The point I'm trying to make is something like this: Of course articles with political diversity of editors are more likely to be featured. In order for an article to be featured, it has to be approved by a consensus. This process makes the article more tolerable to the average.
-
-
This of course, doesn't represent the "quality" of an article, which I would argue is determined by its truth value. It is entirely possible that this consensus process actually LOWERS the truth value of an article. If the truth is offensive to the other side, it is contested.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Nihlogos @jordanbpeterson
By some objective standard of truth you happen to have access to, no doubt.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atom_smashr @jordanbpeterson
I'm not making any claims about what is and is not true. I'm presuming that there is a truth, and that in some cases (maybe in many cases) it is contrary to the ideology of the left and the right. I'm assuming truths that contradict the ideology are likely to be suppressed...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Nihlogos @jordanbpeterson
Your presumption is that there is a truth. Demonstrate it, and we can then save ourselves the trouble of testing and debating. You'll be humanity's greatest champion, forever remembered.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Nihlogos @jordanbpeterson
Damn. Guess we'll have to continue to argue about stuff
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atom_smashr @jordanbpeterson
No, if there is no truth then there is no point in arguing about anything. There is no way to evaluate an argument without truth. So we ASSUME that some axioms are true, and from those axioms derive truth. These axioms make up materialism, as 99% of the world subscribes to it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Nihlogos @jordanbpeterson
Why are you yelling at a scarecrow?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @atom_smashr @jordanbpeterson
"We can then save ourselves trouble of testing and debating" Here you are implying that because there is no truth, that testing and debating are necessary. That if truth exists and can be proven to exist that those are no longer necessary. I respond to that. What is the strawman?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Ran out of room, you do it again here: "Guess we'll have to continue to argue about stuff" Again, where is the strawman? I'm just responding to claims you made.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.