Slate.com

I don't know if Slate was ever good, or if I've just grown tired of the epidemic of tribalism on both sides and have lost tolerance for their hack journalism. Today's web site has a very interesting case of how bad the site has become.

There are 2 articles arguing that we should or should not be fact-checking every apparently idiotic thing Trump says (I say "apparently," because time has shown a method to Trump's madness). The fact that the site is still being so easily manipulated by Trump 2 years after he burst onto the scene is, well, sad.

If Slate is trying to be a tribal partisan and fight Trump, they should not be wasting journalistic effort (both words apply very loosely to these two articles) on statements that are meant to be hyperbolic, and focus on what they think really matters (hint: it's not how many ballgowns are left in DC stores or whether the AP did the right thing fact-checking). These would be distractions to you and your cause. But, if they're a business cynically fishing for clicks and revenue, then, effort devoted to outrage-inducing click-bait will pay off.

Unreasonablenesss as a Superpower

In his book, "This Book Needs No Title: A Budget of Living Paradoxes," Raymond Smullyan gives an example that demonstrates the paradox of compromise:

Once upon a time two boys found a cake. One of them said: "Splendid! I will eat the cake:" The other one said: "No, that is not fair! We found the cake together, and we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me." The first boy said, "No, I should have the whole cake!" The second said, "No, we should share and share alike; half for you and half for me.' The first said, "No, I want the whole cake." The second said, "No, let us share it half and half." Along came an adult who said: "Gentlemen, you shouldn't fight about this; you should compromise. Give him three-quarters of the cake."

The second boy is being reasonable and suggesting a 50/50 split. By being unreasonable, the first boy will end up with more than half the cake if a "fair" compromise is sought.

This is an issue when you honestly assess the state of your beliefs. If you recognize that there are often many sides to an issue, that each side has valid arguments, and that the data backing up each side's beliefs (including your own) has significant shortcomings, you instantly start on the weak side of the argument, and end up on the losing side.

The socratic technique of accepting your ignorance and then probing the ignorance of your opponents only works if you have Plato re-writing your history and setting up philosophical straw men for you to defeat.