#truthies only

[taylortruther]

truthies only but what's a taylor song that that you feel just describes you whether in lyrical content, sound, whatever... and why

[conundrumcomics]

"Background Steel"

[artbyblastweave]

Several years ago I was making it a personal project to create as many portrait-style illustrations of minor worm characters for the worm wiki as possible, creating a situation where for a while the only visual depictions of certain characters were either mine or one from @scarfgirl (as she was doing something similar.) This occasionally leads to situations where I see someone else's post-wormblr renaissance take on some minor character that I'm 90% sure is taking visual cues from one of my designs in the absence of anything else to go on. This gives me a warm fuzzy feeling but it's also kind of harrowing when you extrapolate how much fandom consensus is probably similarly informed by whichever shut-in with too much free time positioned themselves as first mover on a minor unresolved issue. And then you extrapolate this to the historical consensus about stuff that wasn't very well documented and suddenly you've got a truthy little insight about how the world works I think

[cleolinda]

Re: Couch fucking

Since people saw “JD Vance fucked a couch” mentioned in the “Tampon Tim: He’ll stop the red wave” post and went “What? JD Vance fucked a couch?,” no, he did not fuck a couch in his youth. The rumor was started by a random shitpost on the service I will continue to call Twitter until the heat death of the universe:

(Archived by Snopes, now view-limited by the author)

@rickrudescalves

can't say for sure but he might be the first vp pick to have admitted in a ny times bestseller to fucking an inside-out latex glove shoved between two couch cushions (vance, hillbilly elegy, pp. 179-181)

7:58 PM • Jul 15, 2024 • 1.8M Views

No draft or edition of Vance’s book Hillbilly Elegy ever said any such thing, but the inclusion of page numbers made “JD Vance fucked a couch” look very truthy (file this away as a tactic to look for in other propaganda you see). Neither Vance nor the Trump campaign can fully deny this because that would only draw more attention to the concept of “Vice presidential candidate JD Vance fucked a couch.” In great frustration, a campaign spokesman has finally said,

"We're not going to talk about couches or coconuts or whatever weird fetish KamalaHQ is into. When we have something to say, we'll say loud and clear. If Kamala is a coward, we'll call her a coward. If Tim Walz is a liar, we'll call him a liar.”

JD Vance then proceeded to lie about Tim Walz’s 24-year military record, calling it “stolen valor.”

As much as people enjoyed Walz’s quip that he would love to debate Vance if Vance would be “willing to get off the couch,” I do agree that Democrats should not stoop to such Republican tactics as (off the top of my head)

Telling lies about presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service (which inspired the general term “swiftboating” “to describe an unfair or untrue political attack”)

Claiming that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was born in Kenya and not an American citizen, which would disqualify him, leading to an entire “birther” movement headed by Donald Trump

Accusing Democrats of trafficking children in the basement of a pizza parlor that had no basement, leading one man who sincerely believed this to “[travel] to Comet Ping Pong to investigate the conspiracy and [fire] a rifle inside the restaurant to break the lock on a door to a storage room during his search”

Claiming that North American schools keep kitty litter on hand for students who “identify as cats,” a “joke” meant to target protections for transgender students

And, as mentioned, splitting hairs over exactly what rank Tim Walz had vs what he retired at, elevating this to a far more serious accusation of stolen valor. In fairness, this is probably revenge for the couch thing.

So yes, I agree, we shouldn’t use the same tactics that the Republicans have been using for decades. It’s tasteless and it does not make us look better. I would perhaps remind you of the saying “Live by the sword, die by the sword,” but yes, we should stop confusing people into thinking that JD Vance fucked a couch. No couch was ever fucked by JD Vance. I endorse this message.

[judgementdayslittle]

Little reader goes "missing" during Monday Night Raw and Damian & the Judgement Day are worried sick.

Only for them to see her out in the ring with her Uncle Truthy. Cue an angry Papi marching down to the ring.

Yesss!!! We love R Truth in this house!

-First off, everyone is outside of the Judgement Day locker room for one reason or another. Dada was supposed to watch you, but he had to go out and do something. So you were left alone.

-And you got bored! So what do you do when you're bored? Go exploring of course!

-So you leave the locker room and toddler around.

-That's when you run into Uncle Truth! Him and Miz were around to go out into the ring.

-You told them how bored you were and Truth was like "Wanna come out with us then?"

-Of course you said yes!!!

-Cue Mami, Papi, Dada, and Dom coming back to find you missing.

-Panic!

-"Why did you let them out of your sight?! Don't you know how they like to wander?!" Papi says, angy at dada.

-Mami has to calm him down. Cuz Dom not like angy Papi.

-"Lets calm down. They couldn't of left the stadium, so we just have to look for them around here. Me and Dom will stay here in case they come back. Finn, Priest, you two look around." Mami said.

-Dom was very worried too. What if you never came back?!?! Mami had to help calm him down.

-Finn and Damian split up to look for you. Searching high and low.

-Then Papi walked past a TV screen and saw none other than you being carried out to the ring by R Truth himself.

-You were going "WASSUP!" Along with the crowd.

-Papi wasn't happy about this. He wasn't mad at you, of course. You didn't know any better! But what was Truth doing with HIS little one?!

-Not to mention he brought you out to the ring while you were little? What if someone attacked them and you got hurt?

-Cue Papi's music as he marched to get you.

-Clueless, you just smiled and waved at him, "Oh hi papi!" You say.

-Papi smiled at you, but firmly takes you out of Truth's hold. He doesn't want to scare you, or involve you in a big scene.

-Luckily they cut to commerical break, and he takes that time to quickly go and hand you off to Mami! Who's waiting in the gorilla for you.

-Papi gives you a kiss on the head before heading back to the ring. About to give Truth and Miz a piece of his mind.

-Mami doesn't let you watch it though. She instead sits with you in the club house and gently tells you to not go wandering off again.

-Though she will say it was mainly Dada's fault for leaving you alone. They forgive him quickly though. Cuz dada apoligizes too.

-After Papi wins against Truth in a match, he head back to the club house and you two cuddle together.

-"Papi, why you mad at Twuth? He nice!" You say.

-"Cuz Papi was so worried about you, cariño. You scared all of us running off like that. I was worried you might get hurt in the ring." He says. Figuring it's best to not go into full detail of his disliking of Truth while you're little.

-Besides, he knows you adore the man. And he can never say no to you.

-But for now, you shrug and have cuddle times with Papi!

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

aita for having a private sideblog?

TW: SELF HARM

so for starters. on my (17f) main account all i do is post my art and reblog art i like. i have a lot of mutuals, some of which i occasionally talk to in comments, but never anything beside that. aka we've never even talked in dms or anything.

on my sideblog, which is in no way connected to my main blog, i partake in the more dark side of tumblr. sh content and such. i talk a lot about my sh habits and my daily struggles in there. it's more a vent account then anything, and it's littered with warnings and i only have like 4 followers there.

well recently a mutual came in my dms to ask if the account was mine (no idea how they found out??? maybe i reblogged onto the wrong acc or something idk) and i answered truthy and said yeah it's mine.

they got very upset and told me they didn't appreciate that i was hiding "the kind of person i am" and that they felt betrayed to know someone they considered a friend was behaving like that online behind their back.

i haven't even answered the messages cause idk what to do. im kinda afraid they'll do an exposee on me and then all my mutuals will abandon me cause i actually like them but also i don't feel like i was in the wrong and i don't want to apologize, but then i think maybe i've been like this for so long i got desensitized and thought it was normal..

was i the asshole??

What are these acronyms?

[midnightlee25]

Yandere ABC: Alucard

Affection: How do they show their love and affection? How intense would it get? 

Sometimes he can be sweet, other times he can be teasing and the last part he can be a mix of the two. 

Blood: How messy are they willing to get when it comes to their darling? 

…. blood isn't an issue for this man in fact it may be a plus. 

Cruelty: How would they treat their darling? 

The only time he may be cruel is with punishments but other than that it's like I said in the affection part sweet and teasing. 

Delusional: How aware are they? 

No delusion in this man just wants and need. 

Exposed: How much of their heart do they bare to their darling? How vulnerable are they when it comes to their darling? 

He shows and hides whatever he wants or believes is necessary so it very. 

Fight: How would they feel if their darling fought back? 

He would be amused more than anything else. 

Hell: What would be their darling’s worst experience? 

Honestly knowing his power may be enough for his darling to fear him. 

Ideals: What is their plan? 

Keeping his darling with him for as long as he can even if it means turning them into a vampire. 

 Jealousy: How jealous are they when it comes to their darling? 

He gets annoyed when his darling starts to pay attention to certain people or things but he doesn't get jealous. (But if he did ever get jealous it would end up being a violent end for whoever made him so.) 

Knowledgeable: How much would they try to learn about their darling? 

He enjoys learning new things about his darling so he will take his time to do so. 

Love letters: How would they go about courting or approaching their darling? 

He will play the secret admirer route for a while until he feels that he has won their heart or something else happens that makes him feel like he needs them now. (This will mostly come when he feels he needs to protect them more than he already does.) 

Mask: Are their true colors drastically different from the way they act around everyone else? 

Compared to others he cares deeply for (like Integra & Seras) not much besides being more romantic. But compared to other humans and vampires.  

Naughty: How would they punish their darling? 

To get back at his darling for whatever it is that they did he does so in two ways. An example of this is if they try to run away from him, he will then prove that there is no true escape from them. He will do this by letting them run around an abandoned building of some kind and showing up around every corner while also talking in their head. The other way is proving that there is nowhere better but by his side. 

Oppression: How many rights would they take away from their darling? 

Truth be told he doesn't really take anything away from his darling. (Maybe their sanity in some cases.) 

Patience: How patient are they with their darling? 

He takes his time with his darling seeing they have as much as time they want. (Or as much as he wants.) 

Quit: If their darling dies, leaves, or successfully escapes, would they ever be able to move on? 

He would see it as a play if they escape but if they die, he would find some way to bring them back but if he can't he will let them lay in rest. 

Regret: Would they feel guilty? Would they let go? 

He would feel guilty if he were to ever actually break them for that isn't what he wants to do to his darling. However, he will never truthy let them go if he can help it. 

Stigma: What brought about this side of them? 

His darling has a hold on him that he simply can't shake off. Not that he wants to in the end anyways. 

Tears: How do they feel about their darling crying, screaming, and/or throwing a tantrum? 

He will stay by them to see what they need/want now. (EX: if they wish for him to hold them, he will.) If he is the reason, they are upset, he will leave them be for a while until they calm down. 

Unique: Does anything make them different from the classic yandere? 

He has a lot more tricks up his sleeve than the average yandere. 

Vice: What weakness can their darling exploit to escape? 

He may let them believe that they have a step above him but it won't get far. 

Wit’s end: Would they ever hurt their darling? 

He won't physically hurt his darling but he will mess with the mentally if it means it will get his point across.  

Xoanon: How much would they worship their darling? 

Just a little bit of worship but nothing over the top. (maybe) 

Yearn: How long do they pine after their darling before they snap? 

He can get rid of anyone he wants and he likes to take his time with his darling so he won't snap per say. 

Zeal: How passionate would they be? Would they be passionate enough to break their darling? 

It's a strong possibility but he would never mean to break them. 

[loving-n0t-heyting]

Saw someone spreading false factoids about it again so I thought I would remind ppl: widely academically cited meta-analyses suggest a general population prevalence for DID of around 1.5% in the general population (and much higher in inpatient settings), along with a lifetime prevalence of dissociative disorders generally of up to 18%(!!)

Ambient rates this high are more than enough to explain the existence of prominent DID communities (especially niche online communities) without having to invoke widespread malingering; if this seems incredible to you, consider that only about 1% of the population (as per the US census) identifies as (exclusively) gay/lesbian women. Even ppl who think lesbian communities are mostly composed of poseurs think the communities could exist and emerge without them

Keep this in mind next time you see ppl pulling truthy condescending bs about how kids these are all suddenly self-dxing with otherwise basically nonexistent maladies! They are the ones disagreeing with the Serious Scientific psychometric/clinical consensus! They are the ones placing feels before reals!

[lasplaga]

-;┊ 𓆙 𝕮𝕺𝕹𝕿. ; ◥ - 𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐎 𝐈𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐍𝐆 𓆙      —       " Good fuckin' luck because I ain't gonna be heyah'! " Snapped The Businessman. Ricardo wouldn't be found by Lord Saddler ; He was afraid for his life if he was. " I'm gonna be long, long gone! "

It was an agonizingly long deliberation hunting down Mr. Irving upon the dosage of his suppressants. As if brutally cutting a stray limb from Lord Saddler's immense body, the youngling host could not be sensed, felt, nor communed. --- & what terrified Osmund most of all was silence & solitude within the mind. Regardless if he existed as THOUSANDS of voices, the riddance of one delivered him into a fit of unbridled rage & agony. What made HIM sought most of all --- The parasite that nestled within Ricardo was not only augmented by 𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝔸𝕞𝕓𝕖𝕣 ; But a clone of the species belonging to his former guardsman, infamously regarded as his American dog.

& once tethered upon his leash, would not be lost again.

The Lord contemplated if he carried any semblance of his consciousness from the assimilated parasite, or if any lingering remnants of Jack Krauser resided solely with God. It was an intriguing possibility, being tempted to indulge in blind loyalty & power by a man slain years prior. The relationship not only codependent & intimately parasitic --- but intoxicatingly addictive. Jack's lust for strength was impossible to sate & Osmund was more than pleased bidding him to continuously entertain this desire. Granted the mysterious abilities of Las Plagas & it's limitless potential [ the cost being difficult to toy with ], it was an experiment to formally put to the test.

Osmund tasted Ricardo's insecurities as his own the moment their minds became one. The American was insatiably greedy & selfish on behalf of what he lacked in respect. Feeling pathetically small, his only option was kicking down to acquire ANY leverage ; Begging for admiration as if starving for mere table scraps. It was truthy pathetic how empty & miserable of a man he was --- disgraceful he would refuse grandeur offered to him on a gilded platter.

The duo formally clashing ; Would The Businessman instinctually submit, or overcome the nature of his newfound chains? Traversing with The Swarm in tow, a cloud of massive-insects plagued the air & zealous priests scoured the ground ; It would only be a matter of time before he was seen, despite the link completely severed. Not entirely unfamiliar to Kijuju, Ricardo would be ambushed upon the third day by warmongering 'undead' homing in upon his temporary safe-haven. Kept true to his word, the flutter of wings & clanking of metal resounded at dawn ; The droning chime of bells the harbinger of their coming.

[yourtoradorasextendedwarranty]

I followed you to see what other bullshit you would post. Why do you act like you are a victim in this? The only people that get this type of special treatment from me are the ones who are blatantly wrong, call other people stupid, and seem to be able to formulate a coherent answer. A compliment really. All i've been doing is asking you to expand on your bold statement about fascism and your christian fundamentalist misinformation reblog, why do you feel so threatened? Just whack me around the ears w/ some facts. Like those 87.000 IRS agents. Got a source for that other than the Heritage Foundation? Is your car taxed as unrealized capital gains? Really? Sources, sources. Beat me up w/ truthiness! Remember, you were the onewho started calling people stupid, not me. You even made youtube videos that got 6 views were you go on about what a "hellsite" tumblr is. Come on tumblrina, come out of your bubble.

First and foremost I'm not even Christian so you can get that out of your mind. Secondly yes I can put coherent thoughts together but I'm not spreading lies you are being bad faith there is a fundamental difference in that precedent.

Next unrealized gains covers everything you own on a fundamental level that is how it works. Because otherwise the laws that they would announce would specify things that are specific like stocks. Except here is a larger issue. Even if you put unrealized gains on stocks you are charging a person money they have not collected on. Which means that you would have to probably sell stocks and get taxed twice once for unrealized gains and once for the money you collected. Because anytime you take money out of a stock, you are pulling money out of that stock which means you have to sell it or relinquish it. And if I'm under the right assumptions about how that works if you relinquish it you don't actually collect any money on it. Which means that when you sell a stock you are taxed on the amount that you earn from that.

Unrealized the games tax is a broad term that is all encompassing. They are allowed to limit it but do you actually think they will? The answer to that question is no they won't. They'll make claims that they will and then they just won't. Also Republican or otherwise this is a link to the fact that 87,000 agents were in fact hired or were booked to be hired.

But here's the thing you can't resend funding to something that either doesn't exist or is not planned to be put into existence. And you could have found this out on your own but instead you opted to make me go through and Hunt through fake media outlets like CNN the New York times and other places that have a inherently left-leaning and democrat-leaning bias. Many of whom donate to Democrat candidates. As for the idea of fascism being collectivist is because it is. Fascism is a collectivist ideology it always has been one of the first people to talk about what he considered to be fascism was Mussolini. And on a very fundamental level it is collectivist. So it is either a centrist ideological policy or it is leftist because leftism functions off of the sole principle of collectivism. Which is why Marxism falls under the umbrella of leftism.

However my frustration from you comes from the fact that you make claims that I'm wrong when I'm not. Communists have said for years that the point in calling everyone a fascist is specifically to link the right and capitalism to fascism in order to dissolve capitalism and right-wing thought. Because if you dig into the underlying founding and principles of fascism you would find that it has more close ties to socialism than otherwise. And no matter how many sources I could share with you you would not care because you, like everyone else who does this b*******, do not care what sources I share because unless they're authorities that you like then it is a pointless endeavor.

Like with Dinesh D'Souza who literally went to jail over absolute BS. You have made an obsessive point to s*** on Dinesh. Despite the fact that his talking points are not much different than Thomas Sowel. And others in general. But I could point out others if I start digging back into my old research, and you would find any way to disprove or discredit them because in your mind it is already a cemented fact that fascism is a far right idea. Except on a political compass Hitler is literally two rungs right of the middle. So if fascism is so far right why does the political compass have authoritarianism and fascism effectively listed as the same thing?

As to how you're dishonest it's the way you talk. You explicitly followed me saying that you're trying to call out me being wrong despite the fact that I have often cited things in regards to the stuff I talk about. Mind you when I cite things about the coalescing of socialism and fascism the reason that I get such a kickback is because people on the left can't afford to have most of the violent angry and authoritarian concepts be associated with their side.

This is why I call you a communist. Because the only other thing that I would assume is that you're a far left anarchist. Neither of which in my mind have an ethical difference. Because in my mind there is no difference between anarchotherony and communism. Because both of them are utopian dreams created by morons who either want the government to have absolute power because they think they'll be part of the government, or they think that they'll be able to be left alone on their farm to do anything and everything they could conceivably want to do, without other countries coming to take us over or without warlords becoming a consistent thing until they form States due to the power vacuum.

But, since you want me to post links I will post this because regardless of what it says or aims to say it admits the fundamental truth.

And you can find many other things like this. With a simple Google search. And I will post this you will start digging and you will look for any way to discredit this. You will look at the person who posted it and attempt to link them to some Far Right group or otherwise and that's why I never post things. Because people like you only care about stuff that leftists and Democrats say is fact and you swallow that crap wholesale and believe it to be true even if it is a bald-faced lie.

So if you want to continue to comment on my stuff feel free but understand that does not make you correct. I look into the things I post about. There are rare instances in which I don't but oftentimes it's normally me just sharing something with no comment.

So I have proved that the 87,000 or 85,000 or whatever the number was it was over 80k, IRS agents are a thing. We know that the government made it so they can look into $600 transactions on cash app which means that they are definitely targeting the middle and low class not the rich they claimed to. I have posted a link between fascism and socialism that you seem to so vehemently deny. And as a final point of telling you that you are functionally wrong I am not a christian. I was raised christian. And the United States lives under judeo-christian values on a fundamental level as it is the baseboard of what our country was founded on. As such I do share some of those values despite being just left of center libertarian. Everything you post comes off as an attempted gotcha which is why I call you dishonest.

Frankly speaking this will probably be the last post I make a dressing you so you can continue to comment on my stuff if you feel like it but I will not be responding anymore. Because generally people like you are not worth responding to. Google is free Snopes is not a fact-based organization. Because they have been proven wrong dozens of times if not hundreds of times and had to make a lot of retractions, CNN same thing, MSNBC same thing, the New York times the same thing, NBC same thing, the Atlantic same thing, the list goes on. The hundreds of retractions over the past 10 years due to, intentional sometimes, errors. Or just outright lying and changing articles and headlines after the fact because they know the bulk of people saw the original headline which is what they want.

Which is actually clever. Lie about everything so that the world sees it then once most of it passes change it after the fact so you can try not to get sued. A leftism tactic as all this time. Which is why companies funded by act blue like Snopes or other DNC operatives, because it doesn't really matter, lied about the Trump very fine people hoax for 7 years and only corrected it right before the Trump Biden debate. The DNC has been nothing but Democrat propaganda over and over spreading lies about things that the former president has said. Like the "inject bleach" lie.

Good day.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Bad news for Trump and DeSantis :::  March 13, 2023

Robert B. Hubbell

         Before turning to the real news of the weekend (No, not the Oscars, the failure of Silicon Valley Bank), I wanted to return to a poll released by Navigator Research last week. I mentioned the poll in my “Weekend Thoughts” newsletter, but believe it is worth a second look. The poll is a helpful antidote to the incorrect impression that Ron DeSantis is an unstoppable force with an aura of invincibility and inevitability. Not true.

DeSantis is a small-time politician who is the beneficiary of a gerrymandered state legislature willing to indulge his presidential fantasies. Whether his dystopian view of a fascist America will sell in the marketplace of ideas in the rest of the nation is a question that remains profoundly unsettled. Indeed, that will be the question that Americans decide in 2024.

         The most recent Navigator Research poll suggests that DeSantis’s dreams of a fascist America will fare poorly outside of Tallahassee—the capital of Florida and the nation’s 126th largest city. I don’t mean to suggest that the size of Tallahassee disqualifies the views of its citizens; I do mean to suggest that it is easier to corrupt and commandeer a small, insular political system than it is to succeed on the national stage in a pluralistic society.

         Before examining the Navigator Research poll, let’s recite the usual caveats together: A single poll isn’t meaningful; it’s the trend that matters. Polls can be manipulated, so the quality and professionalism of the polling organization matter. Polls aren’t elections. And, finally, it’s way too early to be consulting polls. In this instance, I would add that Navigator Research is described as a “left of center research and polling organization” by InfluenceWatch—to which I say, “We need more left of center” research and polling organizations to help Democrats communicate the truth about the sentiments of the American people.

         Whew! That was a lot of throat-clearing. Now on to my main point:

         If you were to ask a random sample of Americans which party they trust to keep children safe at school, ensure students access to healthcare, protect them from gun violence, ensure access to clean air and water, and give kids the skills and knowledge to be successful in life, the answer would be clear: the Democratic Party. Frankly, you wouldn’t need a poll to arrive at that conclusion because, as Stephen Colbert would say, “It has the feeling of truthiness.”

         The Navigator poll demonstrates that Americans understand Democrats are more interested in protecting their children than Republicans are and, therefore, trust Democrats more when it comes to educating their children. The main conclusions of the poll are presented in a series of charts here: Americans are Prioritizing Safety and Quality Education While Rejecting Book Bans and Restricted Curriculums | Navigator.

         Most tellingly, Governor Ron “Where woke goes to die” DeSantis has picked the wrong top-line message for his campaign. “Preventing children from being exposed to woke ideas” ranks near the bottom in educational priorities for all voters and is supported only by only 54% of Republicans. Legislative bans on “CRT,” transgender participation in sports, and Black history are losing positions with Democrats and Independents, garnering majority support only among Republicans—which means those positions are losers in national elections where Republicans rank third in voter registration.

         As I said above, these positions have the feel of “truthiness.” And while we should refrain from fooling ourselves to assuage feelings of anxiety, it would have been odd and counter-intuitive if most Americans supported efforts to limit knowledge, discriminate against LGBTQ people, pollute our air and water, and make guns more accessible near schools and in public places.

         I am not saying that we can relax or relent in our opposition to the Trump/DeSantis strain of fascism that underlies their 2024 platforms. I offer the Navigator poll only as a counterweight to balance the unrelenting and unquestioning coverage provided every time the Florida legislature passes another bill to outlaw knowledge, legitimize discrimination, intimidate educators, abrogate liberties, and codify white nationalism. Those may be the beliefs of most members in a gerrymandered legislature in Florida, but they are not the beliefs of most Americans. That is bad news for both Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[taylortruther]

These aren't truthies they don't realize you don't care about any of the boyfriends, this is a boyfriend-agnostic safe place

okay i love the term "boyfriend-agnostic" SO TRUE

[elminx]

The Signs and "The Truth"

Note: the truth has been and will always be subjective. This merely tracks how each sign deals with the truth as they see it. Also, keep in mind that this is in reference to the Lights of the natal horoscope: the Sun, the Moon, and the Ascendant - each person is a combination of all three of these signs (and since truth is most often spoken, Mercury placements may be relevant here as well). Additionally, this is not putting any moral value on truthiness just observations of the signs.

Aries tells the truth because lies require maintenance and they don't want to look backward to keep track. (Mars) Taurus may tell small white lies to avoid conflict but generally tells the truth because it's easier. (Venus) Gemini has looked at so many possibilities that they no longer know the truth (if they ever did). (Mercury) Cancer likes to believe that they tell the truth but will use falsehood to control and manipulate those they love. (the Moon) Leo is secretly worried that they are lying about how great they are. (the Sun) Virgo tells the truth because only through looking at things as they actually are can improvements happen. (Mercury) Libra lies to keep the peace and to try to keep their others happy and pacified. (Venus) Scorpio tells so many lies that they often don't remember what the truth was anymore. (Mars/Pluto) Sagittarius says whatever is on their mind which could be the truth, but is as likely to be a flight of fantasy. (Jupiter) Capricorn will lie so that you leave the alone so that they can get back to work but prefers to tell the truth. (Saturn) Aquarius prides themselves on truth-telling as abrasively as possible. (Saturn/Uranus) Pisces lives in a mostly unconscious fantasy world of their own construction and actively denies reality, avoiding the truth. (Neptune)

Do you like my work? You can support me by tipping me on Kofi or purchasing an astrological report.

[the-rookinator-3000]

hey hey JoD do you have any other nicknames for any other penguins… :3 i noticed you called JoT truthie soooo i was curious

🌟: Nicknames? Ah, yes, Truthie.. I've been calling them that for as long as I was around! Is that what you call a nickname? Either way, I do not think I have any nicknames for other penguins! And you can't shorten "Gary" any further, can you?

🌟: But I did have one in mind for that green penguin.. if only I could remember their name.. was it Rowley?

[creature-wizard]

Do you have any sources on ufology being constructed around conservative christian beliefs, or could you expand on that? I mainly ask because based on what I have read it seems mostly connected to the theory that says " gods were aliens and we worshipped them as gods and they helped the human race to evolve. Without them humanity would have remained stuck in an animal like state " ( which is problematic in a lot of ways)

I remember there was a Christian writing ( book of ennoch if I'm not wrong ) which people considered to be about alien experiments and abductions, but besides that I never made a link between christianity , ufos and aliens.

You might check out the #new age to alt right pipeline tag, where I've been writing about this kind of thing for awhile. If there are other people addressing this specific issue right now, I don't know about them.

Ufology is deeply tied in with conservative Christian conspiracy theories and apocalypticism. The alleged behavior of aliens is frequently very similar to alleged behaviors of demons during Europe's witch trials, if the aliens aren't just said to be demons altogether. For those who reckon at least some alien beings as positive beings, they functionally take the role of angels. Furthermore, they are frequently imagined in a very militaristic, authoritarian light. One popular figure is Commander Ashtar, who is supposed to be a Pleiadian military commander stationed here to protect Earth from bad aliens. The Pleiadians, also called the "Nordics," are basically just Aryans In Space. Their primary enemies, the reptilians, are at best demonic figures; at worst they are worked into antisemitic conspiracy theories, and it's often outright claimed that Jewish people are more susceptible to reptilian influence. These people also tend to believe in an imminent apocalypse. Exactly what that will entail depends on who you ask, but they'll pretty much all cite the New Testament as authority sooner or later. They believe that the good and the wicked (or the "high vibrational" and the "low vibrational") will be separated one way or another, because conservatives tend to think in terms of "in-group good, out-group bad." To be sure, many of these people have some pretty unorthodox views of who Jesus was and what he set out to do, but they nonetheless center Jesus as a cosmically important figure. They pillage other people's sacred traditions for anything they think will support the beliefs they already have; they do not make any effort to understand these traditions on their own terms because they fundamentally do not care about anyone else's opinions or perceptions. They are "racially tolerant" only insofar as POC can be converted to their beliefs. They demonize nonbelievers and play the victim when they aren't taken seriously just like any other conservative Christian. They do not care about actual facts and evidence; they trust in truthiness. I hope this helps clear things up!

[baeddel]

@vi0 said:

The answer to my immediate interpretation of this seems so obviously to be "yes" that I assume the question instead hinges on whether it counts as learning if you are integrating beliefs into your mind that aren't true. In which case it's mostly a question of definition I guess? But I would say yes, because you can definitely learn things that are orthogonal to truth, like how to throw a ball well or math, so truthiness doesn't seem required in the colloquial sense.

when i asked this i had declarative knowledge in mind, and i hadn't even considered that you do learn things like that, how to throw a ball or climb a tree. in another thread (see) i decided you could define learning as either acquiring knowledge (which necessarily requires the formation of true beliefs) and memorizing information (which doesn't involve belief at all, just recall, and so, as i see it, deals with objects which are prior to belief and thus truth or falsity). the latter is similar to your position; truth doesn't come into it. but that led me to say "no" to the question as posed, since what you're learning isn't true or false until you form a true or false belief about it [EDIT: i just realized i wrote "that isn't true" rather than "wrong", so my answer would actually be the same as yours; yes, because things which are neither true or false are not true]. i don't know how to account for your kind of learning though, if i'm defining learning as memorization and not necessarily integrated understanding then i guess procedural memory is still memory and learning by rote is a kind of memorization. it's strange to call golf technique 'information' but i suppose it is?

anyway, i realize it all seems a bit pointless to care about. the reason i thought about it was that i was telling my girlfriend how many misunderstandings i had picked up by watching youtube lectures. this is why most people still have century old misunderstandings about Kant for example, because classroom pedagogy contains such a substance of historical misunderstandings that it's virtually impossible to avoid perpetuating some of them. and i wondered, if you went to a class that had a wicked teacher who, rather than teaching true lessons, made up every single thing they taught intending to mislead you, would you have learned nonetheless, even if you're learning lies, or would you merely have been confused and misled by the deceiver?

there are a couple of empirical things i think about: first of all, there was a concern that with memorization techniques like flashcards that students will commit their own misunderstandings to flashcards and memorize their mistakes. they did study that stuff (i can try and find it later), and they found that it didn't matter. it didn't commit students to their earliest mistakes, they were free to correct the information and overall flashcards helped and didn't harm. i wonder if it even helps, since adding wrong information to your 'knowledge base' helps you learn about the topic because having a bigger knowledge base inherently aids recall. so you could make an argument from here that not only can you learn something untrue, but in fact it's beneficial to do so.

but second of all, people tend to believe the first thing they hear, and it's much more difficult to correct their initial impressions. there was a study (i can try and find it later) where they told people wrong information, then immediately corrected it, and they found that were much more likely to believe the wrong information even after hearing the correction immediately than the control. so there's an argument here that misleading someone about anything is quite nefarious because it creates lasting confusion which is difficult to dispel.

the first is about recall and the second is about belief, so they aren't exactly the same. but the other difference i can spot is that the second type is inflicting knowledge on a passerby, while the first type is knowledge actively acquired through self-study. so perhaps it is good to mislead onesself and bad to mislead strangers.

there's another point raised in another reply (see), that "historically quite a lot of things people have learned were at best only partially true", which is true of course and should make us a bit uncomfortable to say that you can't learn anything wrong, because this was the result of education in most of history. and we don't think all that learning was worthless; while Aristotle was wrong that time was a kind of motion, for example, if things like that weren't taught to thousands of Muslim literati in the medieval period we would have a much poorer understanding of time today. and of course, most of what we learn about most subjects today is probably going to be just as wrong in the fullness of time, and hopefully as worth learning. so if you open the question from the point of view of our species' cumulative knowledge, rather than the personal instruction of an individual student, you'd probably come up with something very different to what i did.

i think i like @schizsune's version (see), that knowledge is heuristic and that learning is a process. i think that's obviously true, and the ontological approach i've been using is obviously kind of fictional and speculative.