Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 4 weeks ago, 15 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,429,229
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
When you run a major news outlet you should know which word to use when talking about truth of all things.
White liberal women have a particularly hard time with the concept, constantly saying shit like "my truth". When one goes out in public and acts like she doesn't know the difference between perspective and truth it should be obvious that she's also unable to grasp the difference.
Even someone who is apparently her sworn enemy immediately recognises that her "my truth" is the same thing as "my perspective of the truth".
Which by the way is obvious from full content of the Ted Talk, which you have taken context-free snippets from in order to make this smear.
It's pretty ironic that the one positioning himself as some kind of defender of the truth is the one partaking in the kind of selective "truth telling" that she warns against in her speech, in the process proving her entirely correct and blowing up your own credibility.
Lucky you're anonymous bro, I don't think I would be able to live with people knowing I'd self owned to this extent.
> Even someone who is apparently her sworn enemy immediately recognises that her "my truth" is the same thing as "my perspective of the truth".
Yes, and the point I'm making is: why doesn't she use the correct word?
It's easy to dismiss it as a figure of speech, but with more and more women talking this way it just means we lose words for objective statements and only have subjective statements. In time liberals will attack the word objective itself. The point is newspeak that eliminates ways of expressing concepts that upset them.
That's fine for them because women inherently lack the ability to grasp an objective reality. It's fine for simps who don't care about language because it's another easy way to score points with the tribe.
> Lucky you're anonymous bro, I don't think I would be able to live with people knowing I'd self owned to this extent.
I know plenty of people in person who share my view.
That's not your point at allx it's just what you're pivoting to now so you don't look stupid.
Anyway, the speech isn't about the readers perspective on facts but is about the harm of media outlets presenting a limited range of divisive facts and abusing those facts to build a wider narrative that only serves to drive people apart.
> That's not your point at allx it's just what you're pivoting to now so you don't look stupid.
What do you think my point was? Can you actually show it in my actual text?
> Anyway, the speech isn't about the readers perspective on facts but is about the harm of media outlets presenting a limited range of divisive facts and abusing those facts to build a wider narrative that only serves to drive people apart.
There's a way to communicate that and use the word truth correctly.
It's not a meaningless word choice, she's repeating a mistake many people in her demographic make constantly.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 31 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,246
I get that she wanted to use Wikipedia(maybe not the best example imo since it too can subjected to biases therefore perspective) to push her point combating in disinformation.
Truth should never have multiple perspectives. Its one and done.
I think the discussion didn't go the way you planned it so you take advantage of vagueries to pretend you were talking about something else all along. This way you can justify to yourself that you're always correct.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,248
It’s weird because it’s not always a reliable metric for accurate informationm but if the facts line up that make it hard to disagree with then cool. I’ll admit she reminds me of one my friends they both that same way talking in roundabouts by trying to walk you into their position.
It's not my job to play endless whack a mole with anonymous retard. Let's talk more about how you knew what she was talking about all along. Pretty disingenuous, isn't it?
> It's not my job to play endless whack a mole with anonymous retard.
If you feel like it's a waste of time don't join the discussion to begin with.
If you actually want to participate, either respond to what's actually been said or ask clarifying questions so the other person actually gives you the quote.
> Let's talk more about how you knew what she was talking about all along. Pretty disingenuous, isn't it?
It's not disingenuous to point out that she used the wrong word.
Bullshit! Your argument is that the phrase "my truth" reflects a broader problem with liberals undermining or confusing objective truth.
That apparently involves two claims 1. An ideological claim about attitudes towards objective truth and 2. A linguistic critique about the "wrong word".
Anonymous E replied with this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,259
@1,429,253 (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Settle down oat fag. I just woke up and hadn’t had my coffee. I’ll be more than willing to run a few mental fades.
Anonymous E double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,260
@1,429,254 (A)
It’s not wrong. She phrased the whole thing in such weird covert manner its almost as if she knew it didnt made sense. Not sure why it was hard for her to say perspectives or opinions because saying “my truth” just makes you sound stupid.
Fixing that would make it fine, but it's not a small mistake when she runs one of the largest news outlets in the country. And it's no coincidence that the news org that liberals prefer is the same one where the CEO doesn't understand what truth is.
Anonymous E replied with this 4 weeks ago, 44 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,262
The message was nice in sentiment but the excuetion was poor. Oatcucker9000 just wants to pretend they/them/it is intelligent.
Only thing I disagree with is the female narrative. I dont think it’s always the case “if you dont agree with x then you hate women!!” or some variation of that
Anonymous E triple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,264
Truth is not subjective. It is objective. That’s what we call common sense. If universally agree on something regardless of bias/hangups. We cant say well my truth is that is the moon is made of cheese. Thats delusional.
Anonymous D replied with this 4 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,429,271
@1,429,263 (E)
not really, in fact it makes NPR look good. They do not care about their doubters and the heretics, theyve got their thralls and are putting on the show that is wanted and expected of them.
> I'm saying #2 is the outward expression of #1. > > White liberal women say "my truth" because they operate in a relativistic framework. > > Women in general seek consensus, not truth.
What are your thoughts on reactive frameworks? Some people advocate for separation of concerns, some people just throw everything in one file like heathens.
"Truth" takes the definite article because it refers to objectivity. If someone uses it subjectively that implies they don't understand the difference between subjective expressions and the concept of an objective reality.
You and A are making the same mistake by treating what you consider to be imperfect wording as proof of defective thinking.
You're making the same leaps, from how a word is used to what someone is capable of understanding, which doesn't follow.
Informal or rhetorical language isn't evidence of conceptual inability. By that standard, anyone who uses a metaphor doesn't understand the concepts they're talking about, which obviously isn't how language works.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,429,428
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
Your words appear to disagree with OP, but technically speaking you could be a monkey on a typewriter or someone who refuses to turn off the sarcasm.
My truth is that you agree with OP and there is no deductive proof that you must be disagreeing.
> You and A are making the same mistake by treating what you consider to be imperfect wording as proof of defective thinking. > > You're making the same leaps, from how a word is used to what someone is capable of understanding, which doesn't follow. > > Informal or rhetorical language isn't evidence of conceptual inability. By that standard, anyone who uses a metaphor doesn't understand the concepts they're talking about, which obviously isn't how language works. > > What actually justifies that leap?
Simple. Everyone is right but you oatfuck. We’re all winners except you. We sleep nice and comfy at night while you sleep with a pillow thats warm on both sides.
Thats all the justification and thats all you’ll get for an answer.