3:11-“…perhaps for our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth and seeking to convince others of the truth might not be the right place to start. In fact, our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that's getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.”
3:54-“ I think if I were to really ask you to think about this, one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths. And so in the spirit of that, I'm certain that the truth exists for you and probably for the person sitting next to you. But this may not be the same truth. This is because the truth of the matter is very often, for many people, what happens when we merge facts about the world with our beliefs about the world. So we all have different truths. They're based on things like where we come from, how we were raised and how other people perceive us.”
6:10-“I think about our lack of urgent action on climate change. We've known for a very long time now about the negative impacts of man-made carbon in the atmosphere. But ... [the] implications of that data challenge our identities, our industries, our communities in ways that have led and created resistance and even disinformation, and the resulting public debates about the truth of climate change have prevented us from taking specific and concrete actions that could mitigate the harms to us around rising seas, increasingly deadly waves of heat and cold and powerful storm systems/“
7:30-“ So how do we (change minds)? We shift from focusing on one key truth to instead finding minimum viable truth. Minimum viable truth means getting it right enough enough of the time to be useful enough to enough people. It means setting aside our bigger belief systems and not being quite so fussy about perfection. And this idea of minimum viable truth is actually a tremendously forgiving idea, which is one of the things I love about it the most. It recognizes our messy humanity. It acknowledges space for uncertainty, for bias and for disagreement on our way to the search for the answers.
Not mine.
And if you list Wikipedia as a source on your papers you get a zero in almost any school.
So I am not sure where they got this idea from.
Maybe they looked it up on Wikipedia.
Who are these "people" of whom you speak?
Is this Kamala Harris’s speech writer?
What a load of manure.
“...one of the things that we could all acknowledge is that part of the reason we have such glorious chronicles to the human experience and all forms of culture is because we acknowledge there are many different truths.”
This encapsulates the core tenet of leftist progressivism, though I suspect Orwell could have expressed it with greater eloquence.
True believers of wrong info are dangerous.
My truth is that NPR is about to go off the taxpayer teat after decades of conservatives wishing for it to happen. Start treading water Ms. Maher.
The storiees about the ‘guerilla skeptics’ have completely eroded my confidence in Wikipedia:
It’s fundraising.
I’ve seen the video. Only a female would believe such a thing, much less say it outload.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.
She’s a kind of ivy league con artist, really. It’s also obvious they don’t really expect you to believe their party line nonsense, but it’s a kind of Loyalty Test. Virtue signaling, “I believe these things that are good because they say they are good. It you believe something different that makes you a bad person”.
I occasionally use Wikipedia (on the order of once a month). It’s usually for technical or historical information (i.e. Kalman filters, geologic eras, astronomy, etc.). I don’t even consider it for controversial or political topics. Like anything from the media, their major bias is not in what they say, it’s in what they omit.
She’s confusing truth and facts with opinions and narratives which are two different things but the left will always champion “the narrative”.