"The Pentagon has released a modernization plan for Stars and Stripes that affirms the publication’s independence while expanding Defense Department oversight, introducing new restrictions on content"
Seems like this sentence contains contradictory statements.
I think the sentence just contains very laid back observations of hypocrisy.
"affirms the publication's independence" = Says it's independent.
"expanding Defense Department oversight, introducing new restrictions" = makes it non-independent.
Conclusion: The sentence indicates the policy is hypocritical and built on lies. The sentence is not contradictory, the policy is.
Well put, totally agree! The key word here is “affirms”.
Here, watch; I hereby affirm that I am god incarnate, that I have no flaws, and that every unit test I’ve ever written has passed on the first try. It cannot be denied that I affirmed that!
> Seems like this sentence contains contradictory statements.
"War is peace."
"Freedom is slavery."
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true.
I am not understanding why we are freely supposing both are true?
It's demonstrating the implications (principle of explosion) of a contradiction being allowed in a system of formal logic. You can change "suppose both are true" to "suppose the rules of a logical system permit stating both are true".
Ah, that last line made it make sense, thank you!
> You can change "suppose both are true" to "suppose the rules of a logical system permit stating both are true".
It's calling out a potential flaw in the system and whether we want to do anything about it.
Trump kind of follows it - he declared his war against Iran over about 10 tims already.
The book 1984 was written in 1948 (easy to remember). Kind of interesting to see that it also fits to the lame strategies pursued by Trump. The "flood the zone with shit" is an older copy/paste strategy of the KGB (as explained in the 1980s by Yuri, though he did not compare it to the flood-the-zone part, but it is virtually identical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk; though perhaps even that strategy is older, the chinese have numerous stratagems that are ancient).
Once, when asked about arming teachers in school, Trump gave a brief answer that went, we should, but we shouldn’t, but we should, but we shouldn’t. Four contradictory answers to a binary question in one sentence.
The guy doesn’t even lie. He’s a reality TV actor working without a script. He says whatever he thinks will get ratings, and if he’s not sure then he’ll try different things and see what sticks.
It will never cease to baffle me that so many people saw this behavior and said, that’s leadership material.
Trump's whole thing is saying things that sound both absolutely horrible and at least kinda sorta defensible, depending on who is hearing it.
A thought that recently came to mind about this was an article about a local homeless camp that was literally trashing the area in which it was set up. Those people have effectively been discarded by society -- so why should they care about the mess they make, after all, nobody cares about them?
So for the average voter who feels disenfranchised and abandoned by society, why should they care about what Trump says when he's famous, rich, and entertaining to watch?
That's the only way I can make any sense of the matter -- it still messes with my head.
I hope the flagged comment trying to compare certain tropes of liberal thought to the assault on America, democracy, freedom and the legal system someday learns their comparison is foolish, and stops trying to be contrarian for the sake of feigning intellect.
I assume it means changing governance policies while letting them continue to make their own decisions within that framework.
Precisely. It’s the same methodology used to suppress speech and thought through social media where the terms of service and social media guidelines are used to create a micromanaged framework of approved speech and thought that just happens to align with what one particulate group or another controls.
The next layer of this control harness is to neutralize the Constitution in America that protects inalienable rights, is the “freedoms of speech (within paternalistic approved boundaries), but not freedom of reach” mentality of, “sure, say all you want, but you won’t even be allowed or able to see that we put you in a digital speech dungeon.”
We are essentially allowing and creating an analog to the very sadistic and evil conditions imposed by the ruling aristocratic class of the past and the hidden hand that ruled your life as non-nobility. You get thrown in digital dungeons with no recourse or rights. You are beaten and abused for you thought and speech. You have no right or ability to defend yourself from the torments and abuses of the ruling psychopaths, etc.
That is why freedom of speech is so important, because the sick and depraved ruling class people cannot stand even the ability of people to talk about the abuses they perpetrate against them. It’s typical abusive patterns of truly awful people that are the enemies of all of the rest of humanity.
In which case I'd say you are inexplicably assuming good faith on the part of this government. Are you paying attention at all?
When it comes to “simplest and most likely explanation,” the bad faith assumption is now the leading choice with the current regime.
Your comment, of course, is a paragon of good faith.
"Everything Trump does, even a mundane editorial memo, is evil. Trust me bro".
This is pretty obviously one more step in an effort to make sure that all coverage of U.S. military actions is positive and under the control of the administration.
It's also part of a more recent push to make sure that Iran war coverage is positive. See the head of the FCC threatening to revoke broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage.
Although you're being sarcastic, that is actually is a pretty fair description, on current evidence.
Aloofness is not the intellectual asset that you think it is
The GP comment mentions policy. I think you’re downvoted for trying to grow the scope to include all of Trump’s poems, homilies, and philosophical musings.
This person's ridiculous comment is a fantastic example of bad faith. Whataboutism, putting words in my mouth, and a singularly irritating (willful?) ignorance of current events.
The person who posted this is perhaps not already aware of:
- The FCC chair Brandon Carr threatening broadcasters to cover the war correctly, or else lose their "license"
- Federal judges repeatedly calling out the admin for ignoring court orders, bypassing regulation, and arbitrarily prosecuting political enemies (Jerome Powell being only the latest failed attempt)
- Hegseth saying he can't wait for David Ellison to take over CNN so the coverage improves
If they were aware of these things, I would expect them to recognize a LITTLE significance in the removal of a commitment to 1A principles from a publication owned by the government.
They’re aware but it won’t matter. For all their accusations of TDS everyone on this forum can clearly see how deranged they are.
It’s a cult and you’re seeing the adherents act like cultists here.
Indeed. I was trying set an example of what good faith looks like, but not for their benefit.
It doesn’t.
Debasing language is the way of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
“Disembowling” was correct. You had it right before. (:
I prefer to use least violent imagery necessary to communicate the point.
"You're absolutely completely free to write exactly what we tell you to"