DEALING WITH PERCEPTIONS, ACCUSATIONS AND HYPOTHETICALS, NOT FACTS MAKES A TRAVESTY OF TRUTH

 DEALING WITH PERCEPTIONS, ACCUSATIONS AND HYPOTHETICALS, NOT FACTS MAKES A TRAVESTY OF TRUTH

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

We incessantly hear the elite media pontificating and extrapolating about hypothetical situations as if they were factual. Our congressional representatives are currently joining in on speculation and are drawing conclusions on individual accusations without supporting evidence. Hard facts seem to no longer be required to substantiate one’s conclusions in important political, life or death, and even casual decisions in civil discourse.

Hard facts have lost their legitimacy and attractiveness through creative but false narratives to sway the public political opinions. In a highly charged attack on traditional moral values to turn the nation toward socialist/communist viewpoints, the ends justify the means. 

Claas Relotius, writer for Das Spiegel the widely read German magazine, was exposed for writing fabrications in his piece about crude, ignorant and unsophisticated voters in typical rural Fergus Falls, Minnesota. Many people quoted in the article denied speaking to the author and pointed out many lies and inaccuracies in the story. The welcome sign when entering the town was reported to say, “Welcome to Fergus Falls, Home of Damn, Good Folks.” Actually the sign said, “Welcome to Fergus Falls.”  The sign would have been easy to check by the magazine but it was not done. Das Spiegel Magazine has promoted itself as having 70 fact checkers but still publicized this pathetic, make-believe story as factual. Their fact checking was supposed to be a hallmark of professionalism and their articles had to be accepted as the impeccable truth. So much for all that “fact checking.”

Congresswoman, Kamala Harris questioned the temporary head of the justice department not about justice, procedures and policies he would follow professionally. Instead several times she insisted on asking him about the current “perception” that others felt ICE and the KuKluxKlan are seen as similar in nature. His answer after several rephrasing’s of the question by Harris was that there were no similarities between the two.” Congresswoman Harris did not even attempt to explain her bizarre “perception” assertion. This tactic not only would make headlines but also would create a false suggestion to ill informed citizens. These politically unaware people employ feelings instead of logic to make determinations about the truthfulness of different narratives.

A similar mind-boggling incident happened with Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings. The process did not focus on his extensive record of rulings in his legal career, but what might have happened sexually as a teenager. Credible evidence did not support some 36-year-old accusations. The public again was supposed to use their “feelings” for the supposed “victims.” The credibility and empathy for the females was supposed to trump the total lack of factual evidence. We were supposed to accept the fact that females never distort or lie about sexual encounters with men. This absurd feminist notion that accusations by a female have to always be believed over any made by a man should be insulting to any rational person. Shortly after Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court, the stories made by these females began to crumble due to factual evidence that conflicted with their flimsy initial narrative. This verbal lynching of a person’s character should never be repeated.

In everyday encounters with others we should have the courtesy and courage to state our true opinions along with our reasons. If the other person abruptly dismisses us with “I know you must be kidding,” or “No one in his right mind believes that,” it is an attempt to shame the person into giving an answer that they do not believe to appease the questioner. Walking away or going silent does not alter the smug person’s all-knowing attitude. This alienates the person who walks away from the arrogant and obnoxious questioner. It is a method of censoring freedom of speech. Both parties are losers in this type of encounter.

When a person stands up to others, the parties learn new viewpoints or facts, which helps each person learn more in-depth old and new issues.  Even if they do not agree they become better informed about the opposing perspective. These open debating encounters eventually arrive at legitimate consensus that beings people together. At least the opposing positions will be more clearly expressed.

Shining a light on the facts decreases the emphasis on emotional feelings. It is the best means of grasping the most worthy solution to a particular dilemma. Truth and facts should guide us rather than speculation and emotion, which drive us to falsehoods and often to disastrous acts.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. Dr. Maglio is an author of weekly newspaper articles, INVASION WITHIN and a new just published book, entitled, IN CHARGE PARENTING In a PC World. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.blogspot.com.