Quite often, yes. I’m very extroverted, and have an exhaustingly large network of friends. I get invited to things by people I’m not that close with because I’m fun and entertaining.

It can be very exhausting if I’m down in the dumps, but generally it’s great. I have a lot of people in life that care for me and I give back to them how I can.

Im looking for news that affirms reality.

You…affirm your reality…by looking forr news…that does so?

With the intent and purpose of rational thought, it’s supposed to be the other way around.. In by doing this, it is the premise of “fact checking” and the antithesis of misinformation.

That’s how reality, by definition, works. A statement is made. We look to confirm it. It is real if confirmed. You don’t look for statements to confirm a hypothesis and say, “Well, that’s my reality.”

What you just said is no different to stating that you look for Google results that back up what you want to hear…

Are you trying to prove my point for me?

Trump’s public record words and actions already left no doubt that he’s molested children. This writer’s credible but unsourced account is just to remind people that trump has molested children, something that most people realize from trump’s words, actions, associates attitude.

That’s unrelated to anything I’ve said and I don’t know why you thought I’d want to hear it.

When something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, hangs out with ducks, eats bread at the park, and admits in public and private to being a duck - it’s unreasonable to argue that we can’t assume it’s a duck.

That’s an unrelated example of abductive reasoning. Again, I don’t know why you picked me to share that with. If it bears any relation to what I’ve said, it’s irony in that by saying it, you’re proving my point further.

It’s undemocratic! What is this, some sort of a republic? One founded on freedoms? spits

The king will hear about this…

Why, thank you!

You’re pretty special yourself! 🌟

Love this community.

What you’re after is news pieces that confirm your position. Dangerous.

then it becomes a completely different scenario.

No. No it does not.

At the end of the day…

A guy is saying a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy.

Literally, this is “Trust me, bro.”

Be it Trump, Elmo, or a box of Skittles, this preface does not change. Acknowledge that first, then you can go start conversations about Trump molestations as much as you like.

Don’t be like a red hatter and get caught in echo chambers.

Not that I support the guy at all, but you lot really need to stop saying “this is definite” and “it is fact” every time there’s an allegation made about something you don’t like. Not just Trump; anything. Unless you are one, y’all need to save that kind of dumb shit for dumb people, even if you like what you’re hearing.

Take Trump out of it for a second. This is literally a scenario of…

"A guy says a dead guy did a thing that makes another guy look bad, right before a big event involving that other guy "

Could be true. Could be not true. It’s hardly the kind of information that should be landing a half-competent mind onto a decision.

The decompose into dirt. So put them where dirt already is, don’t leave them where dirt is not.

lol. Apparently some people don’t like you and your facts interrupting the jerking.

In this context, you use the term “belief” very well.

Oh, please. I wouldn’t do that to my trash.

This post is discussing the phenomenon of people thinking that science is objective and rigid when in reality it is anything but.

It’s not though. That’s all you.

The irony of such a statement…

I don’t want to deflate your assumption, but “Science is pure objectivity and truth”.

The assumption you introduced just added another layer on by bringing Marxism into it. And here’s the thing with that fallacy; you may be very right! But, it’s got nothing to do with the original statement anymore. It’s just going down tangents of a tangent that should be explored under their own initiative, not the blanket of “science”.

It’s not literal; as the fallacy credits, neither is it necessarily wrong. But(!!!), they’re just not related.

The entire post itself—and your reply—is social science. But science is incapable of alignment to any -ism. All isms are human-made. If they are 100% true, they are not isms.

Edit: Sorry, I’m drunk af, so probably you are right…maybe… At least in my mind, I’m just reading Statement B as literally as Statement A and therefore can’t see correlation without social agenda—theyre just two very different things. Science and agenda; or agenda using “science”. It’s bias. That’s very unscientific.

This is a clean example of an ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Statement B attempts to use Statement A to make an unrelated point that isn’t necessarily untrue, but it is still unrelated.

This could be done with any combination of…

“Under capitalism, <random thing> is…”
“Under <random ism>, science is…”

They would all result in a statement that supports Speaker B, but is no longer relevant to what Speaker A stated, as the topic has changed. In this case, from science to capitalism.

I.e. It’s an anti-capitalism meme attempting to use science to appeal to a broader audience through relevance fallacy. Both statements may be true, but do not belong in the same picture.

Unless, of course, “that’s the joke” and I’m just that dumb.

Edit: I’m not a supporter of capitalism. But I am a supporter of science—haha, like it needs me to exist—and this is an interesting example of social science. It seems personal opinion is paramount to some individuals rather than unbiased assessment of the statement as a whole. Call me boring and autistic, but that’s what science be and anything else isn’t science, it’s just personal opinion, belief, theory, etc.

Yeah, but you get to feel like you’re a democracy and you’re participating at least, right?

Literally just shows up as a headline for me. I’m wondering how it was calculated and if it’s also factoring globalisation shift where the US will lose out to other countries if it’s financially more viable to seek manufacturing or consumer markets elsewhere, losing foreign revenue, consumer income for expenditure, etc.

You’d be wrong to assume not every village is riddled with its own idiots. The social division isn’t there because of one side; it doesn’t work that way.

This is how I lost 30% of my possessions moving house.

When you live in a camp, every other camp is extremist and a threat. It’s algorithm tribalism and everyone’s echo chamber is the right one.

TIL Americans spell cancelling with one L.