PSA: Don't update to iOS 12.4 if you use apps in AB output slot or IAA apps that use the mic.
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/34030/urgent-psa-hold-off-updating-to-ios-12-4-if-you-use-apps-in-output-slot-in-audiobus

OT: The Enemy Within

16781012

Comments

  • @LinearLineman said:
    3000 and counting is a lot @AudioGus. They can’t all be us!

    Could be about 50 readers with an average of 6 views a day since the thread started.

  • edited May 8

    @mannix said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    Now this are interesting questions. I see myself as a left leaning libertarian, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. Yes, there are alternatives :) At first I was afraid of what Trump would be doing. But the longer he's in power and the more I see the left hysteria and fake news targeted at him (ie Russiagate) the more I start to appreciate him. Especially hearing @CrazySynthMan gives me food for thought. My mind isn't made up yet. But Bernie blew it for me when I decided to stand behind Hillary in 2016. The only dem that at the moment has my serious approval is Tulsi Gabbard.

    so you believe in 'russiagate'... that it's a hoax like el presidente bone spurs states rather than what Mueller and 17 intelligence agencies found before him... which was that Russias interference is quite real and systematic?...... Even Tulsi Gabbard believes that...

    again like all of my questions that crazysynthman refused to answer... the issue is not which side anyone is on, the is is the complete and utter disregard for reality and sometimes this disregard shows up as one being at odds with ones self in ones own sentence... I just don't get how you don't believe russiagate, but believe tulsi gabbard, who believes that Russia attacked America and what all of the intelligence agencies have reported?

    I know that some people live in so much fear that they were crippled by the simple questions I asked earlier, but not you Mannix.. I've seen every episode of your show and I know you're not afraid of answering questions as simple as mine

  • edited May 8

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    It’d be rare for a single debate to immediately shift someones mind on fundamental positions or beliefs, though people who routinely subject themselves to opposing viewpoints often do end up adopting new perspectives, or occasionally even drastically changing their mind on fundamental positions over a cumulative a span of time.

    Isolating yourself to an echo chamber, where you’re bombarded with an unchallenged ideological perspective = a great way to ensure that your ideas never evolve or shift in the opposite direction.

    I’m a proponent of the fairness doctrine, as it ensured that ideas (particularly, bad and/or dishonest ones) were challenged, making it a lot more difficult for broadcasters to get away with outright lies and unfair propaganda. Ever since the airwaves were deregulated, and the fairness doctrine banished, America started heading down the destructive path to inevitibly end up where we are now, where large swathes of the populace no longer even live by a common set of facts, and we’re encouraged to view people with opposing ideas with suspicion or malice. Tribal echo chambers and dogma sadly rule the day now.

  • There's a crisis in authority - who do you trust to learn the truth about:
    politics
    science
    news
    who you can trust with power

    Most of us attach ourselves to a group and espouse that version of "truth". Our
    internal values force us to attach ourselves to that "set of facts" and become defenders of
    that point of view.

    How do we have public conversation and discourse about facts about the world, when verifiable authorities are in a downward spiral of trust. There are so many examples of this
    approach to debate here that it proves the case for me.

    To gain credibility for our argument we throw our sources of authority into the mix and fail to have a common one that resolves the impasse.

    For political purposes most traditional sources of authoritative information have been discounted and openly attacked here.

    Those that just see a secret "they" at work just demonstrate a complete lack of trust in
    everyone. Having experienced chemically induced paranoia I can tell you it's incredibly logical at the time because it connects small details into patterns of sinister intent.

    Just remember, Trump's political skill is becoming the authority on anything for his followers. The 10,000 lies serve a purpose, like telling people that the caravan is a threat. Telling them that they had the biggest inauguration crowd, ever. Just all these constant little lies are conditioning, they're meant to sort of condition their followers to just go along with whatever they say. And once you've got that then it's like off to the autocratic races.

    Resist irrationality. At least one commenter here suggested a source of authority and it
    is rated as being right of center which gets closer to something I would propose for anyone willing to reconsider why they believe what they are willing to fight for.

    If you want to have effective debate pick a question where we might be able to test the answers.

    "What makes a good economy?" Capital Gains? Cost of Living? Average Wages? Concentration of capital across a population?

  • @ZenEagle said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    It’d be rare for a single debate to immediately shift someones mind on fundamental positions or beliefs, though people who routinely subject themselves to opposing viewpoints often do end up adopting new perspectives, or even drastically changing their mind on fundamental positions over a cumulative a span of time.

    Isolating yourself to an echo chamber, where you’re bombarded with an unchallenged ideological perspective = a great way to ensure that your ideas never evolve or shift in the opposite direction.

    I’m a proponent of the fairness doctrine, as it ensured that ideas (particularly, bad and/or dishonest ones) were challenged, making it a lot more difficult for broadcasters to get away with outright lies and unfair propaganda. Ever since the airwaves were deregulated, and the fairness doctrine banished, America started heading down the destructive path to inevitibly end up where we are now, where large swathes of the populace no longer even live by a common set of facts, and we’re encouraged to view people with opposing ideas with suspicion or malice. Tribal echo chambers and dogma sadly rule the day now.

    I agree with your sentiment but Imo it's False Equivalency that rules the day now... there have always been lies and truth, that's not just an agreement on a set of facts. people lie and people tell the truth, and lies and truths are independent of the people that tell them... No one is disputing the fact that Donald trump is individual one, if they were disputing it as a set of facts they would be laying out factually in their own rights exactly how he is not a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen but they are not... they are just lying in the form of making an unsubstantiated claim that the president is not lying, in spite of video of him lying.

  • @LinearLineman said:
    @greengrocer, my purpose is to promote civil discourse as a first step to being able to really listen. Is it possible? I don’t know. What I do see is very little evidence to advance an argument in favor of the current administration. Over three thousand folks have hit on this thread. What does it mean that only @CrazySynthMan has made an attempt (though not supported by facts) to represent thinking counter to the group mind that is loudest here. Until we get really cogent arguments it is hard to consider altering my thinking. Of course many might say the Trumpian argument is that a cow is not a cow, but just a potential hamburger based on a fake four legged platform.

    Thanks for your answer. And good to be open minded. Everywhere in the West I see this polarization that makes debate often impossible. It starts to look that if you don't fully support one of the extremes you belong to the other extreme. While there are endless shades of grey. I'm pessimistic about how things develop. And your opening post is very disturbing. It looks more and more that we're heading to a civil war.

    @mannix said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    Now this are interesting questions. I see myself as a left leaning libertarian, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. Yes, there are alternatives :) At first I was afraid of what Trump would be doing. But the longer he's in power and the more I see the left hysteria and fake news targeted at him (ie Russiagate) the more I start to appreciate him. Especially hearing @CrazySynthMan gives me food for thought. My mind isn't made up yet. But Bernie blew it for me when I decided to stand behind Hillary in 2016. The only dem that at the moment has my serious approval is Tulsi Gabbard.

    Great to see somebody that stays rational.

  • @LinearLineman said:
    @CrazySynthMan, respectfully, what about the now 500(?) lawyers. Thanks for participating. And thanks for maintaining your cool under heavy fire. I do not agree with you at all, but I would protect your right to say it. I just wish some others with your views would speak up as it is very one sided so far.

    Let me ask you a question... if Trump loses in 2020 by, say, 3 million votes (like in 2016 despite Russian interference, or do you believe there was no interference?) but he loses by the same margin of electoral votes he won by in 2016. Do you believe he should peacefully accept defeat? Or should he claim voter fraud and fight it?

    Are you asking whether he should graciously accept defeat like this? (This was two days ago)

  • @LinearLineman said:
    I am proud that this forum has not descended into shit throwing. However, comments unsupported by at least an attempt to include hard facts that simply deride the other point of view are equally emotional and spurious, IMO. They do not advance the argument and would be met with ridicule in a formal debate.
    Sorry, I know many feel strongly on both sides, but if we empower our emotions instead of our reason we are all dead ducks.

    We must have different definitions of shit throwing. I consider a full on retreat to character assassination, name calling and ad hominem attacks a total shit show. It’s why I don’t debate with these people. It’s pointless to try and have a policy discussion when everyone is yelling, “Orange man bad!!!!”

  • red herring

  • edited May 8

    @ZenEagle said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    It’d be rare for a single debate to immediately shift someones mind on fundamental positions or beliefs, though people who routinely subject themselves to opposing viewpoints often do end up adopting new perspectives, or occasionally even drastically changing their mind on fundamental positions over a cumulative a span of time.

    Isolating yourself to an echo chamber, where you’re bombarded with an unchallenged ideological perspective = a great way to ensure that your ideas never evolve or shift in the opposite direction.

    I’m a proponent of the fairness doctrine, as it ensured that ideas (particularly, bad and/or dishonest ones) were challenged, making it a lot more difficult for broadcasters to get away with outright lies and unfair propaganda. Ever since the airwaves were deregulated, and the fairness doctrine banished, America started heading down the destructive path to inevitibly end up where we are now, where large swathes of the populace no longer even live by a common set of facts, and we’re encouraged to view people with opposing ideas with suspicion or malice. Tribal echo chambers and dogma sadly rule the day now.

    Agree, my question was just meant rhetorical. Because I see here but also on other forums people just posting stuff trying to convince others and the others doing the opposite. While in fact everybody clings to his believes. So much wasted energy... I also doubt if the internet is a good place for this type of discussion without knowing or ever met the other in real. People always tend to look for confirmation bias because this feels so good, and what is easier to find this on the internet.
    If we really want to make this thread interesting we maybe should look for common ground instead of going beserk on one person that seems for some hold all evil. In the end Trump is just not more than the evolution of US politics where in an ever increasing way corruption and lies became plain visible.

  • @LinearLineman said:
    Not sure the average American is so happy with the economy. The Average Joe does not have a 401k, or the best healthcare or a way to pay for their kids education. Many millions live from week to week hoping no crisis will wipe them out. By what measure do you grade this great economy for them?

    The Consumer Confidence Index?

  • @kobamoto said:
    red herring

    But...but...but...his first two years were STOLLEN from him!!!

  • edited May 8

    @McD said:
    ause it connects small details into patterns of sinister intent.

    >

    If you want to have effective debate pick a question where we might be able to test the answers.

    "What makes a good economy?" Capital Gains? Cost of Living? Average Wages? Concentration of capital across a population?

    there's a simpler question... how about ... does the president lie, they can't even respond to the question if you limit it to only see with your own eyes lies that are on video record, they can't even acknowledge that he's a liar while simultaneously espousing that they voted for him because they don't like lies.... it's breath taking in it's lack of credibility.
    they'll respond to insults, but won't respond to the simple question of did the president tell a lie on A. B. and C.....

  • Clinton again, huh?
    Why is she even relevant? Why does she keep being held up, as a defense of Trump?
    She is not in office, so what is exactly the point?
    Deflect and distract, maybe?

    Obama gets blamed for killing thousands of innocent civilians with Predator Drone strikes, but that’s just the Fake News again. Those deaths were totally caused by McCain!
    (See how ridiculous it is?)

  • edited May 8

    @kobamoto said:

    @mannix said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    Now this are interesting questions. I see myself as a left leaning libertarian, I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. Yes, there are alternatives :) At first I was afraid of what Trump would be doing. But the longer he's in power and the more I see the left hysteria and fake news targeted at him (ie Russiagate) the more I start to appreciate him. Especially hearing @CrazySynthMan gives me food for thought. My mind isn't made up yet. But Bernie blew it for me when I decided to stand behind Hillary in 2016. The only dem that at the moment has my serious approval is Tulsi Gabbard.

    so you believe in 'russiagate'... that it's a hoax like el presidente bone spurs states rather than what Mueller and 17 intelligence agencies found before him... which was that Russias interference is quite real and systematic?...... Even Tulsi Gabbard believes that...

    again like all of my questions that crazysynthman refused to answer... the issue is not which side anyone is on, the is is the complete and utter disregard for reality and sometimes this disregard shows up as one being at odds with ones self in ones own sentence... I just don't get how you don't believe russiagate, but believe tulsi gabbard, who believes that Russia attacked America and what all of the intelligence agencies have reported?

    I know that some people live in so much fear that they were crippled by the simple questions I asked earlier, but not you Mannix.. I've seen every episode of your show and I know you're not afraid of answering questions as simple as mine

    Russiagate is about Trump being owned by the Russians and it's clear that he isn't. That there where some online efforts by the Russians nobody can deny. But how it influenced the elections is unclear. btw Superpowers always try to meddle with each other elections. Remember how Jetsin was kept in power by the US. It was even on the cover of Time boasting how it was done. The real problem is how and why could this happen? The sign were there.

    And now what candidate are you supporting? If (s)he doesn't make it what are you voting? Just curious where you stand.

  • edited May 8

    it's ridiculous at best...

    but in reality there is no way to hide whether you're BSing or not because the way that you can tell whether someone is committed to what they are saying is a truth or not is by not challenging someone with your own ethos, just challenge whomever with the ethos they claim to follow and when someone doesn't follow their own proclaimed ethos that says it all..

    that's why I'm talking about all of these lies, not because I don't like lies for all anybody knows I could love lies, they might taste like raisins... I only ask about the criteria and ethos that others bring up under the context that these are the criteria that they are using to judge their own words coming out of their own mouths .... and their stances aren't adding up to their own justifications

  • @mannix said:
    >

    Russiagate is about Trump being owned by the Russians and it's clear that he isn't. That there where some online efforts by the Russians nobody can deny. But how it influenced the elections is unclear. btw Superpowers always try to meddle with each other elections. Remember how Jetsin was hold in power by the US. It was even on the cover of time boasting how it was done. The real problem is how and why could this happen? Bad intel?

    And now what candidate are you supporting? If (s)he doesn't make it what are you voting? Just curious where you stand.

    I don't know why you would say that, Plenty have denied from the President on down, he's claimed it as a complete hoax.. in addition to that, you say that 'Russia gate ' is about Trump being owned by the Russians.. but that is not what 17 intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have said... so Russia gate isn't that narrowly defined definition that you've just given it.... to make matters worse, the president claims that the conclusion that the intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have come to amount to treason, and a coup.... they even go so far as to continually lie about the start of the investigation being a dossier instead of a meeting between the coffee boy and Australian diplomat/ info exchange.... again, why no credence given to blatant, documented, out right lies?

    I think it's glaringly obvious that the reason this could happen is because the Trump campaign responded that they would love this interference... even trump jr has finally admitted this now, why would trump supporters not believe what trump has finally admitted to? I call that more than bad intel.

    in this order I'm currently supporting buttigeig, warren, and harris

  • @kobamoto said:

    @ZenEagle said:

    @greengrocer said:
    Okay I decided to join in.
    My first question: Is there anybody in this thread that changed or is ready to change his/her opinion because what (s)he reads in this thread? If not why should an opponent with the same attitude (not ready to change opinion) listen to you?

    It’d be rare for a single debate to immediately shift someones mind on fundamental positions or beliefs, though people who routinely subject themselves to opposing viewpoints often do end up adopting new perspectives, or even drastically changing their mind on fundamental positions over a cumulative a span of time.

    Isolating yourself to an echo chamber, where you’re bombarded with an unchallenged ideological perspective = a great way to ensure that your ideas never evolve or shift in the opposite direction.

    I’m a proponent of the fairness doctrine, as it ensured that ideas (particularly, bad and/or dishonest ones) were challenged, making it a lot more difficult for broadcasters to get away with outright lies and unfair propaganda. Ever since the airwaves were deregulated, and the fairness doctrine banished, America started heading down the destructive path to inevitibly end up where we are now, where large swathes of the populace no longer even live by a common set of facts, and we’re encouraged to view people with opposing ideas with suspicion or malice. Tribal echo chambers and dogma sadly rule the day now.

    I agree with your sentiment but Imo it's False Equivalency that rules the day now... there have always been lies and truth, that's not just an agreement on a set of facts. people lie and people tell the truth, and lies and truths are independent of the people that tell them... No one is disputing the fact that Donald trump is individual one, if they were disputing it as a set of facts they would be laying out factually in their own rights exactly how he is not a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen but they are not... they are just lying in the form of making an unsubstantiated claim that the president is not lying, in spite of video of him lying.

    I definitely agree, especially with your pertinant “False equivalency” point. The oft cited and disingenuous “both sides are the same” appeal doesn’t hold any water with me. It just muddys the water, giving a pass and benefiting those most responsible for establishing the dishonest and divisive narratives out there.

    There are obviously problems across the entire spectrum, though not by any means evenly distributed.
    We’re an imperfect and flawed species - i.e. everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone learns from them - some just double down out of pride, resentment or mob mentality.

  • edited May 8

    @ZenEagle said:

    I agree with your sentiment but Imo it's False Equivalency that rules the day now... there have always been lies and truth, that's not just an agreement on a set of facts. people lie and people tell the truth, and lies and truths are independent of the people that tell them... No one is disputing the fact that Donald trump is individual one, if they were disputing it as a set of facts they would be laying out factually in their own rights exactly how he is not a co-conspirator with Michael Cohen but they are not... they are just lying in the form of making an unsubstantiated claim that the president is not lying, in spite of video of him lying.

    I definitely agree, especially with your pertinant “False equivalency” point. The oft cited and disingenuous “both sides are the same” appeal doesn’t hold any water with me. It just muddys the water, giving a pass and benefiting those most responsible for establishing the dishonest and divisive narratives out there.

    There are obviously problems across the entire spectrum, though not by any means evenly distributed.
    We’re an imperfect and flawed species - i.e. everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone learns from them - some just double down out of pride, resentment or mob mentality.

    I couldn't agree with anything in this entire thread more than this.
    I'm not trying to convince anyone to come over to any side or change their mind about anything.. I'm not asking anyone to give any credence to my opinion.. I'm just asking these guys why they are so scared of following their own claims?

  • I would even say you can tell when someone is BSing, because they are talking.
    I get the feeling that nobody knows what the real story is, and anything they say about it is BS at the core. So much of our reality is built on 2nd and 3rd hand information, and there is no distinction made between “what I know” and “ what I have been told.” We always claim to “know” something, but belief is not knowledge.

    We all feel it, deep down inside, but cannot face it. It is why these pointless arguments are always happening, and people attack each other so viciously.

    Well, I have come to understand something as a result of this thread.
    We are all hopelessly ignorant and confused.

  • @kobamoto said:

    @mannix said:
    >

    Russiagate is about Trump being owned by the Russians and it's clear that he isn't. That there where some online efforts by the Russians nobody can deny. But how it influenced the elections is unclear. btw Superpowers always try to meddle with each other elections. Remember how Jetsin was hold in power by the US. It was even on the cover of time boasting how it was done. The real problem is how and why could this happen? Bad intel?

    And now what candidate are you supporting? If (s)he doesn't make it what are you voting? Just curious where you stand.

    I don't know why you would say that, Plenty have denied from the President on down, he's claimed it as a complete hoax.. in addition to that, you say that 'Russia gate ' is about Trump being owned by the Russians.. but that is not what 17 intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have said... so Russia gate isn't that narrowly defined definition that you've just given it.... to make matters worse, the president claims that the conclusion that the intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have come to amount to treason, and a coup.... they even go so far as to continually lie about the start of the investigation being a dossier instead of a meeting between the coffee boy and Australian diplomat/ info exchange.... again, why no credence given to blatant, documented, out right lies?

    I think it's glaringly obvious that the reason this could happen is because the Trump campaign responded that they would love this interference... even trump jr has finally admitted this now, why would trump supporters not believe what trump has finally admitted to? I call that more than bad intel.

    in this order I'm currently supporting buttigeig, warren, and harris

    Why?

  • which one of our astute family members here doesn't know for a fact that President Trumps Muslim ban and his suggestion/idea about taking the guns away from Americans without due process are the two most egregious potential assaults on the constitution in the 21st century?

  • @CracklePot said:
    I would even say you can tell when someone is BSing, because they are talking.
    I get the feeling that nobody knows what the real story is, and anything they say about it is BS at the core. So much of our reality is built on 2nd and 3rd hand information, and there is no distinction made between “what I know” and “ what I have been told.” We always claim to “know” something, but belief is not knowledge.

    We all feel it, deep down inside, but cannot face it. It is why these pointless arguments are always happening, and people attack each other so viciously.

    Well, I have come to understand something as a result of this thread.
    We are all hopelessly ignorant and confused.

    I do agree with you, but not in this case... I don't think this is about belief systems, I think it's about the fact of lying about facts.

  • @mannix said:

    @kobamoto said:

    @mannix said:
    >

    Russiagate is about Trump being owned by the Russians and it's clear that he isn't. That there where some online efforts by the Russians nobody can deny. But how it influenced the elections is unclear. btw Superpowers always try to meddle with each other elections. Remember how Jetsin was hold in power by the US. It was even on the cover of time boasting how it was done. The real problem is how and why could this happen? Bad intel?

    And now what candidate are you supporting? If (s)he doesn't make it what are you voting? Just curious where you stand.

    I don't know why you would say that, Plenty have denied from the President on down, he's claimed it as a complete hoax.. in addition to that, you say that 'Russia gate ' is about Trump being owned by the Russians.. but that is not what 17 intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have said... so Russia gate isn't that narrowly defined definition that you've just given it.... to make matters worse, the president claims that the conclusion that the intelligence agencies and the special prosecutor have come to amount to treason, and a coup.... they even go so far as to continually lie about the start of the investigation being a dossier instead of a meeting between the coffee boy and Australian diplomat/ info exchange.... again, why no credence given to blatant, documented, out right lies?

    I think it's glaringly obvious that the reason this could happen is because the Trump campaign responded that they would love this interference... even trump jr has finally admitted this now, why would trump supporters not believe what trump has finally admitted to? I call that more than bad intel.

    in this order I'm currently supporting buttigeig, warren, and harris


    Why?

    I like the direction he wants to take the country in.

  • I don’t.
    But those do make the list.
    I think Citizens United decision and the Patriot Act are way worse, and they are actually law now.
    The War on Drugs was worse as well, and also actual law/policy.

  • edited May 8

    it's not rocket science, it's just a man telling lies and other men telling lies about the liar...
    you never see this crap when people talk about Obama lying about you being able to keep your own doctor... he lied and people just say he lied... but but when the father of lies tells a lie, he somehow becomes the father of truth who has told no lie ever... it's almost obscene.

    he says he's a christian who's never needed to ask his christian god I presume for forgiveness for anything lol, this stuff is rank carnival clown level of absurdity based on his own claims of christianity.... this is what I mean when I say he and his supporters aren't at odds with democrats or liberals, their at odds with themselves.

    let me add this video so that my paraphrasing doesn't offend anyone

  • @CracklePot said:
    I don’t.
    But those do make the list.
    I think Citizens United decision and the Patriot Act are way worse, and they are actually law now.
    The War on Drugs was worse as well, and also actual law/policy.

    well the muslim ban has translated into policy, personally I think that's worse than anything... I agree with you about the other things being awful without a doubt but the stuff the war on drugs has done to people of color has been always being done to people of color, this did not set a precedent as much as people would have you believe at least not in the mind of most people who know and understand the foundation the country was built on and the legacies that stemmed from it... the war on drugs Imo was just another leaf on the same tree....

    and the patriot act is terrible but at least it's governed by a surface level of espoused equality, and like Curtis mayfield said, if there is a hell below we are all gonna go, which of course he didn't really mean but was trying to convey the message that we are all equal.

    the muslim ban set a precedent that went against the heart of what America claims it stands for.

  • Yeah, I don’t really understand the willingness to defend obvious lies, either.
    I suppose they are not obviously lies to other people. Or they are just rotten people.

    I am talking about how both sides of an argument both “know” opposite and opposing “facts,”
    but when it comes down to it, neither side really “know” much of anything beyond what they have been told for their entire lives. These arguments expose this very quickly, and then arguing about facts and knowledge is abandoned, being replaced by personal attacks and name-calling.

    But yes, there is definitely a lot of deliberate lying and intentional spreading of misinformation. This serves to keep people arguing and confused, and in extreme cases they fight and kill each other. It is the threat to their belief system that causes this reaction.

This discussion has been closed.