The Nature of Truth

[charlestudor2005]

Earlier today, PJ posted this (it's a short read):

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Now this is sick:

http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/20...or-fundraiser/

Now seeing that it is a Breitbart website, I thought it important to reveal some of Breitbart's past.

A recent article in The Atlantic (found at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ies-here/8246/) concerning the "death" of truth had this quote (this is a little longer read):

Other recent events have forced comparably awkward gymnastics around what is and isn’t true. (I am grateful to the Web site The Awl for cataloging several of them.) Many, but not all, of these incidents involve movement conservatives, who continue to prove savvier than their liberal counterparts about deploying new media (see Matt Drudge, aggregation; Rush Limbaugh, talk radio; Sarah Palin, Twitter).

Last spring, the community-organizing group ACORN disbanded, having been subjected to withering and quasi-racist attacks by Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart since 2008. It did this even though numerous investigations had determined that the main piece of evidence conservatives had used against it—notorious “sting footage” purportedly showing ACORN representatives advising a “pimp” and a “prostitute” (both in fact conservative activists) how to defraud the government—had been heavily doctored. “The evidence illustrates,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown said in a statement, “that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting-room floor.” Just before the group was shut down, ACORN Chief Executive Officer Bertha Lewis explained, “Our vindication on the facts doesn’t necessarily pay the bills.”

Inevitably, the finding that the ACORN takedown was based on a forgery got perhaps a thousandth of the attention the fraudulent video had (in part because it lacked awesomely offensive pimp outfits). Nor would this prove the only occasion on which a selectively edited tape disseminated by Breitbart would claim a scalp. In July, the conservative Web activist helped cost African American USDA official Shirley Sherrod her job—and, in the process, contributed to humiliating the NAACP and President Obama—when he posted a two-and-a-half-minute portion of a speech she had given in March about the importance of racial understanding, edited to imply that she was a racist. When later asked about the doctoring of the tape, Breitbart refused to back down or apologize: “I think the video speaks for itself,” he said. And when the white farmer and his wife who were discussed in Sherrod’s speech—and whose farm Sherrod had been instrumental in saving—came forward to defend Sherrod, Breitbart responded by contesting their (otherwise undisputed) authenticity: “You’re going off her word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife!”

Now, I don't know if PJ knows of these tactics and agrees with this conservative scorched earth policy, or is ignorant of them. I'm not attributing either to him.

But despite one's political leanings, it is important, I think, to draw clear lines about what kind of conduct is acceptable in society, and, IMHO, a scorched earth strategy is not acceptable.

And so, with regard to the article PJ posted, I think it is important to note that Brietbart (although not the author, he does own the site and presumably approves what is said in the article) not only shades the truth but uses flat-out lies to support his position.

Comments about the nature of truth???

[Rudyard K]

I'm not exactly sure of your point or question CT? That the press mainipulates things in a conservative or liberal lean? Yep, I'm pretty sure it does.

But even the quote you give does the same thing. In reference to the reporting on Acorn it cites "investigations". By whom? Jerry Brown? Not exactly a bastion of middle ground.

It then begins the second paragrah by labeling things as "forgery". Again, in whose eyes? I guess becuase Jerry said so.

Liberals start with a tendency to believe the media they already believe. Conservatives do the same. The same thing goes for commentators.

Maybe it is just because I have a conservative lean...But it is interesting to me, over the course of my life, that the US became more and more liberal. There were lots of discussions about the majority ruling that brought us down that more liberal course. But now, that the majority seems to be taking a swing back towards conservatism, there is more shock and dismay that people (uh, the new majority) would impose these thoughts on the bretheren US'ers.

[pjorourke]

+1 to RK

CT, Atlantic leans as far left as Breitbart leans right. Whats your point -- they don't like each other?

[nevergaveitathought]

what comments, if any, might the below elicit?

on the subject of "truth":

conservatives tend to be more inclined to a belief in an objective truth.
truth as a nonchanging verity against which bold statements, outrageous ideas, and theories can be weighed. truth, as proven by experience, history, agreement with "things", and that has a coherence matched in the physical world, is a standard unaffected by current whim. logic is a form of truth conservatives tend to accept.

progressives tend to gravitate more to the idea that truth is changed by circumstance or need and that there is no objective truth. they dont tend to "believe" in a truth, only in the idea of a truth which can be used, a sort of pragmatic truth. as pontius pilate asked, "what is truth?" they would also tend to hold that many truths are mere social constructs and not truths at all.

and yet it is "true" that a statement is compared to an object based on ones knowledge of the object, which knowledge is internally based and limited, however much influenced by outside sources, and so some truths are illogical as circular reasoning.

the idea of conservatives seeking truth can be quite different than liberals seeking truth, even using the same words and even about the same event. and so, while a conservative will relate the occurence of events, a liberal just might have a different set of events about the same thing to get to what they consider a "greater truth"

[London Rayne]

If he is using lies to convey his POV, he has already lost all credibility...end of story.

[Sa_artman]

Wasn't there a whole truth thread months back?

“Show me a politician who doesn't lie, and I'll show you an unelected politician*.”

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Earlier today, PJ posted this (it's a short read):


Now seeing that it is a Breitbart website, I thought it important to reveal some of Breitbart's past.

A recent article in The Atlantic (found at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ies-here/8246/) concerning the "death" of truth had this quote (this is a little longer read):
Now, I don't know if PJ knows of these tactics and agrees with this conservative scorched earth policy, or is ignorant of them. I'm not attributing either to him.

But despite one's political leanings, it is important, I think, to draw clear lines about what kind of conduct is acceptable in society, and, IMHO, a scorched earth strategy is not acceptable.

And so, with regard to the article PJ posted, I think it is important to note that Brietbart (although not the author, he does own the site and presumably approves what is said in the article) not only shades the truth but uses flat-out lies to support his position.

Comments about the nature of truth???

Truth can be elusive.

I, for one, was glad to see ACORN go under. Whereas its charter glittered altruistically, its real operation was considerably more seedy. The true story about how much money, money garnered from hard working taxpayers, was stolen and misused has never been told. I also have a problem with any group receiving government funds using that money to “help” register voters.

Regarding Sherrod, Breitbart was completely wrong, and I recall that Fox’s Bill O’Reilly also declaimed Breitbart’s action.

As disgusting as these acts appear, there are similar examples from the left.

Recall that on September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. The purported “documents” were fabricated.

Remember Peter Arnett who narrated a CNN/Time Magazine report called "Valley of Death"(produced by April Oliver, Jack Smith, Pam Hill, and others) in 1998? These liberal journalists, hoping to further besmirch the U.S. military, claimed that war crimes had been committed by U.S. forces during Operation Tailwind including spraying sarin nerve gas on Laotian civilians and U.S. deserters taking refuge in Laos. When the truth was revealed—sarin was not used, most of these “journalists” lost their jobs.

Media coverage of the 1968 Chicago Riots was also skewed by the protestors. “The organizing strategy of the Yippies—just a handful of people with no resources—was to create a story about what would happen in Chicago, a story so compelling that the media would communicate it to the world, and 100,000 people [actually only 10 to 12,000] would come to Chicago to act out that story. Yippie was trying to use the mass media to do grassroots organizing. As a strategy that failed—spectacularly—but the storyline stayed out there. Yippie was all about theatre, artifice, and deception.” (Author Laura Axelrod’s personal account of events.) (If you are really sentimental for the “Good Ol’ Days,” read Yippie activist Judy Gumbo Albert’s account at http://www.counterpunch.org/albert08282008.html — it is fascinating and a little funny.)

I’ll leave you with this New Yorker article, “The Toppling” by Peter Maass, to consider. It’s not sinister, but it is telling.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/01/10/110110fa_fact_maass

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I’ll leave you with this New Yorker article, “The Toppling” by Peter Maass, to consider. It’s not sinister, but it is telling.

Why. Nobody believes your shit anymore than you believe theirs. Do you really think you are going to change my mind? I sure as hell do not think I am going to change yours.



People believe what they want to believe.

Jenny McCarthy believes that autism and baby shots are linked.

Clinton believes a cigar goes well with a blow job.

Bush believes the world is a better place because Saddam is no longer in power despite the amount of money and lives it took to unseat him.

Hot Chocolate believes in Miracles and Sisyphus believes that you should be able to write out the 'n' word on eccie unless explicitly stated in the rule's that you can't.

Me, I believe in ice cream and cynicism, not necessarily in that order.

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Maybe it is just because I have a conservative lean...But it is interesting to me, over the course of my life, that the US became more and more liberal. There were lots of discussions about the majority ruling that brought us down that more liberal course. But now, that the majority seems to be taking a swing back towards conservatism, there is more shock and dismay that people (uh, the new majority) would impose these thoughts on the bretheren US'ers.

Human nature is intresting....not shocking but intresting.

Do you really think either group once it thinks it has an advantage is not going to at the very least try to impose its will on the other.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Clinton believes a cigar goes well with a blow job.

. . . and you don't? I think he's right here.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

. . . and you don't? I think he's right here.

Well a good case could be made that a superior ranking blow-job goes well with damn near anything.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well a good case could be made that a superior ranking blow-job goes well with damn near anything.

I'll drink to that.

[London Rayne]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well a good case could be made that a superior ranking blow-job goes well with damn near anything.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by WTF

Why. Nobody believes your shit anymore than you believe theirs. Do you really think you are going to change my mind? I sure as hell do not think I am going to change yours.



People believe what they want to believe.

Jenny McCarthy believes that autism and baby shots are linked.

Clinton believes a cigar goes well with a blow job.

Bush believes the world is a better place because Saddam is no longer in power despite the amount of money and lives it took to unseat him.

Hot Chocolate believes in Miracles and Sisyphus believes that you should be able to write out the 'n' word on eccie unless explicitly stated in the rule's that you can't.

Me, I believe in ice cream and cynicism, not necessarily in that order.




Human nature is intresting....not shocking but intresting.

Do you really think either group once it thinks it has an advantage is not going to at the very least try to impose its will on the other.

Wasn't there a line in one of the Indiana Jones movies about this? Something like, "if it's truth you're after Dr. so n so of the theology department's office is that way."

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well a good case could be made that a superior ranking blow-job goes well with damn near anything.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'll drink to that.

Amen!!

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

+1 to RK

CT, Atlantic leans as far left as Breitbart leans right. Whats your point -- they don't like each other?

But I really don't blame the Tudors of the world, they've been relying on titles that lean left for so long they really see it as mainstream.

It would be like if you grew up on a farm and constantly ate wonderful, fresh produce then one day got a salad at a restaurant and complain about its quality. There was nothing wrong with it just years of established behavior and perspective.