these are great results because my hot take is that the correct answer is option 2. you at least have the option of trying to shape your own team's discourse to be less bullshit; requiring outgroup claims to all be false forces you into a reactive stance you aren't in control of
-
-
Show this thread
-
this means you can be trivially made to demand that your team treat clearly true statements as false or at least unsayable, which is the position that progressivism increasingly finds itself in, especially since the alt-right picked up provoking it as a fun pastime
Show this thread -
and of course anybody who answered option 4 is either a contrarian shitposter or an admirably unabashed cordyceps host, so it's nice to have numbers on those in my followers even if disambiguating them is problematic
Show this thread -
fwiw, a lot of people seem to be processing this whole set of ideas as if Our Team and Their Team were generally or even often making directly inverse truth claims about the same topics — Our Team is asserting A and Their Team is asserting !A — which is catastrophically wrong
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Phone in for ‘reflexive pseudo-impartiality’
-
ah yes, the ever and increasingly popular "since truly disinterested objectivity is impossible, understanding the universe through demanding that whatever propositions support one's ideology be true is just as good as making an honest attempt to not start with one's conclusions"
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
oh wait I voted for the one I thought was most rad not the most bad, I’ve tainted the sample
-
welp, guess this iteration of the universe is a wash then, time to shut it down and start over
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
they're the same thing
-
see downthread for how i don't think so at all
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.