked at starts with something like a claim, then dives into context, then lists supporting evidence of either verifying that claim or disproving it, leaning on that supporting evidence. For fact checking not to be valuable, either the supporting evidence is wrong, the reasoning leading from that to the conclusion is wrong, or something third is wrong. If that is the case in fact checking, that should absolutely be criticized, and any fact checker with integrity would put up a correction. For all the vague critique against "fact checking" I've heard, I've never actually seen anyone give examples. If the critique instead is "they selectively only fact check this and not that", the conclusion should not be that fact checking is bad, but that more is needed.
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  Surprisingly few things are solid facts. Many of them are opinions, especially in politics, culture and celebrity reporting. Snopes is one of the most beloved fact checking services, yet I have seen them make questionable claims. I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? It would have been more honest to say that most of them are fake. Not only would it be possible to make such a video, there is considerable evidence that some have been made. Saddam Hussein and his son are said to have enjoyed watching videos of executions. Now that may be propaganda against Hussein, but he would have been capable of sourcing such material and watching it. At least one murder was streamed on Facebook Live and someone was arrested for it. I'd say that counted as such.
  - croon 10mo ago
    > I remember they tried to say once many years ago that snuff videos don't exist. How could they make such a blanket claim? I'm curious about that too. Is there an archive link or something you can provide? I can't seem to find that claim.
    - relaxing 10mo ago
      You’re going to argue with the Snuff Videos Truther? This is the funniest example of “Which views exactly? / Oh, you know the ones.”

account42 10mo ago

And there is nothing more dangerous to the truth than someone who claims authority over it.

rs186 10mo ago
Do fact checkers ever "claim authority" over anything (especially in news organizations)? Perhaps time to get that wild claim fact checked by yourself.
aprilthird2021 10mo ago
Which the President is doing with these orders right now
metadope 10mo ago
I will tell you the truth, and you will be safe, believe me, because I know what is true, from my personal experience. This is the truth over which I can claim authority. My personal experience, that small portion of objective and infinite reality that became mine, once I'd perceived and diced my tiny slice, stored and explored and retrieved and believed. I know what's true, just ask, I'll tell.

mlrtime 10mo ago

Where exactly is the dictatorship here? Or is this just a vague line meant to imply something without actually saying it? If you have a point to make, just say it plainly.

aprilthird2021 10mo ago
The man who constantly says he will find a way to have a 3rd term, who commits war crimes and also suggests the death penalty for his political opponents a few weeks before carrying out war crimes because his opponents said militaries should not commit war crimes even if ordered to. The leader who announces, illegally, that all his predecessors' orders are null and void. I mean we could go on and on, no?