🇳🇱
Serious question. Did they find any evidence yet in all the trials and stuff going on that clearly shows #Trump intentionally want the capitol riot?
When it happened I saw little clear evidence it was intentional but at the same time based on his behavior and personality I totally would expect it was intentional and somewhere at some point there might have been a record of him saying he wanted it.... If there is any actual evidence I'd love to see it if anyone has any as I havent been following as closely as I should.
if you want something 100%, not that I know of. but many people like Bannon refused to testify.
@wjmaggos when you're uncertain about one claim that doesn't mean the opposite claim is definitely true, and this is a really important concept.
Right now we have broad swaths of the public marching forward with an assumption of guilt that is far from proven, and it's pretty important that we recognize that because otherwise we end up with the same old situation where two different people can't communicate because they can't agree on what is and isn't basic truth.
If there isn't evidence showing that Trump is guilty, as @freemo requested, that doesn't mean he or OJ are definitely innocent.
However, it does mean that the assumptions about guilt are really overblown and hysterical.
This is pretty important right now as serious legal matters are weighing heavily on the public.
figuring out how to think about what's true is harder than it's ever been thanks to the internet and social media, but we're still better off. we just have to up our game. as individuals and institutions. #LiberalValues
@wjmaggos The reason I don't think that's the case is because there's nothing particularly new about questionable sources of information and questionable ideas being floated around socially.
I don't think it's harder than ever because it's really not that different.
It's just that all too many have normalized faulty reasoning and acceptance of bias confirmation instead of legitimate examination and consideration of claims put before us.
For example, @freemo asked about solid evidence here, and that's something I see far too few people doing.
I don't think it's hard to figure out how to think about what's true.
It's just that so many people don't.
what's new are the odds you're gonna see some false claim, because there's more incentives to push them (ads or donations and tribal love) and easier to do so (natural virality and algorithms and it's easier to fake shit). I don't think people are less critical than they used to be but they have to deal with more and you're more likely to see what they're thinking cause they'll share it instead of needing to talk to them.
I kinda agree, there are more **intentional** false claims now, but before the internet there were just as many false claims its just now they are **unintentional**.
Back before the internet finding out if something was true or not was a monumentally difficult task as we just didnt have the group resources that we have today. Encyclopedias were bulky books with tons of errors compared to wikipedia today, which still has errors, but far fewer and the knowledge is far more expansive and advanced.
