3 ms·

Weapons of mass destruction, Syrian rebels, CIA torture, Snowden is a traitor, the Wikileaks suppression, ... I think that it's not entirely irrational to beli

by tomp 12y ago

Weapons of mass destruction, Syrian rebels, CIA torture, Snowden is a traitor, the Wikileaks suppression, ... I think that it's not entirely irrational to believe the opposite of whatever USG says about foreign policy.

balabaster 12y ago
I would second this. I think everyone wants to believe that the U.S. Government is trustworthy and that they stand for what is morally right... but the definition of madness is to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results. Too much has gone on in recent history that shows the Government is not trustworthy. You can't expect to keep being caught betraying the trust of your countrymen and expect them to continue trusting what you have to say. Whether this is North Korea or not, the fact is, the only information appearing to confirm that has thus far appeared to come from or have perhaps been coerced by the Government... given the Government has proven themselves time and again not to be trusted, what are we supposed to believe? Is it North Korea? Is the evidence credible? Has it been fabricated? What are we supposed to think?
mikeash 12y ago
What about the many correct statements they've made over the years? Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they're innocently wrong. Sometimes they're right. It is irrational to knee-jerk believe the opposite of what they say just because they're sometimes lying or wrong. If you don't trust them, fine. I don't trust them either. But that means that you should evaluate for yourself, not simply believe the opposite of what they say.
- tomp 12y ago
  It's not the local Scientology Society, it's the USG, the most powerful and lethal organization on Earth. They might usually be "innocently wrong", but sometimes they're wrong and thousands of people die. I'm aiming at those occasions. Same reason I oppose death penalty, you never know if the person is really guilty, so you shouldn't kill them, just to be safe.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  Rather than believe or disbelieve them, you can weight them instead. Which leads us to an interesting question. What weighting should be given to unsubstantiated claims from the FBI? They don't exactly have an unblemished record for accuracy, so it is tempting to weight them negatively. I guess I probably weight them slightly positively, but not by very much at all, which is why I am taking the opinions of independent security professionals over the FBI on this.
- balabaster 12y ago
  You have to remember though that they're a political party - they say what it is politically advantageous for them to say, or what they can spin it to look like. There is no black and white nor right or wrong in their eyes, only angles, spin and PR. How true they are being at any given time depends only on how they can use it to their advantage. If it is politically advantageous to tell the truth, they will do so, if it is politically advantageous to distract from, cover up or lie about, they they will equally do so. You can't trust them, all you can trust is if their angle currently aligns with your goals. This is how dishonest bills get piggybacked through while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, this is why political arrests are made, this is why the Government backtracks on Whistleblower protections and they condemn countries that use torture to achieve their ends... until they themselves are caught doing it, only to throw their hands up and say "Hey, it was necessary!" You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life isn't black and white, it's grey. Nobody is innocent, everyone has capability of good and evil (if you choose to look at it that way). But when you can only trust someone as far as their political agenda, how do you know when to trust them and when not to? I agree with your point though of not automatically believing or disbelieving in what they have to say, you have to look at whether it is more politically advantageous to be truthful or deceitful... but with more and more information coming out that shows the level of their deceit, you have to wonder if anything they say is true or if it's all spun for political advantage.

by tomp 12y ago

balabaster 12y ago

I would second this. I think everyone wants to believe that the U.S. Government is trustworthy and that they stand for what is morally right... but the definition of madness is to continue doing the same thing and expecting different results. Too much has gone on in recent history that shows the Government is not trustworthy. You can't expect to keep being caught betraying the trust of your countrymen and expect them to continue trusting what you have to say. Whether this is North Korea or not, the fact is, the only information appearing to confirm that has thus far appeared to come from or have perhaps been coerced by the Government... given the Government has proven themselves time and again not to be trusted, what are we supposed to believe? Is it North Korea? Is the evidence credible? Has it been fabricated? What are we supposed to think?

mikeash 12y ago

What about the many correct statements they've made over the years? Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they're innocently wrong. Sometimes they're right. It is irrational to knee-jerk believe the opposite of what they say just because they're sometimes lying or wrong. If you don't trust them, fine. I don't trust them either. But that means that you should evaluate for yourself, not simply believe the opposite of what they say.

tomp 12y ago
It's not the local Scientology Society, it's the USG, the most powerful and lethal organization on Earth. They might usually be "innocently wrong", but sometimes they're wrong and thousands of people die. I'm aiming at those occasions. Same reason I oppose death penalty, you never know if the person is really guilty, so you shouldn't kill them, just to be safe.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
Rather than believe or disbelieve them, you can weight them instead. Which leads us to an interesting question. What weighting should be given to unsubstantiated claims from the FBI? They don't exactly have an unblemished record for accuracy, so it is tempting to weight them negatively. I guess I probably weight them slightly positively, but not by very much at all, which is why I am taking the opinions of independent security professionals over the FBI on this.
balabaster 12y ago
You have to remember though that they're a political party - they say what it is politically advantageous for them to say, or what they can spin it to look like. There is no black and white nor right or wrong in their eyes, only angles, spin and PR. How true they are being at any given time depends only on how they can use it to their advantage. If it is politically advantageous to tell the truth, they will do so, if it is politically advantageous to distract from, cover up or lie about, they they will equally do so. You can't trust them, all you can trust is if their angle currently aligns with your goals. This is how dishonest bills get piggybacked through while everyone is looking in the wrong direction, this is why political arrests are made, this is why the Government backtracks on Whistleblower protections and they condemn countries that use torture to achieve their ends... until they themselves are caught doing it, only to throw their hands up and say "Hey, it was necessary!" You can't have your cake and eat it too. Life isn't black and white, it's grey. Nobody is innocent, everyone has capability of good and evil (if you choose to look at it that way). But when you can only trust someone as far as their political agenda, how do you know when to trust them and when not to? I agree with your point though of not automatically believing or disbelieving in what they have to say, you have to look at whether it is more politically advantageous to be truthful or deceitful... but with more and more information coming out that shows the level of their deceit, you have to wonder if anything they say is true or if it's all spun for political advantage.