If your side lied, would you even want to know?

[Anomalism]

Yep, I love my country. I served my country. And, I also respect and love God….0 for 3, shitbird.

Your worth as a human being is not under interrogation at all. Pay no attention to nonsense.

 

[Rocko]

I don’t have a side

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh, now you’re going to tell us which sources you approve of? Yeah, don’t care.

We know Breitbart, dailysignal, OAN, etc. are garbage. You don't?

I am sure you have opinions about NYT, CNN, News Nation, etc.

 

[j-mac]

Your worth as a human being is not under interrogation at all. Pay no attention to nonsense.

Oh gee. Thanks what would I ever do without you?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh gee. Thanks what would I ever do without you?

Cmon, j-mac. He wants affirmation just as you do.

 

[Anomalism]

Oh gee. Thanks what would I ever do without you?

Hey, I get it. You didn't need that support. John Edgar damn well pissed me off though. That was classless.

 

[j-mac]

We know Breitbart, dailysignal, OAN, etc. are garbage. You don't?

I am sure you have opinions about NYT, CNN, News Nation, etc.

Come on keep going, no etc’s….show us what an arrogant lefty you really are.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Hey, I get it. You didn't need that support. John Edgar damn well pissed me off though. That was classless.

I know you try to be classly. Keep trying.

Back to the OP: if one does not vet one's own side propaganda, one is not being worthy.

OK, time for Chelsea vs. Paris.

 

[Anomalism]

Anomalism, you are so funny. You are not some old, wise gray eminence. You know basic syntax and diction, but logic and semantics elude you so often.

However, effort is good, so keep trying.

Your response is a perfect illustration of the problem I named. Mockery when challenged. Dismissiveness when held accountable. Projection instead of introspection. You didn’t engage the substance. You didn’t counter the logic. You just insulted the tone and pretended that was insight. That’s not clever. It’s just a reflex, a shield against self-examination.

You’re right about one thing, though; I’m not some old, wise eminence. I’m just someone who still believes clarity is worth trying for, even in rooms where people would rather clap for cynicism than reach for truth.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your response is a perfect illustration of the problem I named. Mockery when challenged. Dismissiveness when held accountable. Projection instead of introspection. You didn’t engage the substance. You didn’t counter the logic. You just insulted the tone and pretended that was insight. That’s not clever. It’s just a reflex, a shield against self-examination.

You’re right about one thing, though; I’m not some old, wise eminence. I’m just someone who still believes clarity is worth trying for, even in rooms where people would rather clap for cynicism than reach for truth.

You are sophomoric in conversation. Put me on Ignore. You will feel better. Otherwise, I will hammer you when you act out so ineptly.

 

[Anomalism]

You are sophomoric in conversation. Put me on Ignore. You will feel better. Otherwise, I will hammer you when you act out so ineptly.

If hammering someone means dodging their argument and responding with vague insults, then go ahead, swing away. Just know that every time you do, you prove me right. I’m not here to feel better. I’m here to ask harder questions than you're used to, and the fact that your response to that is “put me on ignore or I’ll attack you” tells me everything I need to know, because that’s not strength. That’s someone threatened by the very thing they claim to stand for, accountability, conviction, and clarity. You say I’m inept, but if my words were really so weak, they wouldn’t bother you this much.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Anomalism, you are not the field judge on definitions and behavior.

Stay with normal terms and definitions, and we are fine.

 

[Anomalism]

Anomalism, you are not the field judge on definitions and behavior.

Stay with normal terms and definitions, and we are fine.

I’m not claiming to be the field judge. I’m pointing out that the field has already been shaped, by culture, by power, by inherited assumptions. If we only speak within the confines of normal terms we never challenge the frameworks that define what’s normal in the first place, and that’s exactly the point of these questions, not to rewrite definitions arbitrarily, but to ask who got to write them in the first place, and why we’re so afraid to revise them.

You don’t have to agree with my terms, but you should be willing to examine yours, because when definitions become sacred, scrutiny becomes heresy, and that’s how dogma hides inside ordinary language.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I’m not claiming to be the field judge. I’m pointing out that the field has already been shaped, by culture, by power, by inherited assumptions. If we only speak within the confines of normal terms we never challenge the frameworks that define what’s normal in the first place, and that’s exactly the point of these questions, not to rewrite definitions arbitrarily, but to ask who got to write them in the first place, and why we’re so afraid to revise them.

You don’t have to agree with my terms, but you should be willing to examine yours, because when definitions become sacred, scrutiny becomes heresy, and that’s how dogma hides inside ordinary language.

fine, those are you opinions.

 

[Independent thinker]

Most people think they want truth, but what they actually want is to be right.

If someone could prove, with evidence, that your favorite leader, your party, or your cause was based on lies, would you investigate, or would you look away to protect your emotional investment? Because that’s not loyalty. That’s self-preservation wrapped in ideology.

Truth doesn’t care who it embarrasses, and if you only chase truth when it hurts the other side, then you were never on truth’s side to begin with.

You were on your own.

Both sides lie. Where have you been? It's called politics.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Both sides lie. Where have you been? It's called politics.

Not an excuse.

 

[Independent thinker]

Not an excuse.

Not an excuse for either side.

 

[forkup]

Most people think they want truth, but what they actually want is to be right.

If someone could prove, with evidence, that your favorite leader, your party, or your cause was based on lies, would you investigate, or would you look away to protect your emotional investment? Because that’s not loyalty. That’s self-preservation wrapped in ideology.

Truth doesn’t care who it embarrasses, and if you only chase truth when it hurts the other side, then you were never on truth’s side to begin with.

You were on your own.

Truth matters a lot to me. That’s why I work hard to find it — not just the version that feels good, but the kind that holds up under pressure.

The thing is, truth rarely shows up as a clean line. Most of the time, right and wrong depend heavily on where you're standing. That doesn’t mean truth isn’t real — just that it’s often tangled, uncomfortable, and inconvenient.

Getting closer to it takes a kind of discipline I don’t see very often, and honestly, most people don’t want it. It means questioning yourself first. It means looking for sources that don’t just confirm your view, but challenge it. It means checking your ego, even when you’re sure you’re right — especially then.

And honestly does this look like a place where a lot of people want to question themselves?

 

[Anomalism]

does this look like a place where a lot of people want to question themselves?

No, and that's why I'm here.

 

[forkup]

No, and that's why I'm here.

To question yourself or reinforce your beliefs? If I'm not mistaken, and I could be you and I disagree on most everything but I am prepared to have an actual discussion if you are game.