First, I apologize for my comment about you not making an effort. That was more an expression of frustration than accusation.
Let us shelve the discussion on the semantics of judgment vs. self-righteousness. Probably too subtle to be worth bothering with.
Before the Kavanaugh affair, I thought Trump acted entirely in naked self-interest. But how he handled it showed me he was more than I had given him credit for.
a thought-policing dystopia
Yes. What do you think the “cancel culture” we’ve been decrying for years is?
Just to clarify, I didn’t come up with the friend–enemy distinction. That’s straight from Carl Schmitt.
I didn’t ask whether he used the phrase. He did. My question was whether you thought he used it to describe neo-Nazis. If you did, I wouldn’t blame you: that’s the impression the media has been cultivating. Would it surprise you to learn Trump, a few sentences later, said explicitly, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally”?
I don’t think your resistance or lack thereof to counter-evidence about this particular quote is relevant. The question is whether you will continue to trust the people who left you with that impression when they knew better. If they show you another clip of Trump saying something you think is terrible, will you assume until proven otherwise that it isn’t grossly misleading? If they claim “anonymous sources” told them things about Trump, will you believe they aren’t just made up? If they make a claim about how many lies Trump told, would you take that as a reasonable estimate if they don’t present you with a complete list you can inspect?
Your mistake is in assuming the statements you care about and act on are randomly sampled in the space of all statements that people make. No, they’d be adversarial examples, crafted to manipulate you.
Yes. Several. Without looking up a more complete list of conspiracy theories, I’d list the existence of the Deep State, manipulation of the historical record by the Soviet Union, and the biological reality of race and sex.
Nullius in verba. On no one’s word.
No, not really. Except for the “established systems in democracy,” the others have lied too much, and suppressed the truth too often. And the democracy one is secretive by design, and has done nothing earn my trust.
First, I apologize for my comment about you not making an effort. That was more an expression of frustration than accusation.
Let us shelve the discussion on the semantics of judgment vs. self-righteousness. Probably too subtle to be worth bothering with.
Before the Kavanaugh affair, I thought Trump acted entirely in naked self-interest. But how he handled it showed me he was more than I had given him credit for.
Yes. What do you think the “cancel culture” we’ve been decrying for years is?
Just to clarify, I didn’t come up with the friend–enemy distinction. That’s straight from Carl Schmitt.
I didn’t ask whether he used the phrase. He did. My question was whether you thought he used it to describe neo-Nazis. If you did, I wouldn’t blame you: that’s the impression the media has been cultivating. Would it surprise you to learn Trump, a few sentences later, said explicitly, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally”?
I don’t think your resistance or lack thereof to counter-evidence about this particular quote is relevant. The question is whether you will continue to trust the people who left you with that impression when they knew better. If they show you another clip of Trump saying something you think is terrible, will you assume until proven otherwise that it isn’t grossly misleading? If they claim “anonymous sources” told them things about Trump, will you believe they aren’t just made up? If they make a claim about how many lies Trump told, would you take that as a reasonable estimate if they don’t present you with a complete list you can inspect?
Your mistake is in assuming the statements you care about and act on are randomly sampled in the space of all statements that people make. No, they’d be adversarial examples, crafted to manipulate you.
Yes. Several. Without looking up a more complete list of conspiracy theories, I’d list the existence of the Deep State, manipulation of the historical record by the Soviet Union, and the biological reality of race and sex.
Nullius in verba. On no one’s word.
No, not really. Except for the “established systems in democracy,” the others have lied too much, and suppressed the truth too often. And the democracy one is secretive by design, and has done nothing earn my trust.