https://twitter.com/Biz_Shrink/status/1740790026802462918
Added: the apology is about her claim that Trump visited the Epstein pedo island once, in 1997.
But when I see this tweet she retweeted its possible she is a Zionist asset.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (149)
sorted by:
I'm trained as a scientist and have had a career as an engineer, occupations that rely on close attention to reality. And I have been successful at it.
As for what people say, I take them at their word (and by their actions) unless there is cause not to. Like a court of law. I'm not interested in suspecting everyone of being liars or delusional psychotics (though there are plenty out there). As for this person, you offer lots of words but no "full picture" of anything, so your method is mostly assertion. What "information" is there to be had? You don't have a clue.
Reality can be simple or it can be complex, or anywhere in-between. So it is already a false conception to decide that reality is always complex. The only way we can understand it is to find a way to reduce the complexity, which is what I have done as a system theoretician for nearly 40 years.
As for objective reality, someone's motivations are anything but objective, so don't kid yourself that you are not seeking the butterfly in the blot. The essence of that experiment is that it evokes what you are already thinking about. What if there are no motivations? Does someone need to be "motivated" to simply relate the facts of a matter?
You haven't shown by any means that what she said was untruthful, so what are you working on? Your experience seems to be based on trying to look deeper than something really is, developing theories that are poorly grounded, and being disappointed when you find you are wrong. You might consider that your method is mostly a waste of time.
Why are you so upset when being presented with simple factual pieces of information? If you want to know how these pieces fit into the puzzle in my mind, I am happy to explain, but how I fit the puzzles into my frame is completely independent of my action of presenting the pieces to others. I might make a separate post outlining my own frame as more pieces of the puzzle fall in place.
But the real question is, are you ignoring these pieces so that the picture in your mind is not disturbed? If you are doing this, no judgement here - but its better to be mindful of that fact.
It is quite possible that rather than me seeking a butterfly in the blot, you already have a butterfly in your mind that you seek not to disturb.
In all this, you have never enunciated any meaning from her statements than is on their face. There is no blot. There is no meaning. You haven't shown otherwise. And I doubt there is a puzzle. I go outside my door to see the world, with its trees and clouds and light and moisture, and there is a lot of meaning for the discerning and insightful viewer, and it is no blot. There is clutter and there is meaning, and you have chosen to confuse the two. Life is too short to unscramble blots. Better to recognize them for what they are and move on.
What do you mean by "meaning from her statement" ?
That's what I am trying to ask you. You contend that some sort of meaning can be extracted from Jan Halper's apology and correction---beyond the obvious apology and correction. I'm all ears. Please elucidate.