Reply #17: While I agree with, and support, the boycott of ABC [View All]

[david_vincent]

there are other points made here that are sound, such as how can you boycott a network whose shows don't interest you anyway, etc. More important, I think, is the idea that there is a bigger agenda at work here. This isn't just about ABC. ABC is just the corporate entity that has agreed to be the thin end of the wedge with this particular tactic. The tactic itself is to confuse people about the nature of truth, and about what we mean we talk about whether something is or isn't true. This is fundamentally philosophical, although these people aren't interested in participating in a Socratic debate. The purpose of this whole thing is to muddy the waters so that the public in general loses sight of any coherent and consistent basis for claiming any given thing to be true, with the end result that any claims, no matter how inaccurate, might be considered "true" if some (supposedly sensible) people believe them.
We can see how this all works by looking at the people who insist that WMDs were, in fact, found in Iraq. The insistence on the part of some people to live in a cognitive state detached from reality is one thing, but when they start demanding that others also acknowledge the legitimacy of that cognitive state in spite of all evidence to the contrary, then you're looking at epistemological tyranny calculated to command our apprehension of reality. This will lead to a dictatorship of knowledge and of ways of approaching knowledge, i.e. the rational, spiritual, and emotional spheres of being.