SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

@trayofbees
OK I see it, a way to understand quickly where the person is coming from. It is it to decide whether to engage at all? My hope is that through friendly, honest discussions about ideas and policy, even at a high (or should I say more foundational?) level that is more accessible to the everyday man, we could spread ideas : first, the idea of constructive discourse on substantive ideas, and then if course those ideas themselves.

@trayofbees
Agreed. And sadly political discussions in real life too.

@trayofbees
Is this relevant when talking the details of small business tax policy, or is it a litmus test to determine if someone is able to discuss more foundational things, such as the purpose of government and the source of rights? I'd be hesitant to discuss small business tax policy because it's been a while since I ran a small business, but would discuss the other topics.

@TurdFerguson
*are

@peterdrake
My current theory is that it's a bit more complex than just trying to rile people up. It almost seems like he's able to get maybe even a very specific response from his target audience. Even the wapo page that calls that truthful statement a deception based on what the author guessed his intent was. It's discrediting to the fact checker. With stuff like this, the anti president media appears to call everything he says a lie, even when it's obviously objectively true, so then some people who see this are less likely to believe the claim when he really does say something of substance untrue. I'm just giving this as an example of my theory that DT solicits a response that he can use to his advantage. It's not being a genius or having a complex strategy worked out, but if true, would be a skill of some kind, either developed or inherent. Or be could just be bumbling through, he certainly does seem to know how to distract from good news with bad. I haven't figured him out, just trying out the theory.

I agree that it's hard to engage productively with someone who doesn't come to the table in good faith. But no one is asking you to engage with the president; can't we all engage productively here in good faith, if we're excellent to each other?

Surely just because a figurehead of the "other" side seems to be a lying scumbag isn't a reason to never engage with ideas that differ from one's own.
@williamlweaver

@peterdrake
I wonder if you missed my initial comments on the disconnect between how trump communicates and the truth. You won't find me defending the current or past presidents about being truthful.

As for the question of don't I agree with someone on Trumps inner intent when he said the truth but actually intended to lie, I'm not at good at divining intent in others. I wonder if guessing someone's intent reflects our own halo effect and self confirmation bias than the person's actual intent. This would explain how the never trumpers and the always trumpers see such different things in his motives.

I'm not sure we often truly know our own intents. I wonder if looking at the consequences of a person's actions are better things to judge than guessing at their intent. Or maybe we should seek to march the road of good intentions and see where it leads.
@williamlweaver

@freemo
Slavery also didn't start in the 1600s, but had been global for time immemorial. The period of freedom is a spec on the timeline.

@peterdrake I may be wrong - a few things as I understand them:

• Repeating the president's statements and positions (true or not) is the sad job of a press secretary. I think the current and previous presidents had patterns of speaking falsehoods and all their press secretaries have been responsible for doubling down on these.

• I had read that the "child-separation" policy was for purposes to vet people and potentially stop child trafficking was not a new policy with this president, but pre-dated him.

• Rejection of dissent isn't new with him either, but seemed prevalent under the previous admin, and many many others. It doesn't seem he's done anything to stop dissent, he just argues back. Dissent seems to be thriving at this time.

@williamlweaver @AnonByNature

@peterdrake The president said that collusion is not a crime, and the site didn't say that was a lie. But they file it as a lie.

Instead, they read into motivations rather than whether his words were true or not, and insult what they guess his motives are. I suppose they were saying: He's play games with words - the game goes like this: Say something that's true, BUT something that if you just use different words is NOT true!

Logic like...
1. "Conspiracy to defraud the government" is a crime.
2. Trump didn't say otherwise.
3. BUT if he HAD said otherwise, that would have been a lie.
4. If we edit his true statement about collusion to actually be about conspiracy to defraud the government, then we've created a lie - so even though he didn't say the lie, we mark this as a lie.

I think it's especially important to be honest when you're trying to call someone out for dishonesty. And this just seems dishonest.

I'm not qualified to diagnose someone as pathological nor have I done any kind of comparison between lying liars to see who lies most. You can see my earlier post about what I think about his communication methods being de-coupled from truth.

@williamlweaver