One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
Stick to Aristotle's 'To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true' and you can't go far wrong.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Remember how you were telling us for months that the most important things in the country were the schools and children's educations? They all unlocked two days ago. Do schools suddenly no longer matter?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
Here's another thought experiment.
What would have happened had Dido Harding been running the vaccines effort ?
Imagine the oncoming disaster. Honestly, Kate Bingham should be given the freedom of the land or whatever it is our highest honour is.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
So you didn't find my explanation of the term as being a (rightly) beefed up version of "my take" for personal testimony on certain things in certain circumstances to be a skilllful and persuasive offering then?
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
Here's another thought experiment.
What would have happened had Dido Harding been running the vaccines effort ?
Imagine the oncoming disaster. Honestly, Kate Bingham should be given the freedom of the land or whatever it is our highest honour is.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Remember how you were telling us for months that the most important things in the country were the schools and children's educations? They all unlocked two days ago. Do schools suddenly no longer matter?
WOW you want me to acknowledge your decision to allow children what I always maintained was their human right under any circumstances anyway? And do it in such a way so as to continue the disruption and mental torment for weeks more?
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
£38 billion wasted? Hmm. If the sole metric of success is 'preventing another lockdown' then, yes. But I think testing millions of people a week must be providing at least some other benefit beyond that quite narrow view.
What benefits?
We had: Probably the world's most comprehensive testing system resulting in us having more accurate information about the spread of the virus than anyone else. A database which allowed us to do the genomic sequencing and the ability to check the spread of variants in all but real time. A large number of people traced and self isolating inhibiting the further spread of the virus. We now have the capacity to do mass testing facilitating the reopening of schools as a first step.
Could some things have been done better? Undoubtedly. Was it good value for money? Very hard to say. But if it is facilitating us coming out of lockdown a few weeks earlier (given the quality of information we have) then yes, it probably was.
Well said.
Its like the penny pinching about vaccines that Europe did. Could things have been done better here? Yes, of course. But compared to the cost of the pandemic, if T&T and the vaccine ends the pandemic a quarter earlier than would have otherwise been done then they'll more than repay their cost.
This cannot possibly be true. We're in lockdown and will remain so until the vaccination program is nearing completion. How on earth do you calculate a three month reduction in end date from that as a result of T&T?
Edit: the only serious defence of T&T for me, is that it's effectively just a way of massaging the unemployment figures downwards. And that most of the cost would have otherwise gone on benefit payments of one kind or another anyway.
There's "lockdown" and there's "restrictions". On most matrices, all being well, "lockdown" will end on 12 April. All remaining well "restrictions" will end on 21 June. Optimistically all adults will have been offerd a vaccine by the end of May. which is several weeks after 12 April.
Either way, all those developments are being driven by the vaccine programme, and not at all because T&T is suddenly helping.
I am perfectly willing to accept there are some benefits to having advance warning as to when and where hospital admissions are going to start rising, or picking up new variants of the virus, but I can see zero evidence that T&T is contributing to the restrictions being lifted a single day ahead of when they otherwise would be.
T&T isn't "suddenly helping" it has always been helping. The vaccine programme is building upon T&T not instead of it.
Vaccinations are reducing R by about 0.03 per week. T&T (from memory) is reducing R by 0.3...
Also from memory, the "0.3" is what was claimed by those running test and trace. I don't have time to respond at length, or to search for links, but I remember those figures being deeply suspect, and an alternate figure of 0.05 being put forward.
Given the delay between becoming infectious and displaying symptoms, and the further delay involved in getting a test and being reported positive - followed by only about a fifth to a quarter of those testing positive actually isolating - the lower figure might be more credible.
Yes the 0.05 number makes a lot more sense, it's probably actually close to zero given how low isolation adherence actually is - only 2/10 isolate after a positive test.
We could test the whole population everyday and it would still be worthless because 80% of people with positive tests would still go out and infect everyone.
I know you're annoyed about the lack of isolation enforcement but do you agree with the principle that if the pandemic ends weeks or months sooner thanks to T&T then that dwarfs any costs of the programme?
I know that's a big if and you may dispute the if, but if that is true do you agree that i tis worthwhile?
I mean anyhings possible but it's unlikely in the extreme as we know from successful systems that the value in R reduction from "test and isolate" comes from the "isolate" bit of it. We don't have a functional isolation system.
I think people are more responsible than you give them credit for. Telling them to isolate makes a big difference by itself, even if its not perfect.
No it doesn't. People aren't responsible and in many circumstances don't have the ability to be responsible becuase they can't afford to take unpaid leave and the government's isolation help is pitiful.
Honestly, you are projecting your own attitude to isolation onto the wider population. Just because you don't think it's a good idea to go out and live normally after a positive test it doesn't mean the rest of the country doesn't think it is. 8/10 people fail to properly isolate *after* they get a positive result. That's why the testing system is worthless and until you understand that this conversation is completely pointless.
Again "properly" isolating isn't the same thing as "not isolating at all".
What proportion of people don't isolate at all after a positive result?
It doesn't matter if they go out once or many times. The onwards infection risk is above zero. As I've said, until you understand that the value in test and isolate is in the isolate part it's really not worth continuing this conversation. Here's a thought experiment for you, if we tested the whole country, all 67m people with a super 100% reliable instant test, do you think the pandemic would disappear?
Here's another thought experiment.
What would have happened had Dido Harding been running the vaccines effort ?
Just go the whole hog and wonder if Mr Blobby had been running it, why don't you?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
So you didn't find my explanation of the term as being a (rightly) beefed up version of "my take" for personal testimony on certain things in certain circumstances to be a skilllful and persuasive offering then?
My truth His take Their opinion
So this is all really just about an irregular verb usage?
I'd think context and explanation would beef up someone's take - eg I regard these actions as x because of my experience with y - not changing how it is termed. Rose by any other name, etc.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
There is no "could" about deadly consequences. Roughly 1% of people are infected per week when the pandemic is raging, and roughly 1% of those will die. So that's 100 deaths per week per million of population. If your processes or public statements delay vaccine uptake when it is most needed then people will die, and in significant numbers.
And those figures assume medical care is available and hasn't been overwhelmed.
If it is overwhelmed those death figures are going to be significantly higher.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
Is this likely to happen? The rates are still significantly lower, and they are at a much lower base.
Not sure - depends how many people jump into the pool of vaccines once we are all swimming in them. But atm the answer from Boris/the Cons to "you're shit at this virus" is "vaccines". That may not be a constant, in future.
I would say that - like most of the other policy areas - it is currently the Government's to lose. If they stick to their knitting on this, and keep to their promised dates, then they will be fine on the issue.
Whether the EU will switch from turbo-excuses will be interesting. They seem to feel a need to recover the self-image of enlightened superiority.
What we need is to be at 55-60% by the end of March.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
Wide open goal for a new right movement? Lozza?
These things take a long time to get off the ground.
Lozza will net some votes in May, though, I think, and will ensure Bailey's performance will be even poorer than it otherwise was going to be. Which was shockingly bad.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Remember how you were telling us for months that the most important things in the country were the schools and children's educations? They all unlocked two days ago. Do schools suddenly no longer matter?
WOW you want me to acknowledge your decision to allow children what I always maintained was their human right under any circumstances anyway? And do it in such a way so as to continue the disruption and mental torment for weeks more?
How about no. How about hell no.
That's fine, we can take all your complaints in the same light then.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
They're not. Contrarian is just paranoid and interprets every comment warning against complacency as a sign that the government is full of people who get a kick out of lockdowns.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley, imagine a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
I don't think the dates will change. The whole "data not dates" thing was to stop it being any quicker.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley imagine, a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
Implying that parliament has absolute control over the thoughts and opinions of the people. I don't think it does.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley, imagine a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
No wonder Thompson wants her silenced.
I think that the Tories most definitely are not on board with "woke" - you can rest easy at least in that regard.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley, imagine a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
No wonder Thompson wants her silenced.
I do indeed agree that the government should be using its majority to resist wokeism more effectively, and to some extent they are: the new laws on protecting freedom of speech in universities and on creating a 'presumption to retain' for historic monuments are a big step forward, but much more needs to be done.
If you've got ideas of your own on the topic, then let's hear them. It'll be more interesting than constantly crossing swords over the pandemic, anyway.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley imagine, a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
Implying that parliament has absolute control over the thoughts and opinions of the people. I don't think it does.
The government has the power to keep the people of Britain under house arrest for months, but wilts before the wokeist onslaught
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
Interesting, given he's not allowed to raise devolved policy areas in Westminster under EVEL, unless he can find a connecting link to Westminster policies and actions.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I can't see April 12th changing but I can see the subsequent dates being moved slightly earlier after all once a pub is opening the setting up has already begun.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
As longstanding readers will know, I'm no Boris fan, but that is by no means what he said. Whitty said that the experience of Europe showed the danger of opening up too soon. If you can point me to where the phrase "contingent" has been used I am happy to be corrected.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I can't see April 12th changing but I can see the subsequent dates being moved slightly earlier after all once a pub is opening the setting up has already begun.
Yes, if the rumours of the mega vaccine numbers are true for the rest of this month and April (6-6.5m in supply per week for the rest of March and all of April) then I could see the June date come forwards as we'll have smashed through the targets.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
Stick to Aristotle's 'To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true' and you can't go far wrong.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I can't see April 12th changing but I can see the subsequent dates being moved slightly earlier after all once a pub is opening the setting up has already begun.
Yes, if the rumours of the mega vaccine numbers are true for the rest of this month and April (6-6.5m in supply per week for the rest of March and all of April) then I could see the June date come forwards as we'll have smashed through the targets.
A 55 year old friend of ours was invited to book her vaccination on Tuesday.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley imagine, a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
Implying that parliament has absolute control over the thoughts and opinions of the people. I don't think it does.
The government has the power to keep the people of Britain under house arrest for months, but wilts before the wokeist onslaught
LOL
It's also repeatedly failed to stamp out headlice, despite them being tiny.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
As longstanding readers will know, I'm no Boris fan, but that is by no means what he said. Whitty said that the experience of Europe showed the danger of opening up too soon. If you can point me to where the phrase "contingent" has been used I am happy to be corrected.
YOu have a point but if its not a factor then why mention it.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I have planned (in my mind not booked yet) an 11am haircut and then a 12-hr lunch as soon as we're allowed inside hospitality venues.
Guernsey offered an "extra" 5,000 doses this week (equivalent to UK 5 million) "if we could use them" - and as its being divvied up on a "fair shares" basis, the UK could be in for a bit of a boost too.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is still not available to over-65s in Germany despite being approved last week, it has emerged.
The German health ministry has yet to update its vaccine regulations almost a week after the country’s independent vaccine panel reversed its former advice and ruled the jab was safe for over-65s.
"Although it is now clear AstraZeneca is safe and effective for over-65s, there is still no directive from the health ministry," Karl Lauterbach, a senior politician from the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), said.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
Wide open goal for a new right movement? Lozza?
Fox isn`t right wing. He describes himself as a "fierce liberal". Think "Spiked" - they identify as left of centre libertarians.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I can't see April 12th changing but I can see the subsequent dates being moved slightly earlier after all once a pub is opening the setting up has already begun.
Yes, if the rumours of the mega vaccine numbers are true for the rest of this month and April (6-6.5m in supply per week for the rest of March and all of April) then I could see the June date come forwards as we'll have smashed through the targets.
A 55 year old friend of ours was invited to book her vaccination on Tuesday.
My 44 year old cousin and his 42 year old wife have been invited and they're not in group 6, that's NW London (Harrow). That's Group 10 - 40 to 49 year olds - in an area which has got really good levels of uptake so I think despite some of the gloom from lower than hoped for numbers over the last couple of weeks we're still in good shape.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I have planned (in my mind not booked yet) an 11am haircut and then a 12-hr lunch as soon as we're allowed inside hospitality venues.
Unfortunately, after all this time you are going to require a 12-hr haircut. You might make last orders!
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I have planned (in my mind not booked yet) an 11am haircut and then a 12-hr lunch as soon as we're allowed inside hospitality venues.
I've booked my haircut in for 8am on the 12th! With you on the long lunch, we asked the company if they could make the 16th a half-day for the whole office, unsurprisingly they said no.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
Brilliant summary. I think we should just quote your paragraph in future discussions of the topic.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, in terms of what Meghan said we can never know whether it is true or not and can decide for ourselves what to believe. Whatever belief we settle on cannot in any way be described as truth. Describing it in this way is cousin to garbage-talk like "her truth" and "lived experience" which just means accepting something as true just because the sayer says so. All this rot is plugged straight into post-modernism which has a lot to answer for.
"Her or his truth" just seeks to give added weight to the testimony of a person about the impact on them of something. It doesn't to me carry the connotations you're taking from it. In particular it doesn't invalidate the take of others on the "something" and it doesn't grant exemption from scrutiny of the testimony.
That's why it seems to be such an unhelpful phrase. The inclusion of the word truth makes it seem like it is elevating it to a position of objective fact, and you then have to bend over backwards to explain that it doesn't mean that. So why use the word truth at all?
It's where I depart slightly from Stocky as I think Lived experience seems like a better phrase, as it emphasises why someone feels a particular way when the other person may not think they did something wrong, without carrying any implication that one side is 'truth'. It allows for the possibility that party A might be upset for legitimate reasons, but that their interpretation of party B might be wrong. Their 'truth', however, involves speculation on motivation of the other.
I just don't get it. It doesn't take someone malevolent to think truth means something objectively true, and there are alternatives which are not as confusing, so why use the more confusing option?
All it seems to acheive is an easy way for opponents to dismiss it in a way which will chime with plenty of people as it relates to a common sense definition of a common word - why make that dismissal easier?
What is the benefit of having people debate 'their' truth vs 'the' truth when we could just ask for opinion, and why they have those opinions?
The way it works I'd assume it was a term created by opponents to obfuscate things.
It's because the modern Left works by claiming the strongest and/or most emotive terms for their lexicon irrespective of whether logic and reason are on their side. So you get abominations like words being described as 'literal violence', and unsubstantiated allegations being called 'my truth'. The more gullible types believe them wholesale, which is an enormous political victory for the woke, whereas the more questioning get a convoluted explanation that these terms really aren't doing what they so obviously are.
The woke revolution is happening under a tory government with a massive majority. That fact only goes to show the tories must be on board. Or it wouldn't be happening.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley, imagine a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
No wonder Thompson wants her silenced.
I do indeed agree that the government should be using its majority to resist wokeism more effectively, and to some extent they are: the new laws on protecting freedom of speech in universities and on creating a 'presumption to retain' for historic monuments are a big step forward, but much more needs to be done.
If you've got ideas of your own on the topic, then let's hear them. It'll be more interesting than constantly crossing swords over the pandemic, anyway.
They're not into resisting it. They're into caricaturing it and harvesting it for votes.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Given how many Hampsteadians (or adjacent in my case) there are on PB I think we could probably get 6 together for a PB post-lockdown meet up if you, @kinabalu, @rcs1000 and @TOPPING are up for it?
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I have planned (in my mind not booked yet) an 11am haircut and then a 12-hr lunch as soon as we're allowed inside hospitality venues.
Unfortunately, after all this time you are going to require a 12-hr haircut. You might make last orders!
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Have you not been doing some enjoyable parkbench mixing?
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Have you not been doing some enjoyable parkbench mixing?
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I have planned (in my mind not booked yet) an 11am haircut and then a 12-hr lunch as soon as we're allowed inside hospitality venues.
I've booked my haircut in for 8am on the 12th! With you on the long lunch, we asked the company if they could make the 16th a half-day for the whole office, unsurprisingly they said no.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
Back to the clowns.
You are scared shitless of them, I am not. We walk past one in a shop window. You are terrified, I am not. Are clowns scary? What is the truth of your feelings? Is it your lived experience that you are scared while mine is that I am not?
It's only a clown after all - how much more objectively truthful can you get than that?
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
I guess there are two milestones. One is when the most vulnerable (very old, care home residents) are done- that will take a massive bite out of the death rates. The other is when herd immunity kicks in, and we can all stop worrying for a bit.
First one is probably done in UK, pretty close in many Euro nations. The second is a way off, but will happen surprisingly rapidly, because vaccine production is continuing to accelerate.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Have you not been doing some enjoyable parkbench mixing?
Yes, and it’s got very old.
For some reason this last stretch of lockdown is proving really difficult, for me. One of the worst periods of the whole wretched pandemic. After a long stretch of stability I am struck with gloominess and frustration and worse, sometimes even despair..
I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just sheer time spent in this fucking open prison. Perhaps it is something like the ‘wall’ you hit when running a marathon and you near the end. Perhaps it is the fact we ARE nearer an end, so near yet agonisingly far.
I am also terrified of the damage this has done, to economies, businesses, high streets, lives, to all of us. The scale of it will become apparent soon.
The tories are undoubtedly riding high now, but their reluctance to end lockdown either early or at all is going to cost them support in the next few months, and beyond too. Way beyond.
How much, and to who? I don't know, but they are surely giving others a golden opportunity they could have been denied.
Don`t quite know how you figure that when HM Opposition is more keen on lockdown than the government is.
Interesting, given he's not allowed to raise devolved policy areas in Westminster under EVEL, unless he can find a connecting link to Westminster policies and actions.
Is it just me or does he resemble my avatar wearing a toupee
I see that Piers Morgan says that he didn't believe Meghan Markle in her Oprah interview, that he has had time to reflect on that opinion, and that still doesn’t.
Decades ago, I didn't believe Piers Morgan's denial that he knew of his journalists' phone hacking, I have had plenty of time to reflect on that, and I still don't.
And his denial is far less plausible than any claim of Meghan Markle's.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
Yes, 'my truth' is an oxymoron used by people who don't understand that truth is meant to be objective, not personal. That's what makes it truth.
So you didn't find my explanation of the term as being a (rightly) beefed up version of "my take" for personal testimony on certain things in certain circumstances to be a skilllful and persuasive offering then?
I did find it extremely skillllllllful, just not persuasive
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
Just as people might forget the problems of lockdown, they might also forget, when the whole of Europe has been vaccinated in July/Aug, say, that for a while in Jan/Feb there was a kerfuffle.
That we were first when everyone is now crossing the finish post line abreast is not perhaps going to be so relevant.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Have you not been doing some enjoyable parkbench mixing?
Yes, and it’s got very old.
For some reason this last stretch of lockdown is proving really difficult, for me. One of the worst periods of the whole wretched pandemic. After a long stretch of stability I am struck with gloominess and frustration and worse, sometimes even despair..
I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just sheer time spent in this fucking open prison. Perhaps it is something like the ‘wall’ you hit when running a marathon and you near the end. Perhaps it is the fact we ARE nearer an end, so near yet agonisingly far.
I am also terrified of the damage this has done, to economies, businesses, high streets, lives, to all of us. The scale of it will become apparent soon.
Keep your pecker up.
What exciting foreign trips do you have planned, at least in theory?
I`m thinking Greece somewhere (mainland or island) if it`s feasible in the summer (I`d give it 50/50 chance). Any travel tips for me in that country?
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
The evolution of language has been used before but is a red herring. If the new term being pushed is less useful - which it is when it is so complex it took 4 or 5 paragraphs to explain - with no apparent benefit, it is a designed term not evolutionary.
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
I guess there are two milestones. One is when the most vulnerable (very old, care home residents) are done- that will take a massive bite out of the death rates. The other is when herd immunity kicks in, and we can all stop worrying for a bit.
First one is probably done in UK, pretty close in many Euro nations. The second is a way off, but will happen surprisingly rapidly, because vaccine production is continuing to accelerate.
The whoosh always wins.
I think that metric might reveal some large variations between nations due to anti-vax sentiment or poor logistics that will be hidden by looking at the overall numbers.
Progress is good, but so far there’s no sign at all of the promised ramping up. Each day the second doses will take up a bigger proportion of capacity, unless total capacity is boosted to avoid the first vaccination programme slowing dramatically.
Progress is good, but so far there’s no sign at all of the promised ramping up. Each day the second doses will take up a bigger proportion of capacity, unless total capacity is boosted to avoid the first vaccination programme slowing dramatically.
Steady for the past month or so now, when the promise was of a bumper March. Only a few weeks left.
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
Back to the clowns.
You are scared shitless of them, I am not. We walk past one in a shop window. You are terrified, I am not. Are clowns scary? What is the truth of your feelings? Is it your lived experience that you are scared while mine is that I am not?
It's only a clown after all - how much more objectively truthful can you get than that?
I don't get where you're going with this.
There aren't many people who would care enough about "clowns (not) being scary" to use the word "truth" either way. And no-one stands to gain a criminal record because they put a clown somewhere they shouldn't have and scared the wrong person.
Obviously Person A can feel as though they've been victimised/discriminated against by something that Person B is entirely indifferent to, even if Person B is the one doing the discriminating. But for laws to work, you need to have some form of objectivity. And even as far as normal societal discourse goes, it's necessary to have some construct we can all live in that provides guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable.
Progress is good, but so far there’s no sign at all of the promised ramping up. Each day the second doses will take up a bigger proportion of capacity, unless total capacity is boosted to avoid the first vaccination programme slowing dramatically.
From the health service letter referenced the other days, the "bumper March thing" starts the week beginning the 15th.
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths. That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
Back to the clowns.
You are scared shitless of them, I am not. We walk past one in a shop window. You are terrified, I am not. Are clowns scary? What is the truth of your feelings? Is it your lived experience that you are scared while mine is that I am not?
It's only a clown after all - how much more objectively truthful can you get than that?
But then you can just talk about 'my emotional reaction', or 'my feelings', or 'my perspective', not 'my truth', and you'll have communicated your meaning accurately without twisting language and logic unnecessarily.
I hope the vaccine wins because Boris used 'cases rising in Europe' as a reason for not opening Britain up sooner recently.
But hey he doesn't want lockdown to last a MINUTE longer blah blah blah....
You didn't read the whole thread. Do you really think that Boris will want to keep us in lockdown if our cases are better than France but they are opening up? Admittedly the below is optimistic but it does show the direction of travel.
I don;t know, but his recent comments suggested our easing pace is now contingent on how Europe performs. Which is new.
Do you have a source for this? I can't believe they'd be that dumb.
I doubt it. Hospitality businesses are massively gearing up for the "agreed" dates, like they are gospel. I think there would be absolutely hell to pay if they went backwards despite the numbers staying healthy in this country.
Indeed. We've managed to get three pub garden bookings for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Loads of us from work are taking half a day on Friday 16th and venturing out to The Garden Gate in Hampstead, I think we've got 4 tables of 6 booked!
I’ve got lunch booked in a Highgate pub garden for 12th April. I almost cried when I opened my online calendar, stared into the howling void of Nothing, and then wrote ‘lunch, pub’
Have you not been doing some enjoyable parkbench mixing?
Yes, and it’s got very old.
For some reason this last stretch of lockdown is proving really difficult, for me. One of the worst periods of the whole wretched pandemic. After a long stretch of stability I am struck with gloominess and frustration and worse, sometimes even despair..
I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just sheer time spent in this fucking open prison. Perhaps it is something like the ‘wall’ you hit when running a marathon and you near the end. Perhaps it is the fact we ARE nearer an end, so near yet agonisingly far.
I am also terrified of the damage this has done, to economies, businesses, high streets, lives, to all of us. The scale of it will become apparent soon.
Keep your pecker up.
What exciting foreign trips do you have planned, at least in theory?
I`m thinking Greece somewhere (mainland or island) if it`s feasible in the summer (I`d give it 50/50 chance). Any travel tips for me in that country?
I’m also aiming for Greece
One place I can absolutely recommend is the Pelion peninsula on the east coast. Fly into Thessaloniki, hire a car, drive 2 hours south - you’re in Eden. Sublime. It has the feeling of the best Greek islands, about 40 years ago. There are seaside fishing villages where the boats tie up right by the tavernas and the women hang the freshly caught octopus on washing lines.
Mountains, beaches, forests, Byzantine hamlets. Magnificent and largely unspoiled. Wonderful food. It’s where Boris Johnson’s dad famously has a house (in one of the nicest bits)
One is "My Truth", as use by Oprah. To me that means "My Opinion".
Another was on R4 earlier - the idea that a personal account of a personal experience is beyond question, and must be accepted as revealed truth. To me - that's just a no; of course it must be tested, especially when not self-consistent.
I'll have a bash. I like these sort of convoluted linguistic issues.
It means my take rather than my opinion. The substitution of "truth" for "take" is a suitable innovation for where it's a person talking about how something has affected them, how it's come across, made them feel, this sort of thing. Because here it requires and deserves added weight over and above "take". And certainly "opinion" is not right.
To illustrate: Woman describes how she feels belittled herself when male colleagues talk about female celebs in an objectified and contemptuous manner.
That is not "her opinion", it is "her take". But "her take" is not quite strong enough. It makes it sound as if her offering on the matter is just one of many to be considered equally. We need something to elevate it. Her Truth. It works.
Question begged. What about the men in my example? One of them now gives his side, says it's not that often, and we talk about lots of other things, she's being a snowflake etc. So is that His Truth?
Answer: No. It isn't. That (rightly) stays at the level of "his take". Why? Because His (or Her) Truth is restricted to those who are punching up. Or not punching, just explaining in this case, but you know what I mean.
So, with the Meghan interview, I'd say there was a hotchpotch of her opinions, her takes, and her truths.
That's my take on My Truth.
That seems unnecessarily convoluted. I cant really see how comprehension or empathy is advanced by such linguistic contortions.
Especially when the opinion of people commenting on such issues is intentionally steered by participants of whatever stripe to black and white perceptions of fact.
'Truth is restricted to those who are punching up' seems like another example of something that needs to be explained that it does not mean what it looks like it means, and that never helps. And who decides what is up or down?
Some things are complicated. We don't need to make them more complicated than needed.
I'm explaining where imo "my truth" works and adds value - and the reason for that.
As a beefed up "my take" for a person relating the impact on them of societal prejudice.
So what are you saying is unnecessary - the term itself or my explanation of it?
Truth means just that. To water it down on behalf of those identified subjectively as victims is a very dangerous distortion.
There is often no objective "truth" in areas of human interaction. Racism, in particular, in many many cases cannot be reduced to it was, slam dunk, or it wasn't, slam dunk.
Then you shouldn't use the word "truth" to describe it.
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
The Trumpian concept of "alternative facts" is not a valid comparison. Facts are more straightforward than truth. If you knowingly state a falsehood you are lying. But there is more to truth than facts. If someone describes to you the impact that (say) racism has had on their life, there are 2 things going on. There's the assertion they have been subject to racism. And then there's their description of its effect on them, how it's made them feel. The first of these validly allows skepticism and critical scrutiny. The second does not. "My Truth" reflects that second aspect. It's a better and more precise term than a mere "my take". It gives the weight that is both necessary and deserved. People are imo getting hung up on it without thinking it through properly. Language evolves for a reason.
My head is spinning just trying to work through all that, and I can't help but wonder if that is in fact the purpose.
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
I really do reject "pseudo-intellectualist gibberish" as a description of my endeavours on this. Look, I'm not saying it's a great term, or you have to use it, or any of that. All I'm doing is explaining where it's coming from. If you think "her take" is a sufficiently strong term for where (say) a woman is describing how it felt to be constantly belittled by her husband during 20 years of marriage, fine. Me, I think "her truth" works better there. And for all things similar. Of course it can be misused. All language can. At the very least, I ask you to question the assumption that this is part of some sinister "Woke" attack on the very nature of objective truth. Because I can't quite see it myself.
Progress is good, but so far there’s no sign at all of the promised ramping up. Each day the second doses will take up a bigger proportion of capacity, unless total capacity is boosted to avoid the first vaccination programme slowing dramatically.
From the health service letter referenced the other days, the "bumper March thing" starts the week beginning the 15th.
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
My bold
2422121 doses delivered in the 1st week of March so a doubling would be 4844242
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
I guess there are two milestones. One is when the most vulnerable (very old, care home residents) are done- that will take a massive bite out of the death rates. The other is when herd immunity kicks in, and we can all stop worrying for a bit.
First one is probably done in UK, pretty close in many Euro nations. The second is a way off, but will happen surprisingly rapidly, because vaccine production is continuing to accelerate.
The whoosh always wins.
I think that metric might reveal some large variations between nations due to anti-vax sentiment or poor logistics that will be hidden by looking at the overall numbers.
Agreed. I'd worry a fair bit about the USA- they've got the jabs, but can they get them into Hicksville, and what do they do about the antivaxxing community?
What will it do to Boris' virus handling estimate/popularity if by before the end of UK lockdown a significant number of EU countries have caught us up vaccine-wise?
I'd be slightly surprised if that happened, and I'm probably more chilled about the progress of the EU and its countries than most here.
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
I think the most important metric in the end will be the overall percentage of vulnerable people who get vaccinated. That will be what determines what happens to death rates from endemic covid after reopening.
I guess there are two milestones. One is when the most vulnerable (very old, care home residents) are done- that will take a massive bite out of the death rates. The other is when herd immunity kicks in, and we can all stop worrying for a bit.
First one is probably done in UK, pretty close in many Euro nations. The second is a way off, but will happen surprisingly rapidly, because vaccine production is continuing to accelerate.
The whoosh always wins.
Given the strength of anti-vax sentiment in France, and the acceleration in vaccine supply across the board, it's possible that they will effectively finish their vaccine programme at about the same time - just at a lower percentage of the population vaccinated.
Comments
My other post on this is somewhat unnecessarily combative, but the point I think is valid: you cannot devalue concepts like this and then get enraged when the other side (Trump, Johnson, whoever) just starts outright lying as though it came out of nowhere. In particular, we quickly reach a stage where the majority of the public just treat everything politicians and other public figures say as dishonest, and start casting votes (and exhibiting other behaviours) based on other factors.
How about no. How about hell no.
Cannabis next.
Me, I like happy thoughts.
His take
Their opinion
So this is all really just about an irregular verb usage?
I'd think context and explanation would beef up someone's take - eg I regard these actions as x because of my experience with y - not changing how it is termed. Rose by any other name, etc.
https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1369619012817141760
If it is overwhelmed those death figures are going to be significantly higher.
Whether the EU will switch from turbo-excuses will be interesting. They seem to feel a need to recover the self-image of enlightened superiority.
What we need is to be at 55-60% by the end of March.
Thought not.
Lozza will net some votes in May, though, I think, and will ensure Bailey's performance will be even poorer than it otherwise was going to be. Which was shockingly bad.
If you want a vision of the future, Stanley, imagine a popular right wing journalist tearing a fake conservative a new one, and JHB did to Grant Schapps today.
No wonder Thompson wants her silenced.
If you've got ideas of your own on the topic, then let's hear them. It'll be more interesting than constantly crossing swords over the pandemic, anyway.
LOL
Behold the PM warning about the European Coronavirus surge....
Denmark might be the one to watch- they've maxed out what they can buy via the EU scheme, and their logistics look promising. They're currently talking about mid-July to get everyone done.
Having said that, rates are going to accelerate and funny things may happen. Two ways of thinking about this;
To do all adults, you need about 150 jabs per 100 people. UK is on 35, best Euro countries are in very low teens. UK is comfortably ahead, but there's still quite a way to go. The UK won't finish 3 times faster, which I think is implicit in some people's thinking.
You can see the French delivery schedule here:
https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/
They're expecting to be at 15 million doses by the end of March, but then a huge dollop in April, taking them to about where the UK is now.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is still not available to over-65s in Germany despite being approved last week, it has emerged.
The German health ministry has yet to update its vaccine regulations almost a week after the country’s independent vaccine panel reversed its former advice and ruled the jab was safe for over-65s.
"Although it is now clear AstraZeneca is safe and effective for over-65s, there is still no directive from the health ministry," Karl Lauterbach, a senior politician from the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), said.
2nd dose 70589
+ Whatever Northern Ireland brings in later
It matters not. Regardless of whether it is or is not a valid comparison, it's one that's going to make more sense to most people than the pseudo-intellectualist/gibberish explanation of why it's not valid.
And it still should be clear that rebranding "truth" as something relative is not helpful. This is not a natural "evolution". It's a cynical attempt by a politically motivated movement to increase the perceived validity of their policies.
I've booked my haircut in for 8am on the 12th! With you on the long lunch, we asked the company if they could make the 16th a half-day for the whole office, unsurprisingly they said no.
Brilliant summary. I think we should just quote your paragraph in future discussions of the topic.
Italy and Czech Republic bad.
Portugal much better.
So balanced position overall.
CDU/CSU: 30% (-12)
SPD: 6% (+1)
Greens: 6% (+2)
Other: 8% (+3)
None: 50% (+6)
https://twitter.com/Wahlen_DE/status/1369618074199076865
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1369612079330627588?s=20
It included the statement that Turing includes: "no travel support, no tuition fee support"
These are categorically untrue, as is shown by the docs of the Turing scheme.
https://www.turing-scheme.org.uk/
She seems to be reading out bits from a couple of journos.
You are scared shitless of them, I am not. We walk past one in a shop window. You are terrified, I am not. Are clowns scary? What is the truth of your feelings? Is it your lived experience that you are scared while mine is that I am not?
It's only a clown after all - how much more objectively truthful can you get than that?
https://unherd.com/2021/03/will-we-pass-the-boris-roadmap-tests/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3&mc_cid=20e771dbbb&mc_eid=836634e34b
Confirming that there is so much wriggle room that it will be a purely political decision dressed up to look as if it will be pseudo-scientific.
First one is probably done in UK, pretty close in many Euro nations. The second is a way off, but will happen surprisingly rapidly, because vaccine production is continuing to accelerate.
The whoosh always wins.
For some reason this last stretch of lockdown is proving really difficult, for me. One of the worst periods of the whole wretched pandemic. After a long stretch of stability I am struck with gloominess and frustration and worse, sometimes even despair..
I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s just sheer time spent in this fucking open prison. Perhaps it is something like the ‘wall’ you hit when running a marathon and you near the end. Perhaps it is the fact we ARE nearer an end, so near yet agonisingly far.
I am also terrified of the damage this has done, to economies, businesses, high streets, lives, to all of us. The scale of it will become apparent soon.
Decades ago, I didn't believe Piers Morgan's denial that he knew of his journalists' phone hacking, I have had plenty of time to reflect on that, and I still don't.
And his denial is far less plausible than any claim of Meghan Markle's.
Although it is interesting that we were in a downward trend before the pandemic hit.
As far as I can tell that's up to the institutions on themselves to determine something reciprocal, nothing set by the scheme. But its hard to tell.
That we were first when everyone is now crossing the finish post line abreast is not perhaps going to be so relevant.
What exciting foreign trips do you have planned, at least in theory?
I`m thinking Greece somewhere (mainland or island) if it`s feasible in the summer (I`d give it 50/50 chance). Any travel tips for me in that country?
There aren't many people who would care enough about "clowns (not) being scary" to use the word "truth" either way. And no-one stands to gain a criminal record because they put a clown somewhere they shouldn't have and scared the wrong person.
Obviously Person A can feel as though they've been victimised/discriminated against by something that Person B is entirely indifferent to, even if Person B is the one doing the discriminating. But for laws to work, you need to have some form of objectivity. And even as far as normal societal discourse goes, it's necessary to have some construct we can all live in that provides guidelines as to what is and is not acceptable.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/coronavirus/wp-content/uploads/sites/52/2021/03/C1165-COVID-19-vaccination-deployment-next-steps-and-plans-for-weeks-of-8-and-15-March.pdf
"There will be minimal allocations of new vaccine in the first part of the week commencing 8 March, reflecting national supply available to the programme."
"From 11 March, vaccine supply will increase substantially and be sustained at a higher level for several weeks. Therefore, from the week of 15 March we are now asking systems to plan and support all vaccination centres and local vaccination services to deliver around twice the level of vaccine available in the week of 1 March."
My bold
One place I can absolutely recommend is the Pelion peninsula on the east coast. Fly into Thessaloniki, hire a car, drive 2 hours south - you’re in Eden. Sublime. It has the feeling of the best Greek islands, about 40 years ago. There are seaside fishing villages where the boats tie up right by the tavernas and the women hang the freshly caught octopus on washing lines.
Mountains, beaches, forests, Byzantine hamlets. Magnificent and largely unspoiled. Wonderful food. It’s where Boris Johnson’s dad famously has a house (in one of the nicest bits)
As far as I can tell that's up to the institutions on themselves to determine something reciprocal, nothing set by the scheme. But its hard to tell.