111–120 of 287 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I... can't say anything other than: Apparently not.
I would love for you to substantiate that into something meaningful. So by all means. Prove me wrong.
I would love for you to show me how people cared as much about truth now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You are right in that either one can win, but only one can be true." Of course both sides can put forth true arguments in a political debate. I'm having a hard time coming up with a real world example, both because I don't want to push buttons that force you down a knee-jerk path on the button I push when I don't really care about it, and because we're really not used to seeing honest debates in the political arena.…
Sure, but those are then by definition not opposing arguments. They are opposing stances on some political issue, sure, but on the facts side one party puts more value in one variable where the other party values another. I was stating that two opposing arguments can't both be true, because then there is no truth.
We are not talking about some rhetorical analysis of language and I never meant it in that sense which the context of this discussion should have made clear. If not then I am remedying that now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era? It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in actual truths. It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts than our own. We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is confused with difference of opini…
I think it's more simple than this. People have been trained over decades not to believe or trust politicians (e.g. Obama's "I will close down Guantanamo Bay"). So now they just don't bother any more. Before the media/Democrats can credibly criticise "fake news", they first need to regain the people's trust.
http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe...
Scott Adams, talking about Scott Adams in the third person, while pretending not to be Scott Adams:
- [0] plannedchaos -21 points 4 months ago
If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has a lot of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how the idiot mind is wired.
It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.
And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love for you to substantiate that into something meaningful. So by all means. Prove me wrong.
He won? That is very quantifiable. Despite on 69% of statements lying according to politifact. I would love for you to show me how people cared as much about truth now.
People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills.
They voted on trump for all the things that Politifacts didn't measure but which matter to people and on those he was not lying.
Also Hillary won the popular vote so even on that account she won and he didn't.
Nothing new here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no thats not why people claim we are living in post-truth. They claim that because they claim that truth doesn't matter anymore but truth never mattered in politics and people aren't discarding truth. I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true.
> I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true. Climate change.
..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…
..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…
..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…
Good job. This is an example of falling into the 3rd category and not the first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never been. Perception have always been reality and politicians have always used that to get things their way. Thats why they study rhetorics not science. There is no objective transcendence between facts and politics decisions. You can believe that climate change is created by humans and still decide not to do anything about it because you also believe that technology will solve most of those problem, or that t…
This is gaslighting. Facts used to matter. It used to be that politicians would substantially lose face for inconsistencies in policy (think John Kerry most recently). Now politicians claim to have never done things they are on film doing, and people believe them. We are absolutely in a new mode of politics, one that transcends mere differences of opinion. To pretend otherwise does everyone a disservice.