drewfx1
eph221
bitflipper
Creating a nuanced lie requires some forethought. Seeing through a nuanced lie requires some effort.
Why bother, in an age when even big lies routinely go unchallenged? Nuance is dead, killed by intellectual laziness. Just tell as big a whopper as you like, and keep repeating it until it becomes "common sense".
At some point, there's going to have to be a consensus on truthier facts and non-truthier facts, nuanced or not. Being at war (the truth being the first casualty) for 14 years (!) hasn't helped. I used to field questions about the ivy league having a stranglehold on power and nobody cares, because we ASSUME that it's the cream of the crop that go to those schools. (We've been fed a truthy idea that education is the path to happiness and smarts.)They're actually burning down the house in case you haven't noticed. Where's the outrage!
People don't care about facts because objective facts don't allow people to impose themselves into the discussion. It also requires effort on one's part to determine what the facts are rather than just pretend one has "knowledge" because one believes or has heard something. This in turn allows one to believe they can argue on equal footing with people who have actually bothered to learn things.
not sure that's what's at stake, friend but it's a good overall observation that holds true for human motivations. I try to see the political milieu as one big court room, where we're the jury. Only problem is, there aren't rules for evidence. That's why we have to start (somewhere) saying, this source is truthier than another source. Some people put alot of faith in science as objective fact. It's definitely truthier, whether it can be considered objective fact, that's another matter. We need to start somewhere. Regardless, just like in a court room, there's not a perfect system.