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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
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'd say he's going more alt-right all the time though. Views on tax & spend seem to be becoming very much a 2nd order issue these days. It's all about yer "values".
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.
Have you had your jab yet? I have concluded that I'm so close to having survived all this physically unscathed, that I'm considerably more worried about catching it now. Thus more general anxiety and frustration. I don't want to be Wilfred Owen, killed in November 1918.
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.
That is why the law is problematic and you'd probably have to apply Jacobellis v Ohio.
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
If that lot is correct we are to
34241517 first doses 3153258 second doses
by the end of March.
Which means the age on the booker can be pushed below 50 for April.
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)
Bit passé, I’m sure at least a couple of other PBers have made the same recommendation.
It'll be interesting to see whether that picks up quickly. Start of lockdown, there was great uncertainty - how bad will it be? Will we still have jobs? Are pregnant women at high risk (or their unborn children). It made sense to delay. But will people have put plans on hold for long or, after the first wave, did people shrug and say ok, now's the time? Hard to see it as a long term drop, more likely a mini boom coming up.
We won't know for three months or so, on these data (although you'd think there would be data on pregnancies - I imagine here that's in primary care - there's a Read code for choking on Battenburg cake so there must be one for being pregnant - or just look at first midwife appointments per person). However, I don't know whether pregnancy stats are routinely gathered by PHE/ONS etc. It'll be another few months before the primary care data are available to researchers.
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.
Oh, I don't think it's sinister - honest attempt at strengthening public response to an issue that everyone agrees is important. But, good intentions, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that mucking about with language in this way starts/continues a race to the bottom that hopefully we can all agree harms everyone. We should resist it just as much as we deride Trumpian terms like "alternative facts". Because, even if you can ultimately justify to yourself (or even to us) why they are not the same, it just contributes to the erosion of trust in politics in the minds of the public.
Another way of looking at it is to realise that there was no essential difference, in the minds of much of the public, between Hillary Clinton "misspeaking" about dodging sniper fire during her visit to Bosnia, and Trump outright making up statistics about immigration to scare people. You and I might agree that the magnitude is different. But all the public will hear is they're both liars, so they might as well pick the one they actually like.
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.
Have you had your jab yet? I have concluded that I'm so close to having survived all this physically unscathed, that I'm considerably more worried about catching it now. Thus more general anxiety and frustration. I don't want to be Wilfred Owen, killed in November 1918.
Yes! That’s definitely part of it. I get jabbed Friday, and somehow that makes it worse. Tension rises, likewise stress
eg I’m sitting here feeling a bit physically low. Tired, slightly achey, a hint of malaise. It’s almost certainly nothing but my brain is turning it into Covid
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
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.
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)
Bit passé, I’m sure at least a couple of other PBers have made the same recommendation.
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'd say he's going more alt-right all the time though. Views on tax & spend seem to be becoming very much a 2nd order issue these days. It's all about yer "values".
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
"racism is a fact that can be tested"
Is this you saying it or what you think MM is saying?
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
If that lot is correct we are to
34241517 first doses 3153258 second doses
by the end of March.
Which means the age on the booker can be pushed below 50 for April.
It is also worth noting that the supply chain is a number of weeks long.
When that letter was written, on the 2nd March, all the extra doses they are referring to as becoming available on the 11th of March already existed.
They would have been in final QA - and the "several weeks" of higher supply will also be in the supply chain.
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
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.
No, it's not like the old irregular verb joke. It's about a person describing how it feels to be (as they perceive it) on the wrong end of societal prejudice. It also carries the vibe of it taking courage to stand up and talk about it.
Another example, this time to show how it's not biased against anyone in principle:
@Casino_Royale has sometimes described how it feels to him to be a Leaver amongst a sea of Remainers at the office. How awkward and frustrating that is for him.
Ok. So that is not his mere opinion and it's a bit more than his take. It's Casino's truth about being a Leaver in a highly educated professional workplace.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
"racism is a fact that can be tested"
Is this you saying it or what you think MM is saying?
On the subject of ‘dead clowns’, a true story
Many years ago my then girlfriend told me she was terrified of ‘dead clowns’. I breezily presumed it was the normal phobia (fear of clowns is common) - scary movies, eerie circuses, Stephen King books, etc
Then she said No, it’s not like that. I asked her to explain, and she said ‘when I was nine I was playing in a nearby park with my friends, and we found a dead clown in a ditch. He was naked from the waist down’
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
To me 'truth' is a fraught concept. We all live in a shared environment, but both what we perceive and how we interpret it are entirely internal constructs. To the extent that 'truth' exists, it is either that shared environment that none of us perceive directly in its totality, or it is the degree of commonality of our various personal internal constructs of that external reality.
Does the moon exist? To the extent that we all perceive a moon (the sighted, at least) and its effects (tides), then yes it exists. Can we really say what the moon is? Not really. We might start to describe what we can agree are its physical properties, but even that depends on scale.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Ahh so it's had zero value to the economy? A dubious claim but good to see a new metric pop up. :-)
If only we'd just focused all our time in 1939 developing nuclear weapons, the war would have been a lot shorter.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
"racism is a fact that can be tested"
Is this you saying it or what you think MM is saying?
On the subject of ‘dead clowns’, a true story
Many years ago my then girlfriend told me she was terrified of ‘dead clowns’. I breezily presumed it was the normal phobia (fear of clowns is common) - scary movies, eerie circuses, Stephen King books, etc
Then she said No, it’s not like that. I asked her to explain, and she said ‘when I was nine I was playing in a nearby park with my friends, and we found a dead clown in a ditch. He was naked from the waist down’
Blimmin' heck that would indeed impart a fear of dead clowns. And of ********. How was she with those since, dare we ask?
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
I'm sorry you lost me at "many moons ago". What exactly do you mean?
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.
If it is deliberate, then it does matter.
You know the people who do this, they literally can't help themselves. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it.
That's 3/8 of what France did last week in a single day.
I'm not seeing that. France is averaging 150k per week and managed 250k on its best day and 500k across a weekend. I'd be interested to see information that France has done days bigger than 250k?
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
We've had the same restrictions for this lockdown (ie with T&T) that we had for the first lockdown (which was before T&T). I therefore conclude that it has had no effect.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
You were reporting an attack - what`s race got to do with it?
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
I'm sorry you lost me at "many moons ago". What exactly do you mean?
My girlfriend (black) saw a racist incident, in her judgement.
A policeman (white) said it couldn't be racist because it was an attack by black men on a black man.
It'll be interesting to see whether that picks up quickly. Start of lockdown, there was great uncertainty - how bad will it be? Will we still have jobs? Are pregnant women at high risk (or their unborn children). It made sense to delay. But will people have put plans on hold for long or, after the first wave, did people shrug and say ok, now's the time? Hard to see it as a long term drop, more likely a mini boom coming up.
We won't know for three months or so, on these data (although you'd think there would be data on pregnancies - I imagine here that's in primary care - there's a Read code for choking on Battenburg cake so there must be one for being pregnant - or just look at first midwife appointments per person). However, I don't know whether pregnancy stats are routinely gathered by PHE/ONS etc. It'll be another few months before the primary care data are available to researchers.
I am still expecting a big spike in births 9 months after the great 'end of COVID' party.
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'd say he's going more alt-right all the time though. Views on tax & spend seem to be becoming very much a 2nd order issue these days. It's all about yer "values".
Don`t doubt it - It`s "His truth".
Ha. Indeed. Although as with lots of these types I suspect he doesn't believe half of what he says. It's self promotion. A way to get attention. A way to pay the rent and the school fees. I do think this happens more with right pundits than left ones. Although maybe that's because I find it so hard to accept that anyone with a critical mass of grey cells believes the stuff that the Trumpian side of life comes out with.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
You were reporting an attack - what`s race got to do with it?
I reported it as a racist attack, because my girlfriend was shouting that it was.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
Interesting! I did a DPhil that involved reading a lot of Laboratory Life & other STS stuff, a lot of it is indeed wank. Were you part of Woolgar group over at the Business School? I was in the Computer Science department from 2007-2012.
If Starmer had played the statesman instead of making snide remarks for pary political gain from the sidelines throughout this pandemic then Labour might be in a better position than they are now. If Starmer is going to present the electorate as a serious viable alternative PM he should start putting forward some serious policy alternatives. After almost a year as leader he has failed to put forward anything.
...Between 4 February and 10 February 2021, 105,764 cases were transferred to the contact tracing system
Out of the 91,920 people reached between 4 February and 10 February 2021, 68,332 (74.3%) provided details of one or more close contacts.
In the most recent week, the median number of contacts provided per case managed by local HPTs was 25, an increase from 18 in the previous week. For cases not managed by local HPTs the median was 2, and this has been approximately constant since the start of Test and Trace....
Considering only the contacts where communication details were provided, 96.5% were reached and told to self-isolate in the most recent week. This has remained constant for the past 9 weeks...
And note, no statistics are provided at that link on the numbers who actually did self-isolate.
An interesting twitter thread (thanks to TSE for highlighting it). I'd been vaguely aware of The Core as one of quite a few similarly reactionary twitter accounts spraying out their gammony views to all and sundry.
'Mr SocialM85897394 regularly tweets about other minority groups. As well as the EU, SNP, Trump and Antifa, consistently. More than seems humanly possible. But he manages it.'
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
We've had the same restrictions for this lockdown (ie with T&T) that we had for the first lockdown (which was before T&T). I therefore conclude that it has had no effect.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
You are aware that the virus isn't the same, the Kent variant has far higher transmission than the original virus?
So to be able to maintain this with the same amount of restrictions despite higher transmission means that something else is working - testing and vaccines.
Oh and this lockdown has taken less time than the original lockdown took to get from peak of deaths to no excess deaths. Peak of deaths was in mid January and we've reached no excess deaths now, this week, less than 2 months later. The original peak was start of April and we only reached no excess deaths at the end of June, so nearly 3 months later. Its taken half the time to eradicate the peak and end up back at no deaths than it did in the first wave.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
I'm sorry you lost me at "many moons ago". What exactly do you mean?
My girlfriend (black) saw a racist incident, in her judgement.
A policeman (white) said it couldn't be racist because it was an attack by black men on a black man.
Was it racist?
Jesus have I got to explain every one of my jokes. We were just hearing from @kingbongo about the definition of the moon.
As for the incident it sounds like it was nationalist if not racist.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
Interesting! I did a DPhil that involved reading a lot of Laboratory Life & other STS stuff, a lot of it is indeed wank. Were you part of Woolgar group over at the Business School? I was in the Computer Science department from 2007-2012.
What's with all these people spending years of their lives studying wank and nonsense?
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
"racism is a fact that can be tested"
Is this you saying it or what you think MM is saying?
On the subject of ‘dead clowns’, a true story
Many years ago my then girlfriend told me she was terrified of ‘dead clowns’. I breezily presumed it was the normal phobia (fear of clowns is common) - scary movies, eerie circuses, Stephen King books, etc
Then she said No, it’s not like that. I asked her to explain, and she said ‘when I was nine I was playing in a nearby park with my friends, and we found a dead clown in a ditch. He was naked from the waist down’
That's 3/8 of what France did last week in a single day.
I'm not seeing that. France is averaging 150k per week and managed 250k on its best day and 500k across a weekend. I'd be interested to see information that France has done days bigger than 250k?
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
Ah categories and distinctions .
Unclear like a punchup between (to choose one example) English and Scots. Is that racist?
Or the attacks by one religious community on another - Pakistan or Copts + Muslims in Egypt.
It depends on the various understandings of the concept of "race". What about Zulu on Matabele or vice-versa. Or the Boer War between 2 'white' communities.
I spy a rabbithole too deep for a comments thread.
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'd say he's going more alt-right all the time though. Views on tax & spend seem to be becoming very much a 2nd order issue these days. It's all about yer "values".
Don`t doubt it - It`s "His truth".
Ha. Indeed. Although as with lots of these types I suspect he doesn't believe half of what he says. It's self promotion. A way to get attention. A way to pay the rent and the school fees. I do think this happens more with right pundits than left ones. Although maybe that's because I find it so hard to accept that anyone with a critical mass of grey cells believes the stuff that the Trumpian side of life comes out with.
Ok then - so you feel about Fox as I do about Markle.
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
We've had the same restrictions for this lockdown (ie with T&T) that we had for the first lockdown (which was before T&T). I therefore conclude that it has had no effect.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
You are aware that the virus isn't the same, the Kent variant has far higher transmission than the original virus?
So to be able to maintain this with the same amount of restrictions despite higher transmission means that something else is working - testing and vaccines.
Oh and this lockdown has taken less time than the original lockdown took to get from peak of deaths to no excess deaths.
1) Yes.
2) That's a logical fallacy. It may be true anyway, but you can't prove it, and it could all be the vaccines.
3) That's most likely all due to the vaccines, and anyway there a million other confounding factors involved, primarily trying to predict what people's behaviour would have been like outside of the tracing regime. And anyway the difference is not all that stark - two months last time, and maybe a few weeks less than that this time.
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
I don't like this at all, it smacks of hubris, and it is holding the Govt a hostage to fortune if they don't stick to the dates in the roadmap. Maybe its all about making us feel more confirdent about going out? Who knows...
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
How would you test whether (and to what extent) someone is racist?
In a press release, ARS Hauts-de-France confirms that it " is currently working on the organization of transfers of critical care patients to Belgian health establishments ". These patients will be transferred to border hospitals " usual partners of French hospitals within the framework of cross-border agreements ".
These transfers could begin " as of today or in the coming days depending on the available reception capacities, the eligibility of patients and the agreement of the families ".
In recent weeks, more than 80 transfers of patients from Dunkirk to the rest of the region have been made, the director of ARS Hauts-de-France indicated this Wednesday morning. “ We have a few dozen reserve beds left, with a total capacity of around 800 beds for the region, ” added Benoît Vallet.
On Tuesday March 2, two patients from the Dunkirk hospital were evacuated to Le Havre (Normandy). Faced with the worsening of the situation, the ARS Hauts-de-France then asked public and private hospitals in the region to open 100 additional intensive care beds.
As of March 8, 2,958 people were hospitalized in the region for a Covid-19 infection, including 484 in intensive care.
In addition, government spokesman Gabriel Attal announced Wednesday “ a number of medical evacuations in the coming days of hospitalized patients, especially in Île-de-France ”, where the “ situation is worrying
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
We've had the same restrictions for this lockdown (ie with T&T) that we had for the first lockdown (which was before T&T). I therefore conclude that it has had no effect.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
You are aware that the virus isn't the same, the Kent variant has far higher transmission than the original virus?
So to be able to maintain this with the same amount of restrictions despite higher transmission means that something else is working - testing and vaccines.
Oh and this lockdown has taken less time than the original lockdown took to get from peak of deaths to no excess deaths.
1) Yes.
2) That's a logical fallacy. It may be true anyway, but you can't prove it, and it could all be the vaccines.
3) That's most likely all due to the vaccines, and anyway there a million other confounding factors involved, primarily trying to predict what people's behaviour would have been like outside of the tracing regime. And anyway the difference is not all that stark - two months last time, and maybe a few weeks less than that this time.
2) But transmission reductions preceded vaccines. Most of the public are still unvaccinated and the amount of the public vaccinated 5-6 weeks ago (3 weeks for it to take effect, 2-3 weeks to get sick and die after catching it) was even lower.
3) As above.
Vaccines helped, but vaccines aren't all we've got going for us. Less time this time, despite higher transmission, is a good thing. About 6 weeks less this time than last time despite higher transmission, what is six weeks worth to the economy?
Just passed 30 minutes on hold to DWP. The regular reminders to call at less busy times such as Tuesday to Friday between 10 and 4 really aren't helping.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
I'm sorry you lost me at "many moons ago". What exactly do you mean?
My girlfriend (black) saw a racist incident, in her judgement.
A policeman (white) said it couldn't be racist because it was an attack by black men on a black man.
Was it racist?
Jesus have I got to explain every one of my jokes. We were just hearing from @kingbongo about the definition of the moon.
As for the incident it sounds like it was nationalist if not racist.
My understanding is that there is at least as much ethnic diversity among Africans as for the rest of the world put together, that lumping them all together as "Black Africans" is a convenience primarily for census takers in Western countries, and does not remotely reflect the reality on the ground. Although the distinction between nationalism and racism in this specific case sounds like one without a difference.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My father, a professional philosopher had some sharp things to say about such concepts....
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
Ah categories and distinctions .
Unclear like a punchup between (to choose one example) English and Scots. Is that racist?
Or the attacks by one religious community on another - Pakistan or Copts + Muslims in Egypt.
It depends on the various understandings of the concept of "race". What about Zulu on Matabele or vice-versa. Or the Boer War between 2 'white' communities.
I spy a rabbithole too deep for a comments thread.
My first thought was "what if a bunch of racist scumbags were attacking a Polish person for being Polish?" - as has happened on a number of occasions.
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)
@Leon Thanks for that - can you be more specific regarding area to stay-particular villages? Which are the nicest bits?
I would have preferred to have the Oxford jab but the vaccine centre was doing predominantly Pfizer 2nd jabs today so I guess I got what was leftover. I hope there’s some left for my 2nd one!
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
I see. So it is the "my truth" you think is subverting the whole shebang and people should substitute "my feeling".
And you really don't think people don't take the two together (my and truth) and just realise it is shorthand for "what I'm feeling". "The truth" I would have a problem with although again I would take it for shorthand for "what I'm feeling".
My understanding is that there is at least as much ethnic diversity among Africans as for the rest of the world put together, that lumping them all together as "Black Africans" is a convenience primarily for census takers in Western countries, and does not remotely reflect the reality on the ground. Although the distinction between nationalism and racism in this specific case sounds like one without a difference.
It's also a convenience for authentic white racists who I don't think are noted for prefixing their racist filth with eg Yoruba or Dinka.
£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.
But all of those things could have been achieved with the ONS study, even the genomic sequencing and testing for variants could have been achieved at a tenth of the cost with an enhanced ONS study.
The testing system is probably the worst value for money of any recent government programme. I don't think that's a controversial point.
No that couldn't have been achieved with the ONS study. The testing for the study was nothing like the testing for test and trace.
How much did the vaccine and test and trace cost?
Yes test and trace cost a lot of money, but how much is the pandemic costing us per week? It looks like between the UK's leading test and trace program and our leading vaccine we will end the pandemic a quarter before other comparable nations will. How much will that save us?
In the case of test & trace, not very much at all. The point about these criticisms is that they are not hindsight; we (and many others) were saying all of this much earlier last year.
They ploughed on regardless, throwing money at headline numbers.
And they were right to do so as we now have very few cases, with test and trace finding the vast majority of them, and are now coming out of lockdown while other countries are tightening their restrictions.
The pandemic is us over a trillion. Ending the pandemic even weeks earlier is worth it.
But the pandemic being over is because of the vaccine programme. If that didn't exist do you really think any number of tests would allow for the unlocking schedule we have in place?
I take it you aren't going to answer the question regarding why you took a test.
Here's another simple one, what would we have done if the vaccines didn't work?
Why do you need to know? Fwiw I had mild symptoms so decided to get a test, it was negative.
If the vaccines didn't work we'd have to actually come up with the isolate part of "test and isolate" or just go down the America route of herd immunity through infection. I don't think lockdowns are the answer if there's no vaccine endgame.
If we wind back to the start of the discussion. The point is whether the benefits of the test & trace can be measured solely against whether we had a lockdown or not. I said the benefits are wider than that simple metric of success. Any proper cost benefit analysis would factor wider benefits. For example, there are intrinsic benefits for each individual person who took a Covid test, for a start, irrespective of the propensity of that information on likelihood to isolate. I assume you got some value from your test result, as did your family members etc and I also assume you acted in part based on the result. Scale that up to the population and there is a bit of 'value' that your simple calculations are not factoring in.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
No; if we didn't have vaccines we'd need a mass testing program coupled with an enforced isolation program.
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Its not true to say T&T hasn't had an impact on restrictions as you don't know what the parallel is if we weren't testing and tracing.
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
We've had the same restrictions for this lockdown (ie with T&T) that we had for the first lockdown (which was before T&T). I therefore conclude that it has had no effect.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
You are aware that the virus isn't the same, the Kent variant has far higher transmission than the original virus?
So to be able to maintain this with the same amount of restrictions despite higher transmission means that something else is working - testing and vaccines.
Oh and this lockdown has taken less time than the original lockdown took to get from peak of deaths to no excess deaths.
1) Yes.
2) That's a logical fallacy. It may be true anyway, but you can't prove it, and it could all be the vaccines.
3) That's most likely all due to the vaccines, and anyway there a million other confounding factors involved, primarily trying to predict what people's behaviour would have been like outside of the tracing regime. And anyway the difference is not all that stark - two months last time, and maybe a few weeks less than that this time.
2) But transmission reductions preceded vaccines. Most of the public are still unvaccinated and the amount of the public vaccinated 5-6 weeks ago (3 weeks for it to take effect, 2-3 weeks to get sick and die after catching it) was even lower.
3) As above.
Vaccines helped, but vaccines aren't all we've got going for us. Less time this time, despite higher transmission, is a good thing. About 6 weeks less this time than last time despite higher transmission, what is six weeks worth to the economy?
NOTHING.
Because the economy is not yet open, and will not be for weeks yet to come.
You have yet to show any evidence that T&T is actually driving the roadmap being more aggressive than it would be without T&T. Handwaving arguments based on counterfactuals aren't going to cut it, given the reasons previously stated, ad nauseum, about why T&T shouldn't make much difference, and the limited evidence we do have supporting this view.
And by the way, saying "most of the public are still unvaccinated" is not relevant when talking about deaths (as you were), since we have long since jabbed the most at risk groups responsible for the vast majority of deaths.
I would have preferred to have the Oxford jab but the vaccine centre was doing predominantly Pfizer 2nd jabs today so I guess I got what was leftover. I hope there’s some left for my 2nd one!
I'm guessing you were considerably younger than the average punter there
Labour ahead with women by 1%. (But behind with men by 12%.)
Labour ahead with 2016 Remain voters by 23%. (But behind with 2016 Leave voters by 45%.)
Labour ahead with those aged 35-54 by 8%. (But behind with those aged over 54 by 30%.)
Talk about selective!
My complaint is thus. Age 55 and over is a category so broad as to be almost meaningless. It effectively tells us Labour do better with younger, Remainers and females. Well, yes. We knew that already, thank 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.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
How would you test whether (and to what extent) someone is racist?
Yeah I didn't hear back from him about that key "racism is a fact that can be tested" line.
Not sure if that is his commentary or what he is saying MM is saying.
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
I see. So it is the "my truth" you think is subverting the whole shebang and people should substitute "my feeling".
And you really don't think people don't take the two together (my and truth) and just realise it is shorthand for "what I'm feeling". "The truth" I would have a problem with although again I would take it for shorthand for "what I'm feeling".
The truth is I'm feeling confused by this whole discussion. Is that objective or subjective? Woke or non-woke?
Dave Keating's claim that the UK is operating an export ban on vaccines is a good example of "my truth" not being objective truth.
Sounds to me like "my truth" could just as easily mean "lie" and who's to know the difference, especially if to challenge that "truth" or "lie" is deemed unacceptable for reasons of one 'ism or another. This is where we've ended up with the woke movement - rather than language evolving (as of course it does over the long term) the meaning of words is being twisted, either to obfuscate the truth or to shut down diversity of opinion.
More people, in ordinary, every-days walks of life, need to stand up to this nonsense ... but that requires bravery in the face of real consequences now that this type of woke thinking is afflicting more and more of our institutions and workplaces.
I would have preferred to have the Oxford jab but the vaccine centre was doing predominantly Pfizer 2nd jabs today so I guess I got what was leftover. I hope there’s some left for my 2nd one!
I wouldn't worry about which one you get, they're all going to end up in the 90-95% efficacy range.
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
I see. So it is the "my truth" you think is subverting the whole shebang and people should substitute "my feeling".
And you really don't think people don't take the two together (my and truth) and just realise it is shorthand for "what I'm feeling". "The truth" I would have a problem with although again I would take it for shorthand for "what I'm feeling".
Many people will understand it as a shorthand, but many will not. It's an effective piece of political rhetoric, which is why it's being spread with such determination. It's part of the larger tendency on the fringes of both sides of the political spectrum to remodel reality into a more convenient form. Those thousands of nutters assaulting the US Capitol? 'Their truth' was that Joe Biden stole the election from them.
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
I see. So it is the "my truth" you think is subverting the whole shebang and people should substitute "my feeling".
And you really don't think people don't take the two together (my and truth) and just realise it is shorthand for "what I'm feeling". "The truth" I would have a problem with although again I would take it for shorthand for "what I'm feeling".
There are two fundamentally diverging ideas of 'truth', the coherence theory where a thing is true if it fits the overall picture, and the correspondence theory - that a statement is true if it corresponds to what is the case. Both are, of course, minefields.
The idea of 'relative truths' is totally different, and says in effect that 'my truth' and 'your truth' may in some way be valid but not by evaluating them by a common standard. Those who believe in 'relative truths' don't believe in truth as such and are therefore inviting you not to believe them.
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.
Literally semantics. I can live with all of those - my truth (note the "my"), my feelings, my perspective. It's shorthand for someone's feelings.
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
No, 'my truth' is oxymoronic, because it forcibly conjoins two incompatible categories, the subjective and the objective. That's exactly why the people who use it do so - to break down the barriers between the two.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
This indicates well how you and ilk are the ones over-intellectualizing, not me. I'm giving a plain and simple explanation of what My Truth is getting at and why I think it works ok. You, OTOH, are getting your knickers into a spin to an absurd degree about its supposed implications for language and the essence of objective reality.
"Tell you the TRUTH, mate, I've gone off Arsenal since Wenger left."
"What can I do? The simple TRUTH of the matter is, she hates me."
"Yeah, I know. He's an utter bastard. It's TRUE. But I have to work with him."
Etc Etc.
Should we be jumping on all this stuff in the War on Woke?
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!
Great choice! LOVE the Garden Gate. Spent several warm Saturday afternoons there with friends in my time. Great, great boozer.
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.
Have you had your jab yet? I have concluded that I'm so close to having survived all this physically unscathed, that I'm considerably more worried about catching it now. Thus more general anxiety and frustration. I don't want to be Wilfred Owen, killed in November 1918.
Yes! That’s definitely part of it. I get jabbed Friday, and somehow that makes it worse. Tension rises, likewise stress
eg I’m sitting here feeling a bit physically low. Tired, slightly achey, a hint of malaise. It’s almost certainly nothing but my brain is turning it into Covid
Glad to hear you have the appt. All the best for the jab on Friday.
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.
I spent 5 years studying this nonsense for my DPhil - it is easy to dismiss as total w4*k because it is - anyone who has read Laboratory Life and some of the other science and technology studies literature knows there is truth and fact - perspectives and opinions and 'the concept of lived experience as text' do nothing to dismiss the idea of fact - Meghan claims she experienced racism - racism is a fact that can be tested - her opinion about what she experienced and how it made her feel are also facts but they are two other, affective, entities -
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
I love that on Woolgar. It so reminds me of Bishop Berkeley in the early 18C, debates about Immaterialism and "God in the Quad".
God in the Quad
There was a young man who said "God Must find it exceedingly odd To think that the tree Should continue to be When there's no one about in the quad."
And the reply from Knox 150 years later:
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd; I am always about in the quad. And that's why the tree Will continue to be Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.
As the other Philospher said in about 1000BC - There is nothing new under the sun.
Comments
As I said with the art criticism. Saying "this is shit" is fine and you would expect your audience not to need the unsaid bit (oh it's all subjective, it's a perfectly valid work of art, just that I don't happen to like it, etc).
And especially so on here.
I have concluded that I'm so close to having survived all this physically unscathed, that I'm considerably more worried about catching it now. Thus more general anxiety and frustration.
I don't want to be Wilfred Owen, killed in November 1918.
34241517 first doses 3153258 second doses
by the end of March.
Which means the age on the booker can be pushed below 50 for April.
We won't know for three months or so, on these data (although you'd think there would be data on pregnancies - I imagine here that's in primary care - there's a Read code for choking on Battenburg cake so there must be one for being pregnant - or just look at first midwife appointments per person). However, I don't know whether pregnancy stats are routinely gathered by PHE/ONS etc. It'll be another few months before the primary care data are available to researchers.
The point I'm trying to make is that mucking about with language in this way starts/continues a race to the bottom that hopefully we can all agree harms everyone. We should resist it just as much as we deride Trumpian terms like "alternative facts". Because, even if you can ultimately justify to yourself (or even to us) why they are not the same, it just contributes to the erosion of trust in politics in the minds of the public.
Another way of looking at it is to realise that there was no essential difference, in the minds of much of the public, between Hillary Clinton "misspeaking" about dodging sniper fire during her visit to Bosnia, and Trump outright making up statistics about immigration to scare people. You and I might agree that the magnitude is different. But all the public will hear is they're both liars, so they might as well pick the one they actually like.
eg I’m sitting here feeling a bit physically low. Tired, slightly achey, a hint of malaise. It’s almost certainly nothing but my brain is turning it into Covid
if she experienced racism that is something that should be acted on if she says who is responsible - but 'her truth' is just weasel language. I commend Ian Hacking's 'The Social Construction of What?' to anyone interested in this sort of thing - a clearly written book as one would expect from a fine philosopher. I got into a heated discussion once with Steve Woolgar about the existence of the moon and whether it was 'brought into existence when studied' - for him 'the moon' meant 'how the moon is studied and reported and discussed' - the 'fact' of the moon existing outside of human interaction with it was something he rejected - that's how mad some of this is getting at very senior levels of academia.
My suggestion would be to find something more interesting to talk about.
Is this you saying it or what you think MM is saying?
When that letter was written, on the 2nd March, all the extra doses they are referring to as becoming available on the 11th of March already existed.
They would have been in final QA - and the "several weeks" of higher supply will also be in the supply chain.
As to the isolate idea. We'd be asking people to 'isolate' based on an ONS random sample of the population in the absence of a mass testing program?
Another example, this time to show how it's not biased against anyone in principle:
@Casino_Royale has sometimes described how it feels to him to be a Leaver amongst a sea of Remainers at the office. How awkward and frustrating that is for him.
Ok. So that is not his mere opinion and it's a bit more than his take. It's Casino's truth about being a Leaver in a highly educated professional workplace.
Many years ago my then girlfriend told me she was terrified of ‘dead clowns’. I breezily presumed it was the normal phobia (fear of clowns is common) - scary movies, eerie circuses, Stephen King books, etc
Then she said No, it’s not like that. I asked her to explain, and she said ‘when I was nine I was playing in a nearby park with my friends, and we found a dead clown in a ditch. He was naked from the waist down’
But we do have vaccines. Which is why we'll soon(ish) be out of lockdown; an achievement that mass testing hasn't come close to replicating. Therefore, up to now, T&T has had zero value to the economy (since it hasn't made a difference to restrictions - it may have saved some lives around the edges but it's hard to know for sure) and the only possible value left is if it means we can come out of lockdown a few weeks earlier than otherwise. Which is, again, hard to prove, although the evidence seems very much against it.
Does the moon exist? To the extent that we all perceive a moon (the sighted, at least) and its effects (tides), then yes it exists. Can we really say what the moon is? Not really. We might start to describe what we can agree are its physical properties, but even that depends on scale.
A real world example.
Many moon ago, I was out with my girlfriend near Leicester square. A group of mini-cab drivers (long before Uber) suddenly attacked another. She told me to call the police.
The police arrived. After dispersing the fight a policeman (apparently in charge) started angrily asking who had called the police. I put my hand up.
H told me that I had been wrong to describe it as a racist incident. All the cab drivers involved were black and black people couldn't be racist against each other. he started saying I was in trouble.
My girlfriend, a lawyer, interjected that she had described it as a racist incident - the group attacking the victim were Nigerian and were shouting stuff about him being Ghanian. As in "kill the Ghanian {insert rude words here}".
The policeman suddenly had nothing to say.
My girlfriend was black and of Ghanian origin. The policeman and I were white.
What does this count as?
If we weren't then we'd have likely needed stricter restrictions than this country has seen in the entire pandemic, like in France when you need to inform the government whenever you leave your home.
It is unlikely schools would have opened this week without T&T either.
Again just as something is not a magic bullet does not mean it has been zero.
If only we'd just focused all our time in 1939 developing nuclear weapons, the war would have been a lot shorter.
You know the people who do this, they literally can't help themselves. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it.
Hows that for a regular verb?
I’ve found a workaround for a persistent pb loading error on safari/iPhone.
Solution:
Use the backend vf.politicalbetting.com
Via Mozilla/Firefox for iPhone.
Works a treat.
The only difference is that the lockdown with T&T is scheduled to last for *checks notes* much longer than the one without.
Again, I agree that it didn't need to be a magic bullet to be worth it. You've yet to provide any credible evidence that it's had any.
A policeman (white) said it couldn't be racist because it was an attack by black men on a black man.
Was it racist?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-test-and-trace-england-statistics-4-february-to-10-february-2021/weekly-statistics-for-nhs-test-and-trace-england-4-february-to-10-february-2021
...Between 4 February and 10 February 2021, 105,764 cases were transferred to the contact tracing system
Out of the 91,920 people reached between 4 February and 10 February 2021, 68,332 (74.3%) provided details of one or more close contacts.
In the most recent week, the median number of contacts provided per case managed by local HPTs was 25, an increase from 18 in the previous week. For cases not managed by local HPTs the median was 2, and this has been approximately constant since the start of Test and Trace....
Considering only the contacts where communication details were provided, 96.5% were reached and told to self-isolate in the most recent week. This has remained constant for the past 9 weeks...
And note, no statistics are provided at that link on the numbers who actually did self-isolate.
'Mr SocialM85897394 regularly tweets about other minority groups.
As well as the EU, SNP, Trump and Antifa, consistently.
More than seems humanly possible.
But he manages it.'
I wonder if Mr SocialM85897394 posts one here?
https://twitter.com/ProfDaveAndress/status/1369560628420087808?s=20
So to be able to maintain this with the same amount of restrictions despite higher transmission means that something else is working - testing and vaccines.
Oh and this lockdown has taken less time than the original lockdown took to get from peak of deaths to no excess deaths. Peak of deaths was in mid January and we've reached no excess deaths now, this week, less than 2 months later. The original peak was start of April and we only reached no excess deaths at the end of June, so nearly 3 months later. Its taken half the time to eradicate the peak and end up back at no deaths than it did in the first wave.
As for the incident it sounds like it was nationalist if not racist.
Unclear like a punchup between (to choose one example) English and Scots. Is that racist?
Or the attacks by one religious community on another - Pakistan or Copts + Muslims in Egypt.
It depends on the various understandings of the concept of "race". What about Zulu on Matabele or vice-versa. Or the Boer War between 2 'white' communities.
I spy a rabbithole too deep for a comments thread.
Labour ahead with 2016 Remain voters by 23%. (But behind with 2016 Leave voters by 45%.)
Labour ahead with those aged 35-54 by 8%. (But behind with those aged over 54 by 30%.)
Talk about selective!
2) That's a logical fallacy. It may be true anyway, but you can't prove it, and it could all be the vaccines.
3) That's most likely all due to the vaccines, and anyway there a million other confounding factors involved, primarily trying to predict what people's behaviour would have been like outside of the tracing regime. And anyway the difference is not all that stark - two months last time, and maybe a few weeks less than that this time.
Once we lose that distinction, we're back to pre-classical concepts of determining verity. The otherwise-estimable Law Code of Gortyn has a clause that a dispute of fact is decided in favour of the side who are able to present a greater number of people willing to attest to the truth of it on oath. Which could naturally be more than a little problematic in some cases...
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1369663017890222084
In a press release, ARS Hauts-de-France confirms that it " is currently working on the organization of transfers of critical care patients to Belgian health establishments ". These patients will be transferred to border hospitals " usual partners of French hospitals within the framework of cross-border agreements ".
These transfers could begin " as of today or in the coming days depending on the available reception capacities, the eligibility of patients and the agreement of the families ".
In recent weeks, more than 80 transfers of patients from Dunkirk to the rest of the region have been made, the director of ARS Hauts-de-France indicated this Wednesday morning. “ We have a few dozen reserve beds left, with a total capacity of around 800 beds for the region, ” added Benoît Vallet.
On Tuesday March 2, two patients from the Dunkirk hospital were evacuated to Le Havre (Normandy). Faced with the worsening of the situation, the ARS Hauts-de-France then asked public and private hospitals in the region to open 100 additional intensive care beds.
As of March 8, 2,958 people were hospitalized in the region for a Covid-19 infection, including 484 in intensive care.
In addition, government spokesman Gabriel Attal announced Wednesday “ a number of medical evacuations in the coming days of hospitalized patients, especially in Île-de-France ”, where the “ situation is worrying
3) As above.
Vaccines helped, but vaccines aren't all we've got going for us. Less time this time, despite higher transmission, is a good thing. About 6 weeks less this time than last time despite higher transmission, what is six weeks worth to the economy?
The regular reminders to call at less busy times such as Tuesday to Friday between 10 and 4 really aren't helping.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/1369669902655758346?s=20
And you really don't think people don't take the two together (my and truth) and just realise it is shorthand for "what I'm feeling". "The truth" I would have a problem with although again I would take it for shorthand for "what I'm feeling".
Because the economy is not yet open, and will not be for weeks yet to come.
You have yet to show any evidence that T&T is actually driving the roadmap being more aggressive than it would be without T&T. Handwaving arguments based on counterfactuals aren't going to cut it, given the reasons previously stated, ad nauseum, about why T&T shouldn't make much difference, and the limited evidence we do have supporting this view.
And by the way, saying "most of the public are still unvaccinated" is not relevant when talking about deaths (as you were), since we have long since jabbed the most at risk groups responsible for the vast majority of deaths.
Age 55 and over is a category so broad as to be almost meaningless.
It effectively tells us Labour do better with younger, Remainers and females.
Well, yes. We knew that already, thank you.
Not sure if that is his commentary or what he is saying MM is saying.
Assuming @kingbongo is a "he", obvs.
Is that objective or subjective?
Woke or non-woke?
More people, in ordinary, every-days walks of life, need to stand up to this nonsense ... but that requires bravery in the face of real consequences now that this type of woke thinking is afflicting more and more of our institutions and workplaces.
New Thread
The idea of 'relative truths' is totally different, and says in effect that 'my truth' and 'your truth' may in some way be valid but not by evaluating them by a common standard. Those who believe in 'relative truths' don't believe in truth as such and are therefore inviting you not to believe them.
"Tell you the TRUTH, mate, I've gone off Arsenal since Wenger left."
"What can I do? The simple TRUTH of the matter is, she hates me."
"Yeah, I know. He's an utter bastard. It's TRUE. But I have to work with him."
Etc Etc.
Should we be jumping on all this stuff in the War on Woke?
https://twitter.com/1RabbitInMyFlBd/status/1369671100075020289
God in the Quad
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
And the reply from Knox 150 years later:
Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God.
As the other Philospher said in about 1000BC - There is nothing new under the sun.
Very enjoyable and lots to think about.