But that's just false, no matter how many uninformed newly-minted rape pundits claim otherwise.
If the audience is sufficiently motivated in either case by a shared antipathy towards the target, whether the damaging information is true or false scarcely matters because believing it feels good and serves a social function.
This was supposed to be the "on time and under budget" presidency, I thought?.@jonkarl: In first briefing room appearance, Sean Spicer said three things that were "demonstrably false": "Credibility matters".
This is not the time to give people false hope, no matter how unpalatable the truth may be.
Some people never give up spreading false information, no matter how clear it is that they are wrong.
At the time, True told the Getty, correctly, that the allegation was false, and the matter was dropped.
It shows austerity and health is always a false economy – no matter how positively some people view it, because for them it shrinks the role of the state, or reduces payments into a system they never use anyway".
It is a further question whether, if statements of a given kind are true or false as a matter of objective, mind-independent fact, those statements record facts of some special irreducible type, distinctive of that discourse.
What's more, when the two are confused for long enough, or when an indefatigable war on truth has been waged for a year, or two years, or perhaps eight, it will likely be harder and more tiresome to untangle them and remember a time when a firm line was drawn between the true and the false as a matter of course.
The idea would then be that, since our sensations and opinions fail to be consistent deliverers of true reports (or, for that matter, false reports) about the world around us, there is no prospect of our being able to determine the nature of things.
