Engineer: The glass is too big.
(Edit: @Nonentity got there first and said it better.)
1 Like
Fighting for Truth, Justice and the [white male] American Way!
And I don’t think Justice is feeling too good either
3 Likes
The problem here is that you earlier said this:
This is why it is getting people up in arms - there is a distinction between a fact, and an assertion of fact. You’ve lumped the terms together here as though there is no distinction.
11 Likes
I did, but I was trying to illustrate that there are different usages, and without qualifiers people might do well to not jump to conclusions. For example, the legal definition above where something is legally a fact simply because a judge says so. Politics is often going to hew more closely to a legalistic definition of fact than a scientific one.
That does not make it good practice!
3 Likes
And as your quote says, a finding of fact (which is a specific legal term, distinct from a general “fact”) is drawn from the evidence. It’s not “simply because a judge says so”. And it only has an impact on the specific case, and can be changed if new evidence comes to light.
In some cases, yes, but now the problem is that even the legalistic definition requires evidence, and requires someone to have been agreed by the parties involved to be competent to decide based on the evidence. It’s still not a matter where just saying it makes it so.
8 Likes
Flint, Michigan resident: Go ahead, YOU drink it!
16 Likes
4 Likes
This may have reached new heights with Trump, but this is not novel in American politics. It’s been well documented by Chris Hedges in his 2009 work “Empire of Illusion” (published by Nation Books).
Here’s a great example of someone arguing the relevance of facts in 1986.
7 Likes
I was addressing discussion upthread where it was being discussed that “fact” and “truth” involved no element of subjectivity. Even when evidence may be objective, people’s analysis and evaluation of it should not be assumed to be objective. Speaking of truth and fact in absolute terms ignores the subjectivities of how people arrive at consensus. That’s why even something as apparently inscrutable as “proven by evidence” might be best unpacked with questions: Proven to whom? By what evidence? Such basic exercises in critical thinking make bad actors use of broadcast media to push their own narrative and illusion of consensus far more difficult.
1 Like
These people sleep securely, well fed and immune to the fear they instill in others.
9 Likes
key words: “bad actors”
Let’s keep in mind that Donald is not the first such screen actor to be elected as POTUS.
8 Likes
Apparently, no one at Trump HQ has read 1984, or if they have, they see it as an instruction manual, rather than a warning.
3 Likes
That and Atlas Shrugged. tRump is the literal embodiment of all she stood for, the most disgusting aspects of human greed and narcissism.
6 Likes
Knowing that you were presenting a thought experiment definitely helps clarify where you were going with your posts.
4 Likes
3 Likes
My mother: The glass is dirty.
13 Likes
Neo Nazi gaslighting.
7 Likes
50% deuterium?
3 Likes
That was fun… it’s been a long time.
2 Likes
Well, to be fair, what she said was; “facts don’t exist, that’s a fact!”
What’s so frustrating is that consistency doesn’t exist.
4 Likes
