Over on Janegalt.net/Assymetrical Information there's a post about a site called "Truth and Lies". Predictably, it's a rather snarky site, and after a brief persual I feel no obligation to bother putting out their URL. But that got me to thinking about sites that self-label as "Truth".
Now, I tend to look on any site with "TRUTH" in it's title as being inherently suspicious in the first place.
"Truth" according to whom?
Objective "Truth"? Subjective "Truth"? Verifiable "Truth"? Binary "Truth", all one or the other, or gray area "Truth", with shadings of "Truth"?
"Truth" with a limited subset of facts taken into account? Or "Truth" with everything tossed into the mix and boiled for a few days so concentrated "Truth" rises to the top while condensed "Lies" sink to the bottom?
Is it "Truth" which must be forced on unbelievers? "Truth" which must silence all other opinions and allows no dissent? "Truth" which must be presented in a 'particular' way so the reader will get the 'proper' opinion inculated into their minds?
Is it "Truth" which has to be spun, or twisted, or selectively edited? Is it "Truth" with a slant, a bias, a leaning toward a particular point of view that's inherently the only proper one for someone believing the "Truth"?
If you call it "Truth", does that mean all other viewpoints are lies? Are your "Truths" self-evident and can stand on their own, or do they need a shoring of selectively culled and out-of-context quotes and remarks? Does the "Truth" stand up to attacks on it's own? Is it internally self-consistent, and congruent with objective reality?
Does it have to be labeled as "Truth" in the first place?
If I'm looking for "Truth", I'll take what I find for "Truth" from
these guys. I KNOW what to expect from THEIR version of the "Truth". But I don't search for someone to tell me what to think - I search for information, and decide for myself what the "Truth" is. If you present 5 samples of "Truth", and I know one is immediately "False" but don't know about the others, I'm going to be suspicious about the quality of "Truth" used to craft the other four. Sorry - but that's the way it is.
Your mileage, of course, may vary.
J.
Comments (5)
I believe it's a parody site (hence his affirmation of my 'Beam' reference), just like the one I compared it to, although subtle enough to be plausible and to continue to sow seeds of doubt in my mind.
Comment thread is a hoot.
Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | August 11, 2005 11:29 AM
Posted on August 11, 2005 11:29
I'm not sure it's a parody - it reads too much like a site off Kevin Drum or Kos. But I could well be wrong there.
J.
Posted by JLawson | August 11, 2005 1:04 PM
Posted on August 11, 2005 13:04
Well, given what's written there, he'd have to be one of the stupidest people on earth. Also,
Have a look at the comment thread where he says I've been 'out-beamed' and then responds 'no soap radio'.
It was on the ragged edge for me until those comments.
Posted by "Mindles H. Dreck" | August 12, 2005 9:04 AM
Posted on August 12, 2005 09:04
Regardless of whether or not he's a parody, he's regarded as one.
Posted by Dreckjr | August 13, 2005 12:32 PM
Posted on August 13, 2005 12:32
Well, if it looks, honks, smells, floats, and shits like a goose, I'm going to think it's a goose, whether you want to call it an aardvark or a lemon.
J.
Posted by JLawson | August 13, 2005 10:58 PM
Posted on August 13, 2005 22:58