Share this comment
Absolutely right, Bob. We learn from the Asch Conformity experiment that people will subjugate their judgment to the will of the majority, but it only takes one other person corroborating your viewpoint to embolden you to resist the gaslighting:
• “Are You a Good German or a Badass German?” (margaretannaalice.subst…)
Absolutely right, Bob. We learn from the Asch Conformity experiment that people will subjugate their judgment to the will of the majority, but it only takes one other person corroborating your viewpoint to embolden you to resist the gaslighting:
• “Are You a Good German or a Badass German?” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/are-you-a-good-german-or-a-badass)
I hate the phrase ‘speaking their truth’. There is only one ‘truth’… all else are opinions and perspectives. That does not necessarily make them wrong. I also think that those of us who were taught to question authority and to think for ourselves can also be deceived by those who pander to this tendency of distrust. Psychological warfare plays both ends of the field, creating a situation whereby you trust no one and are confused.
Discerning what we believe to be Truth when we have no direct physical evidence is a difficult task, but possible based on the logical consistency of other witnesses and whatever incentives they have to lie or tell the truth. The inability to actually see Truth is not evidence it does not exist, and the fact that something may be difficult does not relieve us of the responsibility to make the effort and even acknowledge error when presented with additional evidence.
I wasn’t referring to not having any object or direct physical evidence. In those situations we can say, 'I believe (or think) this is what may be going on.’ It has more to do with those trying to force you to believe or speak lies. "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
There can be more than one truth. Toxic DDT is a good example. DDT was banned in the US before Africa had a chance to use it on scale. As a result Famine and insect borne disease in Africa continued to be rampant and many deaths were attributed to famine and disease that DDT would have alleviated. Which was the right course, death by starvation/disease or death by chemical poisoning? I am not pro DDT,
I am using this is an example of a conundrum of what is the truth.
My understanding is that the "dangers" of ddt were greatly exaggerated fed by outright lies. And yes those lies are responsible. for deaths numbering in the millions
There is only one absolute truth: DDT kills insects and is more or less (according to Dr Nash) toxic to other animals such as humans. The level of toxicity is in dispute, but reality is that it is either more or less toxic, not both.
I was not disagreeing with you. I was expanding on what you wrote.
In "A Civil Action" by Jonathan Hard, the lawyer for the complainants, the members of the local community poisoned by the W.D. Grace Company, Jan Schlichtman tells Grace's lawyer Jerome Facher he's trying to get to the truth. Facher replies, "The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit". His meaning here is obvious, and Schlichtmann has no come-back for it, but even, so truth can be difficult to ascertain with great certainty as our perceptive skills are always a bit defective in ways we can't be aware of. It is far easier to spot untruth than to identify truth, and we certainly have had more of our shares of manifest untruths in the past several years.
While I agree in the sense of an absolute, many points of contention arise when the matter at hand is not an absolute.
For example during the pandemic
From where I sat, the severity of the disease and its dangers had not yet been settled.
The merits and dangers of the 'vaccine' were not yet clear
The need to resolve at that moment was not justified.
The Truth was yet in question. Investigating and evaluating - thinking for ourselves - was well justified.
When I was fired, fled from and screamed at I simply carried on (on the theory we each had a right to our view of matters). In the end, though not acknowledged I'm confident we all transitioned to more tolerant conclusions.
🎯