What we choose to believe | Forum

There are several disassociated current events to which social media is drawn by rabid attention:

The Democrat sprint to socialism in their various House, Senate, and other elections coming up this Fall.

The recently concluded Luigi Mangioni murder trial.

The ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, accused of murdering her three children.

The re-trial of convicted murderer, Alex Murdaugh.

All four of these events have become a media circus tent with as much, or more, of believed posits - proposed theories of what's going on - as factual evidence. These posits breech the wall of sensible conclusions to include continued belief in whacko suggestions despite evidence to the contrary.

Beliefs such as:

The Democratic Socialists of America just want the US to be a democracy, because the U.S. is currently an autocracy.

Mangioni is innocent; a victim of "the system." This, despite his own confession of guilt as a witness in the trial.

Lindsay Clancy is a victim of medical failure [this argument was heavily in favor of Mangioni, having dealt with the same medical failures]

Alex Murdaugh is a victim of a failed justice system that allows a miscreant court clerk to sway the jury in the original trial.

What is true, and what is fantasy, is a difficult choice for social media. What they believe is, by their interpretation, the truth. My prediction is that, in an SDA world, they would likely nominate social media to sit on the Supreme Court, and run the USA, AMA, APA, and just about every other A; an overarching Authority.

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

There are several disassociated current events to which social media is drawn by rabid attention:  The Democrat sprint to socialism in their various House, Senate, and other elections coming up this Fall.  The recently concluded Luigi Mangioni murder trial.  The ongoing trial of Lindsay Clancy, accused of murdering her three children. The re-trial of convicted murderer, Alex Murdaugh. All four of these events have become a media circus tent with as much, or more, of believed posits - proposed theories of what's going on - as factual evidence. These posits breech the wall of sensible conclusions to include continued belief in whacko suggestions despite evidence to the contrary. Beliefs such as: The Democratic Socialists of America just want the US to be a democracy, because the U.S. is currently an autocracy. Mangioni is innocent; a victim of "the system." This, despite his own confession of guilt as a witness in the trial. Lindsay Clancy is a victim of medical failure [this argument was heavily in favor of Mangioni, having dealt with the same medical failures] Alex Murdaugh is a victim of a failed justice system that allows a miscreant court clerk to sway the jury in the original trial.  What is true, and what is fantasy, is a difficult choice for social media. What they believe is, by their interpretation, the truth. My prediction is that, in an SDA world, they would likely nominate social media to sit on the Supreme Court, and run the USA, AMA, APA, and just about every other A; an overarching Authority.

Let's add one more example to the four I offered in post #1:

A woman and her teen daughter attended a WNBA game the other night. They both wore teeshirts boldly decorated by XX and XY symbols on the shirts. They were seen by security and advised that they should wear new teeshirts given to them by security to cover their own shirts, or be escorted from the arena. Security felt their shirts would offend trans people.

More rabid social media.

The 1A does guarantee our freedom of speech. What is unwritten, but obvious in the phrase, in order to preserve that freedom for all, is that speech cannot be the direct cause of someone else's physical injury or death. As such, while we have freedom of speech, it is not acceptable to be offended by someone else's speech and demand the offender be censured or removed from a public setting. That is the only way to guarantee continued freedom of speech for all of us. Doesn't the DSA want their platofrm planks to be accessible by all? Apparently not.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Let's add one more example to the four I offered in post #1: A woman and her teen daughter attended a WNBA game the other night. They both wore teeshirts boldly decorated by XX and XY symbols on the shirts. They were seen by security and advised that they should wear new teeshirts given to them by security to cover their own shirts, or be escorted from the arena. Security felt their shirts would offend trans people. More rabid social media. The 1A does guarantee our freedom of speech. What is unwritten, but obvious in the phrase, in order to preserve that freedom for all, is that speech cannot be the direct cause of someone else's physical injury or death. As such, while we have freedom of speech, it is not acceptable to be offended by someone else's speech and demand the offender be censured or removed from a public setting. That is the only way to guarantee continued freedom of speech for all of us. Doesn't the DSA want their platofrm planks to be accessible by all? Apparently not.

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post