"That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media. By the way, it will require some government, I believe, some government regulatory constraints around some of these business models in a way that's consistent with the First Amendment, but that also says, look, there is a difference between these platforms letting all voices be heard versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence...."
Said Barack Obama, in a conversation with a historian a few days ago. Video at the link.
So it seems he thinks it's "the big task of social media" to teach children to distinguish between fact and opinion. But what does it mean to say "We don't want diversity of facts"? Does it mean you don't want differences of opinion about what the facts are?It must, because facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts. Whatever is true is true, even if not one human being knows the truth. The facts are out there, to be found, and you can think you've found the facts and be wrong. There's a sense in which to say "We don't want diversity of facts" is to say we want to be able to be able to cling to mistaken findings of fact and even to silence those who want to continue to search for the truth.
I'm irritated by how casually Obama dropped in "By the way, it will require some government." Perhaps he knew his audience at the event was eager to hear about a role for government. But he did not say that government should enforce an official version of the facts — e.g., the covid vaccine is safe and effective, the 2020 election was fair and square. Instead of content-based regulation of speech, he's talking about the manner of the speech. Is it "hateful," "polarizing," or "dangerous"? He adds the phrase "in the sense of inciting violence" to gesture at some concern for the First Amendment.
Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy. That sentence that begins "By the way" — what is he proposing? Government control of the social media algorithm to suppress the voices it deems polarizing? Yeah, I think we know what that means: Suppress my political opponents, like you did before Elon Musk bought Twitter. Can we agree about that fact or is that an opinion?
***
I'm giving this post my old "alternative facts" tag. Remember "alternative facts"?
পোস্টগুলি
১৩২টি মন্তব্য:
Barack Obama wants government censorship of the type that he and Joe Biden implemented, where they call up their friend Jack Dorsey over at Twitter and tell him what people can and can't discuss. Where they call up Zuckerberg and threaten to break up Facebook if he doesn't do what they say and delete posts.
Fuck Barack Obama.
"By the way, it will require some government."
This is where the totalitarian left reveals itself. Any government not run by them is illegitimate in their eyes.
Trump was recently elected with 10 million more votes than Obama ever got.
Obama would never accept that the Government under Trump gets to determine the facts.
These people do not believe a word that they say.
“Just the facts, ma'am.” — Joe Friday
Commie gonna commie
Obama should have been asked, “What is a woman?”
Why can’t this guy just go away. Nearly every goddam thing he promoted turned to shit during his presidency. And all the racial healing… cough, cough… pull the other one.
I saw a clip of this. He spoke in his usual arrogant and halting manner. His classmates at Harvard had a word for it.
Just go away, Barack.
For a highly educated former Constitutional Law Professor Obama seems to have no idea of how epistemology works. We are concerned with theory. Facts are either consistent with or reject theory. Facts can be consistent with multiple theories that are widely different.
Completely incongruent, saying govt needs to be involved in policing the facts while warning about an aristocracy under Trump. He’s a real piece of work.
Social media, via upvotes and viral sharing, promotes the loudest voices. This hasn't been good for society. Look how polarized we are.
Can social media find a different business model, one that doesn't reward vile posting? Or is this just human nature to want to watch the train wreck?
Opinions can be diverse. Facts either are, or are not.
Different people prioritize known facts differently. It’s called individualism. It must frustrate him to no end. Good.
I should have read the whole post. Althouse already said what I said... Sorry.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obama thinks he has a better way.
He's wrong.
He needs to sit down and talk to the lying MSM about that.
Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy.
That's because he's required to speak in code. He's required to very carefully select his words, on the fly.
What he wants to say, but knows that he cannot say, is that we need government to be able to delete social media posts that might discuss, say, Hunter Biden's laptop, for example.
That's "Russia disinformation," they'll say.
Barack Obama is an arrogant, Ivy-league asshole who, if the Secret Service wasn't protecting him, he'd get punched in the face daily by his own wife. He's the kind of guy Good Will Hunting would serve some apples to.
It's good that he's no longer relevant in our society.
Barack Obama is defective, thought in Texas
You know he knows just exactly what the facts is
He ain't gonna let you escape his bromides
He makes his livin' off of the people's taxes
What a disappointing comment by Obama. Martin Luther King Jr and Alexander Hamilton said very disruptive things.
I think - I really do - the intent of (most) censorship or "curation" of information on the left is well intended. They really do (I think) believe that they know what's true, and that forwarding what they see as facts, and suppressing what they see as non-facts or misleading facts, is a social good, or at least serves a social good. It doesn't occur to them that they might be wrong.
Two examples. It is apparently true that gunshot wounds are the leading cause of death among minors in this country. It is not true that GSW are the leading cause of death among children as pretty much everybody understands that word - it's the "teenage gang member" cohort that drives the stat. But the gun control side has decided that "minors" and "children" are sufficiently synonymous that they can just swap them one-for-one without loss of meaning, because to do so advances their agenda, which they see as an unalloyed social good.
And, from 1923 until 1956, it was "settled science" that humans have 48 chromosomes. (The third example might be the "impending ice age" "settled science" of the 1970s, but it didn't last as long.)
Facts being solid is a picture of facts, not a fact about facts. Stanley Cavell, on the parallel problem of "knowing":
For when are we "knowing something"? Do I know (now) (am I, as it were knowing) that there is a green jar of pencils on the desk (though I am not now looking at it)? If I do know now, did I not know before I asked the question? I had not, before then, said that or thought it; but that is perhaps not relevant. If someone had asked me whether the jar was on the desk I could have said Yes without looking. So I did know. But what does it mean to say "I did know"? Of course no one will say that I did not know (that I wasn't knowing). On the other hand, no one would have said of me, seeing me sitting at my desk with the green jar out of my range of vision, "He knows there is a green jar of pencils on the desk", nor would anyone say of me now, "He (you) knew there was a green jar . . .", apart from some special reason which makes that description of my "knowledge" relevant to something I did or said or am doing or saying (e.g., I told someone that I never keep pencils on my desk; I knew that Mrs. Greenjar was coming to tea and that she takes it as a personal affront if there is a green jar visible in the room . . .). Perhaps one feels: "What difference does it make that no one would have said, without a special reason for saying it, that you knew the green jar was on the desk? You did know it; it's true to say that you knew it.
Are you suggesting that one sometimes cannot say what is true?" What I am suggesting is that "Because it is true" is not a reason or basis for saying anything, it does not constitute the point of your saying something; and I am suggesting that there must, in grammar, be reasons for what you say, or be point in your saying of something, if what you say is to be comprehensible. We can understand what the words mean apart from understanding why you say them; but apart from understanding the point of your saying them we cannot understand what you mean. Now we have come, or come again, and most generally, to what sometimes strikes me as the deepest of the conflicts between traditional philosophy and its new critics who proceed from what is ordinarily said.
- Stanley Cavll, The Claim of Reason
It must, because facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts. Whatever is true is true, even if not one human being knows the truth. The facts are out there, to be found, and you can think you've found the facts and be wrong. There's a sense in which to say "We don't want diversity of facts" is to say we want to be able to be able to cling to mistaken findings of fact and even to silence those who want to continue to search for the truth.
Indeed. We are continually finding that "the facts" about just about everything--are not what we thought they were.
And the worst custodians of "the facts" are governments. Just look at what our vaunted government health authorities have told us over the past 50 years--or even the past 5 years.
In my opinion your facts don't matter as much as my facts.
Among the facts now believed by Democrats is that a man can transform himself into a woman if he really, really, feels like woman.
I think we know what that means: Suppress my political opponents, like you did before Elon Musk bought Twitter. Can we agree about that fact or is that an opinion?
According to the Matt Taibbi and the Twitter Files, that’s a fact.
Kate, that's entirely wrong. Social media curates for what generates the most engagement. It's got nothing to do with how 'loud' a voice is, and only tangentially related to what gies viral. To paraphrase Pogo, we have met the polarizers and they are us. People chose to abandon X for Bluesky.
Plausible, probable, and independently confirmed.
Internally, externally, and mutually consistent.
Theory supported by observation where fidelity is inversely proportional to separation in time and space.
The traditional expectation was multiple, independent sources to increase resolution of sociopolitical biases.
Varying degrees of correlation (e.g. Mechanical Intelligence, science).
Obama's proposal can be characterized as an appeal to authority, a faith-based argument. Kings? Queens?
Tangentially, it is diversity of individuals, minority of one, lest thee take a knee to Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies) and wallow in DEIsm (i.e. systemic, institutional Diversity).
It must, because facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts. Whatever is true is true
Someone has forgotten the parable of the five blind men and the elephant.
Following that logic, I suppose that diversity of facts within a jury is also a real problem, and the government (the prosecution) should step into the jury room and straighten them out. In fact, following Obama's thinking, there shouldn't really be a need for a jury room or out-of-court deliberations, should there? The jury can just look to the prosecution table and nod and what they're told are the facts.
(Does the former president, and Harvard graduate, not understand even the most basic principles by which a democracy operates?)
There are lots of facts that are true, and yet they lead to polarization. Polarization is often just a step towards a more truthful understanding when the majority has bought into a false one. For instance, is it "polarizing" to point out the true fact that the Pakistani Defense Minister has said that it brought shame on his country doing the US's "dirty work" in supporting international terrorism over the past few decades?
Is unity constructed around a set of purported facts that turn out to be lies better than the polarization caused by discovering truth?
Is it "polarizing" to point out that not only did Tulsi Gabbard find that there was no evidence that Iran was trying to build a bomb, but that the IAEA has just said the same thing. The report that came out a couple of days ago that served as a pretext for cutting off negotiations with Iran and starting a war with them had to do with admitted actions of Iran 20 years ago, for a program that they have abandoned. Is it "polarizing" to say that? Is it better to be unified under a false reality?
I see that Trump is demanding that Tulsi climb aboard the war machine and he won't be happy until she has mouthed the slogan.
"Can't you see we are building a pretext for regime change, Tulsi, and the facts of the matter are unimportant? Regime change, Tulsi. Regime change!"
Ooh, that's "divisive"!
“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”
― Ronald Reagan
Obama is advocating that government, meaning Democrats, must have the power to determine what is and what isn’t factual. It’s an expansion of their efforts to control the definition of words so, for example, racial minorities can’t be racist because they lack political power.
"Kevin said...
Obama should have been asked, “What is a woman?”"
Or "Is that a woman?"
At least he waited until after the "No Kings" demonstrations were over.
@Jamie 'I think - I really do - the intent of (most) censorship or "curation" of information on the left is well intended. They really do (I think) believe that they know what's true, and that forwarding what they see as facts, and suppressing what they see as non-facts or misleading facts, is a social good, or at least serves a social good. It doesn't occur to them that they might be wrong.' Exactly, well said.
There should be one powerful authority who is the definitive source and imposer of truth.
How about God?
No, not that guy! We need someone from the government. Or an Ivy League School.
a man can transform himself into a woman if he really, really, feels like woman
Homosexuals have a bifurcated feeling distribution of masculine and feminine genders as couplets.
Bisexuals exhibit both heterosexual and homosexual personalities.
Simulants hope for an authentic presentation through a corrupting, corrosive change that mimics a gender incongruous with their sex.
The transgender spectrum.
You know what community was unified, really unified? Salem during the witch trials.
Remember that story, The House of Seven Gables? Were Col Pyncheon [I had to look up the names] wanted Matthew Maule's farm, and Maule wouldn't sell it? Did the good Colonel slope his shoulders, and tell himself, "well, I guess I can find another farm almost as well situated and fine" No, he accused Maule of being a witch, and the town was unified, and they all joined in, "witch! Witch" and so the good townspeople hanged Maule, and Pyncheon got the land and built his house with seven gables.
Well, because it was a story, Pyncheon was cursed and died choking on his own blood during the housewarming. In real life, is that what would have happened? No, Pyncheon would have lived a long life, had many children, many of them by maids and housekeepers, and some of those by rape, and grandchildren, and his progeny would have become governors, Senators, even Presidents. Hawthorne, though, made him cursed as a sop to the normies. Enough stories like this and you can't imagine that if somebody wanted something that somebody else had, they would *never* make false accusations against whoever had what they wanted! God would punish them! Normies.
Stalin did the same thing. He wanted the farmland, did he just write a decree? No, that would have made the farmers sympathetic, no, it was "Hoarders! Wreckers!" and then when Stalin took the land, he was a hero, not a villain.
It's a simple process by which a sociopath like Col Pyncheon, or a psychopath like Stalin, and manipulate normal people and normal people can't even conceive that it is happening.
So remember those little stories when you think about Iran's square on "the grand chessboard" and the oil that Iran sits on, and the large population of the 2,500 year old country, when you hear people who want to control that square, and to control that oil, exclaim that anybody who questions their motives is an "antisemite!"
"Witch!"
"Wrecker! Hoarder!"
Oh my, was that divisive?
Transsocials are wolves in sheep's clothing acting the court's jester... a poor player, that struts and frets its hour upon the stage to entertain a liberal audience.
When Kellyanne Conway said "alternative facts" she meant "alternative sets of facts." Chuck Todd was incredulous, having never thought that facts might be marshalled against his preferred narrative. Only lies could underlie alternative perceptions and policies. Todd was and is a bit of a dope. That's a fact.
and pyncheon was apparently thomas pynchons distant
ancestor, obama was signalling them to dial up the lawfare the resistance et al, as he did when could have cooled off the summer of love in 2020, 'none of these buttons work now'
"Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy."
Yes. It is what he specializes in. Kamala Harris speaks for minutes on end and says nothing. She giggles at humor inside her own head that doesn't apparently hit anyone else in the room. And she waves her hands about, as she utters mish-mash things that no one quite gets.
Barack? He takes on a noble pose when speaking. And he uses nice sounding speech, lighting up a room with glowing phrases and words.
But he says nothing most of the time. He has been one of best political speakers I've seen in my time, but he never said anything of oomph. There is never any there, there.
He wasn't nicknamed "The Lightbringer" for nothing.
we said in his npr interview around 2006, he had little use for freedom of speech, unless it served his object of fundamental transformation, of redistribution of wealth,
Facts can be framed to manipulate perception and influence people.
FormerLawClerk said...
[Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy.]
"That's because he's required to speak in code. He's required to very carefully select his words, on the fly."
I think that's one reason Kamala Harris lost. She couldn't figure out how to speak in code, on the fly. Instead, she talked in circles, never giving much of a hint about what she actually stood for. That was, of course, intentional.
of course heather richardson cox would never challenge him like theo von or joe rogan would,
1600: It is a fact that the Earth the center of the solar system. Suppress Galileo’s opinions.
we see through his jive 'you can't keep your airconditioner at 75,' but I can, along with my villa on martha vineyard bought with the grift from bertelsmann,
Our toughest problems are alternative facts.
Pro-life / Pro-choice are both facts.
Joe Biden is sharp as a tack.
Slightly off-topic, yet à propós:
https://x.com/MikeBenzCyber/status/1935546367507841082?t=wJ1nivh9zcg36dEaXqHrWQ&s=19">Mike Benz on X
"The US government skyrocketed the USAID budget for Brazil while Bolsonaro was there. Not to help Brazilians economically, but to flood the political opposition in Brazil with money to try to take him out."
When he says he wants diversity of opinion, he is lying.
Lets cut through the crap. Obama, like almost every Democrat Pol and liberal/leftist, wants censorship of the internet. They were censoring the internet under biden and using the FBI and DHS to do it. Obama and Biden, do not, I repeat do not, believe in free speech. Biden's white house was sending twitter/Facebook lists of posts they wanted banned. They are in effect stalinists.
Did obama or any other Democrat care when the ex-POTUS was banned from social media and had to start up his own billion dollar company to be heard? That wasn't about "facts".
The Left always does this. They want to do something bad, and then dress it up in the positive language. You see, leftwing censorship is "making sure people don't mistate Facts". Just like discrimination against whites is "affirmative action" or having "Diversity". Or riots and looting is "Mostly peaceful protests". And letting foreigners invade the country is "helping migrants".
“ Joe Biden is sharp as a tack.”
A fact that will live in perpetuity.
The science is settled for Sparklefarts.
Obama wants to censor people he doesn't like. Just like the ADL. Just like Nazi Germany. All this crap about "misinformation" is nonsense. I feel stupid even arguing about it. If people are "broadcasting the wrong facts" then its easy to prove them wrong. Because facts - if they truly are "facts" - are accessible to everyone and are incredibly persuasive.
Saying there was no Election fraud in 2020, isn't a 'fact' - its an opinion. Saying J6 was an insurrection is an opinion. Asserting Ashli Babbit was justifably murdered is an opinion. Saying we needed to keep 6 feet apart or we'd all die, was an opinion. An expert opinion, but still an opinion.
A spokesman for the cockroaches calling for regulatory restraints on the light switch.
RCOCEAN II:
The FBI just announced they uncovered how the Chinese produced fake driver's licenses right before the election. Massive election fraud.
don't get me started on the ADL, and one who cites the Gaza Health ministry's taquiya, shouldn't speak of censorship,
they want a 'more peaceful' protest on the 4th, while we are celebrating,
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1936022296428249138
It should be pretty obvious by now to everyone that Obama was willing to censor, imprison, and kill as many people as he had to to maintain power.
The only thing that stopped him was force.
It should be clear as well that the people who still support him are fully on board with the violence and suppression of their political opponents.
Every decent person who is capable of living in a free society has left the Democrat party by now. The rest are fascists that will always support a tyrant.
"He wasn't nicknamed "The Lightbringer" for nothing. ..."
More like the 'Litebringer'
Obama comes off like he's convinced he has the moral authority to make these pronouncements, and for a long time, than has been enough to finesse it. But when he started lecturing black male voters on how they were falling short at the ballot box, the veil finally started lifting. He's always been full of sh*t, and he's always been focused on the consolidation of power and authority in the hands of people that do not wish you well. And this means that those hands need to control the conversations in every way imaginable, including stealthily controlling what you are allowed to read, hear, see, and learn.
And here I thought the only restraints on free speech were perjury, libel, and incitement according to Brandenburg.
could we not use the verbiage of that deluded moonbat morford from Raccoon City west,
We need someone from the government. Or an Ivy League School
Harvard or Yale only.
The Lightbringer wants to keep you in the dark.
maybe effendi mawdawi might volunteer his services, you know the bedouin version of jussie smollett,
He might have come in as "The Lightbringer" but he went out as "The Liebringer." (See: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Etc.)
"(Does the former president, and Harvard graduate, not understand even the most basic principles by which a democracy operates?)" He does, he just thinks it is a bad idea because people get to choose what they want to believe.
BO.......how can we miss him when he won't go away?
Obviously this is evil and as un-American as you can get. Obviously what he said repudiates completely the first amendment. With that said - I think this is something not yet brought up on the comments - "you don't get to choose your facts" is entirely a conservative idea. It is the LEFT that says there is no such thing as objective fact.
narciso said...
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1936022296428249138
They're not just "No Kings", they're also "No Copy Editors".
“Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things”
—— Brian Eno / David Byrne
Facts many times turn out to be wrong... for the 'science is not settled'. Don't trust that ex-president folks... he lies.
Assertions are labeled as "facts" to shut down debate, especially by the left. "Human activity drives climate change" is a "fact." The legitimacy of the 2020 election is a "fact." People can choose their "gender" is a "fact." And so on and so on.
"We want Big Brother
We need Big Brother
I am Big Brother"
"Saying we needed to keep 6 feet apart or we'd all die, was an opinion. An expert opinion, but still an opinion."
It was neither. It was a lie.
"Mush." Liberal mush is proving to be a more effective spreader of totalitarian government than Soviet Communism.
Obama sounded as incoherent as Biden. With all the fame and fortune, did he get hooked on drugs?
The damage is long term, he thanked the Choom Gang in his high school yearbook.
Althouse correctly described what Obama really wanted with this:
"Does it mean you don't want differences of opinion about what the facts are?"
That is exactly what Obama wants- to enforce who gets to decide what are facts and what are not.
“And how do we train and teach our kids to distinguish between those things?"
No need. “Some government” will do it for us.
"There's a sense in which to say "We don't want diversity of facts" is to say we want to be able to be able to cling to mistaken findings of fact and even to silence those who want to continue to search for the truth." There's an even more specific sense to say that we want approved prog experts to rule what approved facts are and make everyone else STFU.
"I'm irritated by how casually Obama dropped in "By the way, it will require some government."" So am I, but it's been desired prog MO for over a century, demonstrated repeatedly during Covid, as post shows. So I am actually more than irritated.
"Obama's speech is incredibly convoluted and mushy" Wait, I thought Joe had assured us he was "articulate"? Compared to Joe, I guess.
"facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts."
The lefty concept of "my truth" is bullshit.
"I think - I really do - the intent of (most) censorship or "curation" of information on the left is well intended."
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
..."We don't want diversity of facts..."
Think about what this mush-headed logic means: It means, without a 'diversity of facts', nothing is left to be discovered. You are left to consume the pablum, any curiosity discouraged, citizen. No surprises ! Don't you feel better? What utter poppycock.
Jamie said…"But the gun control side has decided that "minors" and "children" are sufficiently synonymous that they can just swap them one-for-one without loss of meaning, because to do so advances their agenda, which they see as an unalloyed social good."
I don't think this example supports your contention that "They really do (I think) believe that they know what's true,…It doesn't occur to them that they might be wrong." In this example, they know they are putting forth misleading "facts". Yes, they think they are doing it for a "good cause", but they also know they are misrepresenting the facts.
Liberal Starter Kit…
https://x.com/WallStreetMav/status/1935944201096810661
Whether it's Biden's son's business partner writing "the big guy" in an email when Biden was ex-vice president or Donald Trump selling crypto, NFTs, bibles, gold sneakers, watches, and cell phone plans while he is the current president, both sides have monetized executive branch positions.
If democrats wanted to unite the country they would sell some $Trump coin and trade their Trump NFTs in order to sign up for a new Trump cell phone plan.
Can we add "we want promises kept" to this list?
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." This "promise" has bugged me for years! I'll have to count up the number of times we've had to switch plans in the past decade.
""If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." This "promise" has bugged me for years! I'll have to count up the number of times we've had to switch plans in the past decade."
What really galls is they knew it at the time. It was a bald faced lie.
Fact: human life evolves from conception.
Think about what this jug-eared stooge is saying; "We want diversity of opinion". Why? Why, Barky? Do we want some people who think slavery is moral and good? Do we want some people who think they have a right to other people's property?
No. Barky is just so completely addled by a lifetime of habitual lying that he has no idea what it is reasonable to want. The idea that he is making reference to is the idea that we should tolerate diversity of opinion. But he's a third-rate intellect, and that distinction is lost on him. I'll give him this, he did stop the seas from rising.
Obama is a slick and dangerous communist.
There are alternative facts. Just because something is true doesn't mean it's relevant or that there are other facts that, in a sense, contradict each other. A vaccine may reduce mortality from a certain disease by 30%, but it may also increase mortality due to side effects. We know that raising the minimum wage increases pay (=beneficial) for some workers, but it also results in layoffs (=adverse) for others.
People are good at ignoring facts they don't like.
you can have the model A in any color, as long as it's in black
"In other words, my opinions are facts and your facts are opinions." - BHO
On February 22, 2022, the New Yorker uploaded a post to X about Dean Baquet (Executive Editor of the NYT) on his pending retirement (June 2022).
They quoted Baquet as saying, "The job of the New York Times should in the end be to come out with the best version of the truth."
That's the same nuance Øbama is using (and he thinks he's so clever and superior that he can get away with it). Facts aren't facts; truth isn't truth unless we (i.e, the Left) says they are.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Controlling what is an acceptable "fact" is exactly how the DNC Davos Star Chamber restricted speech during the AutoPen Administration.
It's always funny how leftists talk about "naive realism" being a superficial view of reality and how "social constructs" are all there is for interpretation...when they don't have political power. Once in power they say, "My Fact Are The Only True Facts." All other ideas are wrong.
"At the root, physical science is a social construct."
- Said sarcastically by Alan Sokal (1996)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Here’s a fact for you. Obama is a pompous twit who thinks he should be the person to decide which subjective matters are facts and which are not.
Obama just knows. Like he knows he's on the Right Side of History. He knows the facts. He knows whoever disagrees with his facts is wrong, and is just being polarizing by insisting on their position. And another of those things he knows is that government has a role to play in banishing those polarizing people who dispute his facts. What a mediocre mind. The unbearable smugness of the banal. Even Michele wearied of it, but white college-educated women could never get enough of it.
"It must, because facts are facts. There is no diversity of facts."
Say that all you wish, to a radical subjectivist. They'll double down on "perception is reality."
@Original_Mike ... what, politicians lie to us? Who knew? :-(
I checked my health insurance notes. Our premiums have increased 10% annually on average since the ACA was implemented. It might be higher than that as we removed a kid from our plan because he started adulting. Since 2014, we've spent about $275K(!) on premiums + out of pocket healthcare expenses. Crazy! Where is the "affordable" in the Affordable Care Act? I'm still looking for it. Where are my dollars flowing? We're light users of the medical system, two major-ish "events" since 2014 -- son's emergent appendicitis that required surgery, and my wife's broken ankle. Routine primary care visits otherwise.
Sorry for the off-topic, but just stating some personal facts here that are Obama-related.
"Whatever is true is true, even if not one human being knows the truth."
Many people on the far left want it both ways. They want their facts to be the only real facts for some things but then deny that there is such a thing as objective truth for other things.
“We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
If the teaching of composition had not been so corrupted by Leftist/Democrat operatives, then those like Obama might have learned of the folly of argument from authority. Although, that has been the Democrat/Progressive strategy: to usurp respected positions and claim "authority" by virtue of the popularity contest they won, and not by persuasion through debate.
How many college graduates claim to know with the preface "Teacher said...." With the earnestness of Zuzu Bailey in 'It's a Wonderful Life': "Look, Daddy. Teacher says, every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings."
Freshman Rhetoric, John Rothwell Slater, Ph.D. Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University of Rochester, (1913)
P 182 Argumentation - argument from authority
The opinions of others may be interesting as showing the trend of public sentiment, but they add nothing to proof.
There is one kind of argument that forms an exception to this rule--the so-called argument from authority. It has very small place in ordinary discussions. The argument from authority is the use of testimony from a witness of such eminence and unquestioned impartiality that his word carries conviction to all. There are few questions commonly argued in which this kind of evidence as to matters of opinion could be needed in the proof: for the point sought to be established would usually be a point admitted in advance, and not among the issues as all. Expert testimony of the ordinary sort offered in the courts is very far from being entitled to claim such authority. For every expert witness on one side another expert can usually be found on the opposite side; and this is true not only of lawsuits and criminal trials, but also of any ordinary question involving technical matters. Expert witnesses are good witnesses so long as they confine themselves to facts--provided they can be shown to be reasonably impartial; but when they begin to state opinions, such testimony proves nothing more than that the people who know the most about the subject disagree--which fact we knew already. Little attention need be given in most arguments to testimony as to opinions without facts on which the opinions are based. the sort of cases in which such evidence is valid is, for example, the opinion of a college president as to the meaning of a college rule; the appeal to scriptures for principles of right and wrong; the constitutional decisions of Chief Justice Marshall. These are not the kind of questions that are likely to be at issue in ordinary discussion. With this one exception, all evidence directed to the establishment of facts, not to the question of opinions. For support of our opinions, we use the facts proved by evidence as interpreted by what is called reasoning.
Anthony @ 10:45
Perfect! Thanks.
Facts abound. Opinions have a lot to do with which facts you choose to look at, and in a political context, "facts" are as debatable as opinions. Everyone puts out their own "facts" which they choose and shape because of their opinions.
You may be able to establish the truth about one disputed "fact," but that "fact" is just one of many and perhaps not the most relevant one, so the argument goes on. Control what's "factual" and relevant and you stifle argument.
Speaking of Obama-related personal facts, Michelle Obama's latest interview has people chattering. Is she just playing the half-comic, "my dumb husband" routine, or does she really hate the man who gave her everything she now has?
"If you like your facts, you can keep them."
Barack H. Obama-
As a matter of fact, Obama relies on commission of a logical error.
And then there's this. Your facts can come from people who haven't updated and their numbers and perceptions can be wrong over time. Assuming you "know" is a big problem. We're passing down bad information because we stay stuck in the past. https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen
“A spokesman for the cockroaches calling for regulatory restraints on the light switch.“
But the roaches were peacefully shitting on the floor! Shitting is allowed as the excretement of expression under the first amendment.
Art--I suspect that you are still waiting for that $2500 that Obama promised everybody...
"(Does the former president, and Harvard graduate, not understand even the most basic principles by which a democracy operates?)"
I think he's well versed in Marxist doctrine. I've seen this rhetorical trick before. It a variation of "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes." His facts are the true facts and yours are just opinion. Since the truth is relative, I, the speaker get to tell you which stories are true.
Galileo rolls his eyes. "Ci risiamo."
"By the (Chicago) way, it will require some government."
Since your pretending to be stupid,
your own facts may include :
Pretending to have one elections that were lost
Pretending that Covid is the same as a common cold
Pretending that Jan 6 wasn’t a violent attempt at an insurrection
Pretending that global climate change both isn’t happening and that it’s not caused by man
Pretending that immigrants are the leading cause of crime in this nation
Pretending that accepting huge personnel gifts from world leaders is not corrupt
Etc, etc
""Here is one hand, and here is another."
TeaBagHag said...
Since your pretending to be stupid,
your own facts may include :
Pretending to have one elections that were lost
Pretending that Covid is the same as a common cold
Pretending that Jan 6 wasn’t a violent attempt at an insurrection
Pretending that global climate change both isn’t happening and that it’s not caused by man
Pretending that immigrants are the leading cause of crime in this nation
Pretending that accepting huge personnel gifts from world leaders is not corrupt
Etc, etc
If you were of at least average intelligence you would see how your own post destroys your argument.
Your side is the only side that needs censorship for your ideas to compete. I am absolutely confident in my arguments on every one of your points and have embarrassed you repeatedly.
That is why you demand censorship.
Jamie said...
“I think - I really do - the intent of (most) censorship or "curation" of information on the left is well intended.”
We all know what the road to hell is paved with.
TeaBagHag said... @ 1:23
pretending you're a girl.
Mark said...
"Galileo rolls his eyes. "Ci risiamo.""
Are you denying that the earth circles the sun? Even the ancient Greeks knew that.
Obama needs to be asked:
So, when your administration helped disseminate the Russia Hoax, was that "factual?"
Why didn't you feel you had a duty to tell Hillary not to run that Russia Hoax when you learned about it from Russian intel briefing in Summer 2016?
See, Obama is bullshitting so hard on "no diversity of facts"
He fucking was part of a plan to inject fake facts into the world. Do Democrats not understand they literally falsely accused the opposition leader of being a traitor?
They acted like the Burmese junta.
"Opinions can be diverse. Facts either are, or are not."
LOL
OK, in 2017 Trump was a Russian agent....
And then by 2019 we found out he wasn't a Russian agent.
C'mon. Facts can be interpreted. People can be wrong.
FACT: MICHAEL COHEN WENT TO PRAGUE
aw shit, it was a different Michael Cohen, oh well.
"We want diversity of opinion."
Elwood: "What kind of music do you usually have here?"
Bartender: "We got both kinds, we got country and western."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-zEH8YmiM
it will require some government, I believe, some government regulatory constraints around some of these business models in a way that's consistent with the First Amendment
How do you say you don't know shit about the First Amendment without actually saying you don't know shit about the First Amendment?
What a disappointing comment by Obama.
You misspelled predictable.
Fact: Obama is articulate
Fact: Obama is bright
Fact: Obama is clean
He also has nice creases in his pants.
The problem is, Obama, like almost all leftists, has a really hard time discerning his personal opinions from facts. He really doesn't understand facts. A few hard science classes, if he could understand them, would broaden his worldview considerably.
"How do you say you don't know shit about the First Amendment without actually saying you don't know shit about the First Amendment?"
I don't think it's so much that he doesn't know shit about it as that he wants to shit *on* it. And not just the 1st...
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Exactly my point! But intentions are very highly valued on that side (and indeed in probably most of our personal lives - though I hope that, with maturity, comes the urge not just to have good intentions but to achieve good results).
And, Original Mike @10:22, I intended my "guns kill more children" etc. example to illustrate a whole train of leftist thought:
* Fact: children are minors, therefore minors are children by the the symmetric property of equality (but ignoring the fact that "children" is a subset of "minors," so this arithmetic property of equality doesn't apply - an instance of "being wrong," but specifically in the application of logic rather than being wrong about a fact, as it is a fact that every child is a minor)
* Fact: the term "children" has higher emotional value than the term "minors" (I'm sure this is measurable)
* Fact: we gun control advocates believe that limiting access to guns is imperative to save lives (this is their opinion, but it's a fact that it's their opinion)
* Fact: society agrees that saving lives is a social good (again, I'm sure this is measurable)
* Therefore: the substitution of the term "children" for "minors" is not simply justifiable but is itself imperative, because as far as we're concerned, it's a fact that we know with certainty in service of a social good.
Et voilá! (I hope I made that accent go the correct way.)
Recall that I did say it doesn't occur to them that they could be wrong.
"But intentions are very highly valued on that side..."
There's a difference between "highly valued" and "valued above all else".
Oh- and this...
"Fact: children are minors, therefore minors are children..."
Democrats want to allow a subset of those children/minors to vote.
The problem with Obama is that he is only a tin god.
Jamie said...
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Exactly my point! But intentions are very highly valued on that side (and indeed in probably most of our personal lives - though I hope that, with maturity, comes the urge not just to have good intentions but to achieve good results).
Stated intentions.
None of those people actually believe a word they say.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.