You can, however, interpret what the politician says, descern the parts that are meaningful. This shouldn’t need to be quantified, as we do this automatically. Diving into this is to dive into neuroscience and biological imperative. Insisting a road map into how we mentally triage information is philosophy and, more importantly, not the point. It is arguing in bad faith. We can all tell what points someone is stressing or leaning on even in rambling meandering conversation. We all know statements said in passing or flippantly - they might suggest something more, but that remains to be seen if it’s indeed acted upon, so we make a mental note and back burner it. When there’s multiple instances of dubiousness then it’s story worthy. Otherwise it’s focus on the main topics at hand, regardless of if you agree with them. This isn’t rocket surgery, it just requires attentiveness.
A journalist can, and should, report the information and fact check to the best of their ability. The news team he hands it in to should be fact checking and helping ensure it’s accuracy. It’s not a one person show and, like most things, when you do it for a while you actually can get good at it. And rather fast.
Above all has to be an almost religious adherence to the truth. Fuck objective truth, it doesn’t exist. Neither does altruism. Neither does objectivism. You’re taking esoteric thought that only hold any value when used as parameters. Perfect isn’t attainable but that doesn’t mean we still making art.
You’re argument is just smart enough to rationalize yourself out of action. But life is action. The thoughts in your head aren’t real, nor are your plans. If they are, where are they? I care about what happens in reality, and if needed I can work at underlying motive or reasonings, but I don’t need those to understand what has manifested into being.
Hate breeds hate. Tolerating hate is just allowing a tumor to grow. It will, as tumors do, eventually metastisize and go malignant. If we know that, and we allow that, then the blame is on us. See; Tiger Eating People’s Faces Party. We must be intolerant of intolerance else it spread and overwhelm us all. If that dialectic is to much for you to hold at the same time then you’re not ready for the conversation. There will be many many times in life where there is no good choice but you still have to choose (refusing to choose is still a choice). As unpleasant as it is, there is behaviour that can not be tolerated by society for the health and survival of society. It’s a duty we have to uphold and if you can’t, thats fine, just step back and let those who can, do. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
A religious adherence to truth necessitates admitting when you learn you’re wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. There is everything wrong with learning you’re wrong and you not accepting that. The entire basis of rationality, and society, are built upon the fundamental, a priori, notion. There’s no hyperbole in that. It is the bedrock of civilization.
I do not think you entirely understood what I was trying to convey, be it from misunderstanding on your part or poor phrasing on my part I am unsure, because my argument isnt for non-action nor is it for tolerance of hate. My last statement there was a statement that one doing reporting should be open about what one’s biases are, which is advocating for taking a specific action, not for doing nothing. The topic of hate didnt even come up in my response really, but that is partially because, I view it as a case where bias is desirable (in the sense that intolerance is in my view morally undesirable, and so portraying it in a bad light in the hopes of limiting its spread in society is a good thing. That in itself represents a bias, one against intolerant views, which is fine as bias is not a synonym for “bad” nor one for “incorrect”, merely for favoring a side in something. If the side one is favoring is actually correct in that thing, then presenting that argument in a way that favors that side is actually more accurate than presenting the argument entirely neutrally, despite being biased). All my response there was really saying is that given fallibility of our ability to determine what is true, it is preferable for organizations seeking to inform others to state what side they are taking, rather than attempt not to have a side and inevitably fail in doing so while still presenting themselves to others with the false sense of impartial objective accuracy that would come from believing that claim.
You can, however, interpret what the politician says, descern the parts that are meaningful. This shouldn’t need to be quantified, as we do this automatically. Diving into this is to dive into neuroscience and biological imperative. Insisting a road map into how we mentally triage information is philosophy and, more importantly, not the point. It is arguing in bad faith. We can all tell what points someone is stressing or leaning on even in rambling meandering conversation. We all know statements said in passing or flippantly - they might suggest something more, but that remains to be seen if it’s indeed acted upon, so we make a mental note and back burner it. When there’s multiple instances of dubiousness then it’s story worthy. Otherwise it’s focus on the main topics at hand, regardless of if you agree with them. This isn’t rocket surgery, it just requires attentiveness.
A journalist can, and should, report the information and fact check to the best of their ability. The news team he hands it in to should be fact checking and helping ensure it’s accuracy. It’s not a one person show and, like most things, when you do it for a while you actually can get good at it. And rather fast.
Above all has to be an almost religious adherence to the truth. Fuck objective truth, it doesn’t exist. Neither does altruism. Neither does objectivism. You’re taking esoteric thought that only hold any value when used as parameters. Perfect isn’t attainable but that doesn’t mean we still making art.
You’re argument is just smart enough to rationalize yourself out of action. But life is action. The thoughts in your head aren’t real, nor are your plans. If they are, where are they? I care about what happens in reality, and if needed I can work at underlying motive or reasonings, but I don’t need those to understand what has manifested into being.
Hate breeds hate. Tolerating hate is just allowing a tumor to grow. It will, as tumors do, eventually metastisize and go malignant. If we know that, and we allow that, then the blame is on us. See; Tiger Eating People’s Faces Party. We must be intolerant of intolerance else it spread and overwhelm us all. If that dialectic is to much for you to hold at the same time then you’re not ready for the conversation. There will be many many times in life where there is no good choice but you still have to choose (refusing to choose is still a choice). As unpleasant as it is, there is behaviour that can not be tolerated by society for the health and survival of society. It’s a duty we have to uphold and if you can’t, thats fine, just step back and let those who can, do. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
A religious adherence to truth necessitates admitting when you learn you’re wrong. There’s nothing wrong with being wrong. There is everything wrong with learning you’re wrong and you not accepting that. The entire basis of rationality, and society, are built upon the fundamental, a priori, notion. There’s no hyperbole in that. It is the bedrock of civilization.
I do not think you entirely understood what I was trying to convey, be it from misunderstanding on your part or poor phrasing on my part I am unsure, because my argument isnt for non-action nor is it for tolerance of hate. My last statement there was a statement that one doing reporting should be open about what one’s biases are, which is advocating for taking a specific action, not for doing nothing. The topic of hate didnt even come up in my response really, but that is partially because, I view it as a case where bias is desirable (in the sense that intolerance is in my view morally undesirable, and so portraying it in a bad light in the hopes of limiting its spread in society is a good thing. That in itself represents a bias, one against intolerant views, which is fine as bias is not a synonym for “bad” nor one for “incorrect”, merely for favoring a side in something. If the side one is favoring is actually correct in that thing, then presenting that argument in a way that favors that side is actually more accurate than presenting the argument entirely neutrally, despite being biased). All my response there was really saying is that given fallibility of our ability to determine what is true, it is preferable for organizations seeking to inform others to state what side they are taking, rather than attempt not to have a side and inevitably fail in doing so while still presenting themselves to others with the false sense of impartial objective accuracy that would come from believing that claim.