"Fact" v. "Fact Statement"


I doubt the phrase "fact statement" comes up often in everyday conversation.

Hmmm. Treating language as a logical system sure you’re right, but treating it as a system of practice not necessarily.

I think “objectively true” is not <objective statement> and <true>, it’s “true because of the plain facts” as opposed to true by some other means of verification.

birdman already answered, and explained it mostly. but i'd add that when you're interested in someone you discuss their flaws much more than someone else.

athletes, artists, lovers, politicians, whatever...

aoc is the current star of the democratic party. she is important. her flaws are important. how much to like her is important. i think birdman is good resource to help figure out how much to like her. i know you all laugh at that. that's fine.

and so it is possible to address the superiority of one over another language system - redundancy, consistency, et c.

if she's moving the party further to the left, and you are further to the left, you should like her

even if (actually maybe even "because") you are further to the left than she is

This is not necessarily true, but the flaw is mostly in the simplistic left/right formulation

Although in the case we are talking about it’s probably true

dude, if someone is moving closer to you politically, that has to be a good thing

how not?

If I thought that a more liberal economic policy would only succeed if it was paired with a less imperialist foreign policy and she was moving the party left on economics but with no similar move on imperialism the resulting system could be worse than the status quo

I think a lot of political changes would be good if and only if certain other changes occurred first or simultaneously

oh, I see

yeah, if the party is at (0,0), and you're at (-5,-5), and she's at like (-3,4) - okay

the issue here, though, is that she is at (-3,-1) and that's not enough down the Y for these guys

I don't think there's any indication that she would be any worse than the status quo on the "interventionist" axis

For instance I think all national borders should be completely free and open eventually but if you did that today immediately it would be a disaster

universal healthcare and college tuition will only work if we pull out of syria?

I’m more arguing that a (0,0) party might be preferable to someone at -5,-5 than a -3,0 party due to the interaction of the X axis and the y axis in the real world

We need to get the money somewhere......

(It’s a joke, but you chose a dismissive example so yeah)

who knows what would happen... probably some hard things, but the borders cuz a lot of hard things.

you and i would probably lose some of our wealth and security.

again, if you were a victim of the empire rather than a beneficiary you might have a different opinion


eyebooger, notice i argue with you and herbie a lot more than i argue with a lot of others in the thread, even though i agree with you and herbie a lot more. it's similar to why i criticize aoc more than joe biden

You could address the example I actually gave instead of the crappy one you gave me

I actually probably wouldn’t have a problem with all borders opening immediately as compared to the status quo, but I don’t think it would be the optimal way to do it

I’m generally in favor of a much more radical idea of globalization than is remotely feasible in the world as it exists today

I also don’t think AOC is at all important individually within the Democratic Party but I think she is symbolically important as far as what she did how and why

But I also think that that perhaps matters more than one might expect. Things can be quiet fluid in politics. Trump killed the conventional gop, in the uk the voting blocs have been given a hell of a kick in the last 2-3 years.

I think the main difference between my views and those of our resident Marxists is that I don’t believe that the result of a truly revolutionary change would be anything close to what they envision. I think it is far more likely that the resulting system would be noticeably worse than the existing status quo overall, it would just shuffle who has the power and how it was wielded and to what ends. While that is probably something of a worthy goal in its own right I don’t think it’s worthy enough to justify what I consider to be a near certain loss of value and utility in both the short and medium term that would take generations to rebuild. The only way I could support such a thing is if we have truly reached the point where our systems are not just corrupt and broken but so thoroughly rotted out that even the most basic infrastructure must be discarded to prevent total annihilation AND that the act of revolution itself would offer us at least a path to avoid it. I don’t currently see our world that way (the closest argument for this would be global warming, but I think even among scientists the inevitable annihilation position is a fringe one at this point)

democratic socialists are potentially a powerful new force in usa politics. maybe bernie is the head, but he is old af, and he lost. aoc is the star of the movement

I’m not arguing that symbolic importance isn’t important, I’m more saying that evaluating and parsing her views the way you might someone who has a chance to be president may not be all that useful because she personally is not currently and is unlikely to become all that powerful in the near term in and of herself