So many of the things discussed here have been of concern to me for a while now.
When the Civil War 2.0 comes (and it will whether Trump loses of wins) I believe it will look more like Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s. Outbursts of violence, bombings, assassinations, street brawls, etc. It won't be like Syria, or Yemen.
Here in Florida--- which has become laboratory of fascist adjacent policies--- most of our county sheriffs are Trump supporters and many of them have their eyes on political careers beyond the county level. They in turn endorse candidates for school board from "Moms for Liberty" and Trump adjacent congressional candidates.
The Governor has reinstituted a "State Guard" under his complete control in addition to the federally controlled national guard. This force, recruited from who knows where and with what qualifications, was marketed to be feet on the ground for emergencies like hurricanes. Now they are being deployed to the Texas border. So it is clear that these "guardsmen" under the personal control of the Governor can be used to enforce laws and maintain order at the governor's discretion. A personal police force. Or paramilitary unit?
The "Stand Your Ground Laws" can be used as a cover for murder and so long as there were no witnesses your MAGA adjacent police forces and MAGA adjacent DAs (see dog park murder in Tampa) will let you walk away. Even though you have been threatening to kill the victim for over a year.
Public service unions are shorn of their ability to work on behalf of their members while law enforcement and fire fighter unions are cynically exempt for obvious reasons.
There was a legislative attempt, at the behest of the Governor, to allow local law enforcement to utilize armed citizens (paramilitary members) to assist in keeping the peace. However, local law enforcement would not be responsible for anything these volunteers did and essentially would be able to use their own judgment when deploying armed violence. This was admittedly suggested during the "Summer of Floyd" when violent uprisings were happening in Portland and Minneapolis and none of which happened in Florida.
They did however pass a law that allowed drivers to run over protesters "if they felt threatened." This seems to be the caveat of choice for everything from road rage street killings to police killings, where the subjective "feeling" as opposed to the objective fact of "being" threatened is sufficient justification.
So what we see in Florida is the organizing of a militarized asymmetrically empowered by the state government. Not unlike the "bully squads" in Mussolini's Italy in the 1920s.
And as a conservative most galling is the usurpation of the power of local decision makers by state government. Local school boards can no longer act in response to an outbreak of measles without the State signing off first. A city cannot decide what kind of flags they want to fly on, or around, municipal buildings. Local governments cannot pass nondiscrimination protections. Local governments cannot require contractors to meet wage standards beyond the minimum wage. Confederate statues cannot be removed by local authorities even if most of the residents where the statue stands find it offensive. The list goes on.
And finally I am tired of people minimizing the significance of January 6 by decontextualizing the episode from the overall project to undermine/overturn the election of 2020. It wasn't much in and of itself only a small, but violent, and well organized attack. I believe it was probably the first time a confederate flag was ever raised inside the Capitol building as a sign of victory. The riot that day, the sacking of Pelosi's office, the vandalism of the Senate Chamber, the spreading of feces on the wall, the assault on capitol police, the "martyrdom" of Ashli Babbit were just outward and visible signs of the inward corruption that was being perpetrated from the White House itself against the American people.
Thank you for demonstrating that both sides in this trumped-up civil war are running a vile protection racket -- driven not by any vision of comity or hope (except, perhaps, the hope of clinging to power, buoyed by fear).
Meanwhile, as I've noted elsewhere, the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
Well that is what oligarchs, or their moral equivalent, in every society have done throughout history. I find it amusing when people suddenly come to realize that we have oligarchs in our midst.
No successful society has ever existed without an oligarchy and none can survive without one. Most of the programming on PBS couldn't exist without the support of oligarchs.
Well, at least we agree about PBS (or in my case, NPR) -- though I suspect that we each attach a somewhat different valence when recognizing that reality.
We're both reacting to (and our concerns are biased by) local conditions.
You really need to get out of Florida.
As for me, here in California, I'm contemplating Uruguay. ;-)
You might obsess on "the deadly January 6 insurrection," but I watched the sacking of Oakland Chinatown from my own window during the Summer of Floyd (for many throughout the country, a local, in-your-face, tangible phenomenon). In contrast, January 6, as seen on TV, ultimately no more proved to be the end of American democracy than the Yippies' antics at the Stock Exchange were the death knell of capitalism.
I've been destitute and homeless, but I've never felt prompted to mug a grandma (nor to live in an encampment), so don't lecture me on "root causes." The streets are strewn with garbage, broken glass and potholes, but we're told that the true enemy is "traffic violence" (i.e., people in cars)...
And when an intruder dies trying to scale a fence, are you trying to tell me that the true enemy is the fence?
Enough! People are fed up -- and the "woke" element is dead wrong in attributing the underlying values to "white supremacy." These values are as strong among Latinos as among earlier immigrants (certainly including my neighbors in Chinatown). In other words, the entire "people of color" trope -- and the grievance industry built around it -- is grossly off-base.
So don't go to the barrio touting the pseudo-word "Latinx." And don't come around calling me "queer."
I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud (as an individual) simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
"...and when they come for me"? Given my experience with the left -- and the left's contempt for the so-called "petty"-bourgeoisie, striving for a middle-class life with a house and a car -- I understand why they first came for the communists, and how the petty-bougeeoisie get driven into the arms of fascists.
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
As for “solidarity” — and tribalism? Every person exists at a unique intersection of identities. Respect the individual, AS an individual -- and to heck with the would-be arbiters of the Oppression Olympics.
Wake up and smell the coffee -- or (sick of hearing endlessly about slavery-and-genocide that most of our ancestors didn't commit) America will come for you!
PS:
<< The incessant countervaiing message has been brought to you by a slew of self-righteous, self-serving, foundation-funded NGO bureaucrats, by a host of would-be "experts" preaching "behavioral health," and by viewers like you. I'm switching to the country station, or to jazz -- as I lament to my cat, "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore!" >>
I have taken great comfort and gained peace of mind by abandoning most of social media which is where one is likely to most often encounter the social justice jihadists... as well as the Neanderthal reactionaries claiming to be "conservative."
Most of the things that disturb you are tempests in the twitter pot. And as David Chappell once said about being "dragged" on Twitter.: "I don't give a fuck because Twitter is not a real place."
FWIW, I'm not on Twitter; I don't even have an account. And no, I never listen to Fox (or for that matter, Joe Rogan); as I've suggested (by my PS), I get all my anger (and disgust) by listening to NPR -- or in Oakland, to my local politicians (confronted every day at my doorstep with the detritus of their evasions and lies).
I was just using Twitter as an example. I quit the day after the invasion of Ukraine when it suddenly became a gangbang for anyone who wanted to wait and find out what was happening on the ground from sources more reliable. In 24 hours we went from Russians invading Ukraine to Russians bayonetting babies and even questioning the truth of these reports made one an apologist for Putin.
I have pretty much zeroed out NPR though I do occasionally watch PBS News Hour. I subscribe to my local paper to keep abreast on GOP shenanigans in Tallahassee and happenings in my local area. I have a subscription to the Washington Post and New York Times avoiding the opinion sections entirely and only as secondary reading for something that I find interesting.
Facebook is for family and actual friends only. The rest of the social media platforms are not part of my world.
God, I haven't thought about him or read anything by him in years. I remember some articles about 30 years ago but I haven't read his books.
One of the foundational understandings of "One Nation Conservatism" is that huge economic inequalities weaken society and make them more prone to radical populist (revolutionary) movements. A degree of economic nationalism is necessary which is probably in Lind's bailiwick.
Based on the above, we might not be that far apart -- but this seems to contradict your assertion (elsewhere) that "No successful society has ever existed without an oligarchy and none can survive without one."
As per your linked video, Schumpeter has much to say about the decline of entrepreneurial capitalism with the development of a professional managerial caste.
Meanwhile, are you familiar with Joel Kotkin? (He paints as unnerving [and IMO, as accurate] a picture of California as you do of Florida.) As I've noted above, we're both reacting to (and our concerns are biased by) local conditions.
"I will just say as someone who's been politically active most of my life, for anyone listening to this program, if you value what we have and what we want to preserve, it is absolutely imperative that you get out and do everything possible on your own behalf to make sure that Donald Trump never reaches the White House."
Just wanted to draw attention to Molly Ball's February 4, 2021 Time Magazine article: "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election." Is that a template that could work again in 2024?
> Aaron Ross Powell: Yeah, I think that's the big thing that we, more of us have to grapple with is how much more widespread than we thought a genuine dislike for freedom and democracy is among Americans. And not just the kind of people who show up for Trump rallies, but also, I mean, the Heritage Foundation, which is the, you know, next to AEI, the big conservative think tank for decades that set policy for the American conservative movement has their new Project 2025, which is an incredibly systematic, thought out, serious plan to install an autocrat the next time there's a Republican holding the White House. It is a plan for overthrowing American democracy. And that's terrifying that like the commanding heights of the conservative movement are—not all of them; there are your Never Trumpers—but so much of it is all-in on not just Trump himself, but the basic project of destroying American liberty.
I'd argue that first, everyone should grapple with whether they know the technical meanings of the psychologically powerful words they so casually throw around or make reference to, like truth.
I do not believe I have yet to meet a single human being who has a flawless understanding of truth, which extends to an ability to utilize the word *without flaw* at the object level. I would very much enjoy meeting such a human, but I only meet ones who declare themselves to meet the challenge, and none of them are ever able to even try to present substantiating proof.
A big part of the problem is that people consider *cultural norms* regarding truth (ie: (perceptions of) an absence of evidence is proof of absence) to be correct - this is bad logic, but it has been normalized as true, thus appears to the observer as true.
Truth is when there is a fit between representation and reality. So, "the Earth is round" is true because the Earth is round—the representation (an English sentence) semantically captures the reality (the shape of the Earth). Did you mean something like this or something else?
I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with the content we've just published, which is Aaron's chat with Patrick on the possibility of a Civil War 2.0.
Some final thoughts:
Why would I need to "link" to a definition? I'm doing conceptual analysis here: an analysis of how we use the word, an analysis of what the concept is. This is how we use and understand the word "truth" in society. If you disagree with this proposed definition, you can try to show how the analysis is wrong. But, either way, linking to anything isn't necessary.
Yes, pace pedantic 'well, akshually' discourse gnats like the author of that article, the earth is in fact round. No one said it's perfectly round. But it's round. But the actual truth of this example isn't even necessary to establish here—it's just an example of how truth functions. Pick a different example if you like. If there is a fit between representation ("trees exist") and reality (trees exist), that's a truth.
> I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with the content we've just published, which is Aaron's chat with Patrick on the possibility of a Civil War 2.0.
The degree to which online opiners are sticking to facts (regardless of their intentions or perceptions) has more than zero to do with the likelihood of a civil war if you ask me.
> Why would I need to "link" to a definition?
Humans hallucinate, *regularly*. In my experience, their ability and willingness to substantiate their various claims (the meanings of words being one of them) is a quick and easy way to check if one happens to be in such a state.
> I'm doing conceptual analysis here: an analysis of how we use the word, an analysis of what the concept is. This is how we use and understand the word "truth" in society.
Can you note 3 or 4 variables that you have in your analytic model (so I know you are not actually relying on heuristics)?
Also: who is "we"?
> If you disagree with this proposed definition, you can try to show how the analysis is wrong.
Who holds the burden of proof for claims is another notion people struggle with.
> But, either way, linking to anything isn't necessary.
It may be if you care whether people believe your stories.
> Yes, pace pedantic
Wow, someone appealing to "pedantry" when encountering an epistemic challenge, now there's something you don't see almost every single time.
> the earth is in fact round.
A problem: it is not actually round. You are using the colloquial meaning of the words.
> But the actual truth of this example isn't even necessary to establish here—it's just an example of how truth functions.
Says the human who can't even be bothered to care if he even has a proper understanding of the word, let alone no way of knowing how it is evaluated by millions of minds.
So many of the things discussed here have been of concern to me for a while now.
When the Civil War 2.0 comes (and it will whether Trump loses of wins) I believe it will look more like Northern Ireland in the 1960s and 70s. Outbursts of violence, bombings, assassinations, street brawls, etc. It won't be like Syria, or Yemen.
Here in Florida--- which has become laboratory of fascist adjacent policies--- most of our county sheriffs are Trump supporters and many of them have their eyes on political careers beyond the county level. They in turn endorse candidates for school board from "Moms for Liberty" and Trump adjacent congressional candidates.
The Governor has reinstituted a "State Guard" under his complete control in addition to the federally controlled national guard. This force, recruited from who knows where and with what qualifications, was marketed to be feet on the ground for emergencies like hurricanes. Now they are being deployed to the Texas border. So it is clear that these "guardsmen" under the personal control of the Governor can be used to enforce laws and maintain order at the governor's discretion. A personal police force. Or paramilitary unit?
The "Stand Your Ground Laws" can be used as a cover for murder and so long as there were no witnesses your MAGA adjacent police forces and MAGA adjacent DAs (see dog park murder in Tampa) will let you walk away. Even though you have been threatening to kill the victim for over a year.
Public service unions are shorn of their ability to work on behalf of their members while law enforcement and fire fighter unions are cynically exempt for obvious reasons.
There was a legislative attempt, at the behest of the Governor, to allow local law enforcement to utilize armed citizens (paramilitary members) to assist in keeping the peace. However, local law enforcement would not be responsible for anything these volunteers did and essentially would be able to use their own judgment when deploying armed violence. This was admittedly suggested during the "Summer of Floyd" when violent uprisings were happening in Portland and Minneapolis and none of which happened in Florida.
They did however pass a law that allowed drivers to run over protesters "if they felt threatened." This seems to be the caveat of choice for everything from road rage street killings to police killings, where the subjective "feeling" as opposed to the objective fact of "being" threatened is sufficient justification.
So what we see in Florida is the organizing of a militarized asymmetrically empowered by the state government. Not unlike the "bully squads" in Mussolini's Italy in the 1920s.
And as a conservative most galling is the usurpation of the power of local decision makers by state government. Local school boards can no longer act in response to an outbreak of measles without the State signing off first. A city cannot decide what kind of flags they want to fly on, or around, municipal buildings. Local governments cannot pass nondiscrimination protections. Local governments cannot require contractors to meet wage standards beyond the minimum wage. Confederate statues cannot be removed by local authorities even if most of the residents where the statue stands find it offensive. The list goes on.
And finally I am tired of people minimizing the significance of January 6 by decontextualizing the episode from the overall project to undermine/overturn the election of 2020. It wasn't much in and of itself only a small, but violent, and well organized attack. I believe it was probably the first time a confederate flag was ever raised inside the Capitol building as a sign of victory. The riot that day, the sacking of Pelosi's office, the vandalism of the Senate Chamber, the spreading of feces on the wall, the assault on capitol police, the "martyrdom" of Ashli Babbit were just outward and visible signs of the inward corruption that was being perpetrated from the White House itself against the American people.
Thank you for demonstrating that both sides in this trumped-up civil war are running a vile protection racket -- driven not by any vision of comity or hope (except, perhaps, the hope of clinging to power, buoyed by fear).
Meanwhile, as I've noted elsewhere, the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
This is a much better perspective to take on this "experts" run gong show we are trapped in.
Well that is what oligarchs, or their moral equivalent, in every society have done throughout history. I find it amusing when people suddenly come to realize that we have oligarchs in our midst.
No successful society has ever existed without an oligarchy and none can survive without one. Most of the programming on PBS couldn't exist without the support of oligarchs.
> and none can survive without one
This would make for a fun argument!
Well, at least we agree about PBS (or in my case, NPR) -- though I suspect that we each attach a somewhat different valence when recognizing that reality.
We're both reacting to (and our concerns are biased by) local conditions.
You really need to get out of Florida.
As for me, here in California, I'm contemplating Uruguay. ;-)
> when recognizing that reality
Simulated reality, technically.
> We're both reacting to (and our concerns are biased by) local conditions.
Perceptions of local conditions, technically.
You might obsess on "the deadly January 6 insurrection," but I watched the sacking of Oakland Chinatown from my own window during the Summer of Floyd (for many throughout the country, a local, in-your-face, tangible phenomenon). In contrast, January 6, as seen on TV, ultimately no more proved to be the end of American democracy than the Yippies' antics at the Stock Exchange were the death knell of capitalism.
I've been destitute and homeless, but I've never felt prompted to mug a grandma (nor to live in an encampment), so don't lecture me on "root causes." The streets are strewn with garbage, broken glass and potholes, but we're told that the true enemy is "traffic violence" (i.e., people in cars)...
And when an intruder dies trying to scale a fence, are you trying to tell me that the true enemy is the fence?
Enough! People are fed up -- and the "woke" element is dead wrong in attributing the underlying values to "white supremacy." These values are as strong among Latinos as among earlier immigrants (certainly including my neighbors in Chinatown). In other words, the entire "people of color" trope -- and the grievance industry built around it -- is grossly off-base.
So don't go to the barrio touting the pseudo-word "Latinx." And don't come around calling me "queer."
I’ve fought all my adult life to advance a recognition that there's nothing “Queer" about same-sex attraction. I’m attracted to guys; I’ve never hidden that fact, and (as my parents raised me) I’m proud (as an individual) simply to be myself. I never signed up to "smash cisheteropatriarchy" in the name of some Brave New World.
"...and when they come for me"? Given my experience with the left -- and the left's contempt for the so-called "petty"-bourgeoisie, striving for a middle-class life with a house and a car -- I understand why they first came for the communists, and how the petty-bougeeoisie get driven into the arms of fascists.
Meanwhile, as we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
As for “solidarity” — and tribalism? Every person exists at a unique intersection of identities. Respect the individual, AS an individual -- and to heck with the would-be arbiters of the Oppression Olympics.
Wake up and smell the coffee -- or (sick of hearing endlessly about slavery-and-genocide that most of our ancestors didn't commit) America will come for you!
PS:
<< The incessant countervaiing message has been brought to you by a slew of self-righteous, self-serving, foundation-funded NGO bureaucrats, by a host of would-be "experts" preaching "behavioral health," and by viewers like you. I'm switching to the country station, or to jazz -- as I lament to my cat, "Lucy, I don't think we're in Woodstock anymore!" >>
I have taken great comfort and gained peace of mind by abandoning most of social media which is where one is likely to most often encounter the social justice jihadists... as well as the Neanderthal reactionaries claiming to be "conservative."
Most of the things that disturb you are tempests in the twitter pot. And as David Chappell once said about being "dragged" on Twitter.: "I don't give a fuck because Twitter is not a real place."
> And as David Chappell once said about being "dragged" on Twitter.: "I don't give a fuck because Twitter is not a real place."
Belief drives causality far more than truth. Even Karl Popper (at least almost) realized that!
FWIW, I'm not on Twitter; I don't even have an account. And no, I never listen to Fox (or for that matter, Joe Rogan); as I've suggested (by my PS), I get all my anger (and disgust) by listening to NPR -- or in Oakland, to my local politicians (confronted every day at my doorstep with the detritus of their evasions and lies).
I was just using Twitter as an example. I quit the day after the invasion of Ukraine when it suddenly became a gangbang for anyone who wanted to wait and find out what was happening on the ground from sources more reliable. In 24 hours we went from Russians invading Ukraine to Russians bayonetting babies and even questioning the truth of these reports made one an apologist for Putin.
I have pretty much zeroed out NPR though I do occasionally watch PBS News Hour. I subscribe to my local paper to keep abreast on GOP shenanigans in Tallahassee and happenings in my local area. I have a subscription to the Washington Post and New York Times avoiding the opinion sections entirely and only as secondary reading for something that I find interesting.
Facebook is for family and actual friends only. The rest of the social media platforms are not part of my world.
As a "one nation conservative," what's your take on Michael Lind?
God, I haven't thought about him or read anything by him in years. I remember some articles about 30 years ago but I haven't read his books.
One of the foundational understandings of "One Nation Conservatism" is that huge economic inequalities weaken society and make them more prone to radical populist (revolutionary) movements. A degree of economic nationalism is necessary which is probably in Lind's bailiwick.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?468152-1/the-class-war
Based on the above, we might not be that far apart -- but this seems to contradict your assertion (elsewhere) that "No successful society has ever existed without an oligarchy and none can survive without one."
As per your linked video, Schumpeter has much to say about the decline of entrepreneurial capitalism with the development of a professional managerial caste.
Meanwhile, are you familiar with Joel Kotkin? (He paints as unnerving [and IMO, as accurate] a picture of California as you do of Florida.) As I've noted above, we're both reacting to (and our concerns are biased by) local conditions.
"I will just say as someone who's been politically active most of my life, for anyone listening to this program, if you value what we have and what we want to preserve, it is absolutely imperative that you get out and do everything possible on your own behalf to make sure that Donald Trump never reaches the White House."
Just wanted to draw attention to Molly Ball's February 4, 2021 Time Magazine article: "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election." Is that a template that could work again in 2024?
Questionably democratic approaches to "democracy" like this is what our culture is all about!
> Aaron Ross Powell: Yeah, I think that's the big thing that we, more of us have to grapple with is how much more widespread than we thought a genuine dislike for freedom and democracy is among Americans. And not just the kind of people who show up for Trump rallies, but also, I mean, the Heritage Foundation, which is the, you know, next to AEI, the big conservative think tank for decades that set policy for the American conservative movement has their new Project 2025, which is an incredibly systematic, thought out, serious plan to install an autocrat the next time there's a Republican holding the White House. It is a plan for overthrowing American democracy. And that's terrifying that like the commanding heights of the conservative movement are—not all of them; there are your Never Trumpers—but so much of it is all-in on not just Trump himself, but the basic project of destroying American liberty.
I'd argue that first, everyone should grapple with whether they know the technical meanings of the psychologically powerful words they so casually throw around or make reference to, like truth.
Can you say more about this? Who in society do you see fundamentally misunderstanding the word "truth"?
I do not believe I have yet to meet a single human being who has a flawless understanding of truth, which extends to an ability to utilize the word *without flaw* at the object level. I would very much enjoy meeting such a human, but I only meet ones who declare themselves to meet the challenge, and none of them are ever able to even try to present substantiating proof.
A big part of the problem is that people consider *cultural norms* regarding truth (ie: (perceptions of) an absence of evidence is proof of absence) to be correct - this is bad logic, but it has been normalized as true, thus appears to the observer as true.
Truth is when there is a fit between representation and reality. So, "the Earth is round" is true because the Earth is round—the representation (an English sentence) semantically captures the reality (the shape of the Earth). Did you mean something like this or something else?
> Truth is when there is a fit between representation and reality.
Can you link to the origin of this definition for "truth" please?
> So, "the Earth is round" is true because the Earth is round
It's a popular belief, but not technically true:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/
> Did you mean something like this or something else?
What is happening here is exactly the phenomenon I am referring to: cultural norms.
I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with the content we've just published, which is Aaron's chat with Patrick on the possibility of a Civil War 2.0.
Some final thoughts:
Why would I need to "link" to a definition? I'm doing conceptual analysis here: an analysis of how we use the word, an analysis of what the concept is. This is how we use and understand the word "truth" in society. If you disagree with this proposed definition, you can try to show how the analysis is wrong. But, either way, linking to anything isn't necessary.
Yes, pace pedantic 'well, akshually' discourse gnats like the author of that article, the earth is in fact round. No one said it's perfectly round. But it's round. But the actual truth of this example isn't even necessary to establish here—it's just an example of how truth functions. Pick a different example if you like. If there is a fit between representation ("trees exist") and reality (trees exist), that's a truth.
> I'm going to bow out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with the content we've just published, which is Aaron's chat with Patrick on the possibility of a Civil War 2.0.
The degree to which online opiners are sticking to facts (regardless of their intentions or perceptions) has more than zero to do with the likelihood of a civil war if you ask me.
> Why would I need to "link" to a definition?
Humans hallucinate, *regularly*. In my experience, their ability and willingness to substantiate their various claims (the meanings of words being one of them) is a quick and easy way to check if one happens to be in such a state.
> I'm doing conceptual analysis here: an analysis of how we use the word, an analysis of what the concept is. This is how we use and understand the word "truth" in society.
Can you note 3 or 4 variables that you have in your analytic model (so I know you are not actually relying on heuristics)?
Also: who is "we"?
> If you disagree with this proposed definition, you can try to show how the analysis is wrong.
Who holds the burden of proof for claims is another notion people struggle with.
> But, either way, linking to anything isn't necessary.
It may be if you care whether people believe your stories.
> Yes, pace pedantic
Wow, someone appealing to "pedantry" when encountering an epistemic challenge, now there's something you don't see almost every single time.
> the earth is in fact round.
A problem: it is not actually round. You are using the colloquial meaning of the words.
> But the actual truth of this example isn't even necessary to establish here—it's just an example of how truth functions.
Says the human who can't even be bothered to care if he even has a proper understanding of the word, let alone no way of knowing how it is evaluated by millions of minds.