That’s a false proposition. It’s not either/or; it’s both.
Facts ring true, though quiet enough they might be missed… but time is a great multiplier.
Facts multiplied by time show reality… all the fallacies and the stamping of feet by those who ‘know’, fall away.
Facts are little diamonds in the rough… but you have to not fall “into the trap of allowing our perspective, our prejudices to determine truth before substantial analysis”.
Sadly, it’s probably more true to say that
History is always written by the winners. History is accepted as “fact”. But we know now, that sometimes, the winners have political biases that cause them to alter what history is recorded.
How is history recorded? Books written by professors? Hmmm, they seem to be of a single political bent, lately. How about the newspapers? The New York Times is the “paper of record” in the states. Sure glad the history that they are writing in our national record is so unbiased and factual.
That’s another way of saying “Go with your gut feeling”. Not an acceptable approach, in my opinion, probably the lazy approach that most of us take most of the time though.
You’ve been drinking the cool-aid… that’s the pablum they would have you believe.
BUT… that only is the case where there is not a forum for open critiquing of the reality. Which is exactly why a safe environment is so important.
One of the tactics of those who like to control others is setting the environment to their taste… birds in cages… allow chatter about topics and in ways that are approved… that reenforce the standard dull grey textbook history that they wrote as self proclaimed ‘winners’.
You can misread anything to your hearts content but it doesn’t suggest the same at all.
Time provides opportunity for the fallacies and the holes in the weaker argument to be made apparent… and usually that doesn’t require much work from those who are intellectually honest and well considered.
I take it you are from New York. The New York Times is not the “paper of record” for most of the states; it is more local than that for the majority of people.
This is so true and accepted historical accounts rely on it; unfortunately we need to take action, or at least form an opinion, on most issues well before the filtering of time takes place.
I agree with you. Your original statement of allowing the passage of time to somehow distill truth from fiction was incorrect, at least it seems obvious to those of us who have been “drinking the cool-aid”, as you so denigratingly put it.
But the internet is now providing a path for seekers of truth to try to untangle the events that occur in our world. Hopefully that is beginning to make your statement more true, and that time … coupled with the ability of people to easily discuss and debate, that the internet and soon SAFE will provide us, will allow truth to be distilled from fiction.
That’s back to front… jumping to a conclusion before rigorous consideration, is foolish.
Those bores who right history to their liking, might fancy that they are in control of what other people think but that’s their error… the rest of us just suffer them!.. we’re going round in circles here. We need safe to create a disjoint in the way that conservatives impose themselves.
You agree with me. You suggest my original statement “of allowing the passage of time to somehow distill truth from fiction”, was incorrect.
Then your second paragraph maintains the same as I way suggesting there. Perhaps you misread it … time is a powerful medicine for alsorts of confusion.
Rigorous consideration is great, that’s what should take place, but how many people actually do that in practice? Not many, in my experience. Maybe mine is not typical but I see bias and laziness being at the center of most people’s belief systems. I guess SAFE won’t change that any, nor should it.
People are lazy but you shouldn’t mistake that. Give them opportunity - give them a tool and they will make use of it. With a safe environment, we should fairly expect the quality of debate to rise.
You’re right that we should not expect the normal to necessarily do anything - that is the route conservatives like to maintain.
Let me spell it out in less flowery language for you.
You were wrong. History has been forced down our throat by men who lied in many cases. The truth occasionally comes out to the general public 20 or 30 or 100 or 200 years later, but that’s too late to matter to anybody.
Because of the internet, I am hopeful that your statement will no longer be wrong. The internet has allowed us access to the revelations of wikileaks, snowden, podesta emails, DNC emails, etc., None of these would have come to light in a pre-internet world.
or you misinterpreted it. Principal of charity.
I wasn’t talking of the past… that’s a place we leave conservatives to rot.
What is true in the future, need not necessarily have been the case in the past… despite some wishing that were so.
You seem like a pretty angry guy. I am sorry you find conservative principals of small government, live and let live, importance of family, and in many cases, importance of spirituality, to be so repugnant and distasteful.
Maybe someday you’ll understand that the world will not necessarily be better if those values are left in the past to rot.
The reading of leaks is, at best, interesting. To have your entire opinion based on them though is a little sketchy, mostly because they represent truth as coming from a solitary viewpoint. Too often people substitute the perusal of leaks and “talking points” for “rigorous consideration”.
If somebody has “talking points”, they are not considering, they are promoting an already considered opinion. Humans being as they are, doubtless there are many who perhaps should have considered longer before coming to and promoting that opinion.
I would say a tool and a fair amount of education. Most people around us don’t give a damn for these problems. As long as the consumer goods keep flowing from the credit card, and the fiction series from the web faucet, all I see is satisfaction on people’s faces. Many even feel guilty when you propose them to imagine they deserve truth and privacy…
hmm… how very patronizing… another quality you forgot to list.
“conservative principals” is a confusion and liable too much to personal interpretation, just like religion. Better to consider the simpler form of what is conservative == averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values… or favouring socially conservative ideas, which tends to a selfish outlook. It’s too easy to see the flipside of each of the values you list ‘live and let live’ becomes exploitation etc.
You seem like a pretty angry guy.
Not at all. Conservatives I wonder think the world is set against them… hence their inclination to being defensive and liking tradition… fear of change what what.
Yes - information is education and clear sight of that, is all part of the package.