A THIRD THING I’VE LEARNED: People regard their political opinions as a part of their personal identity. [...]
people find it difficult to separate their identities from their opinions.
A FOURTH THING I’VE LEARNED: Almost nobody enters a political debate with any intention of changing their mind.
At best, what people want to do when entering a debate is to change someone else’s mind. Although, it is surprising how seldom people even intend to do that – my sense is that, on many occasions, entering a debate is a way of signaling to one’s peers, so that you can inform them that you are part of a certain group.
“It’s a bad business. It’s a confirmation that the anxieties and terrors I’ve had all my life were accurate. There’s no advantage to ageing. You don’t get wiser, you don’t get more mellow, you don’t see life in a more glowing way. You have to fight your body decaying, and you have less options.” In 46 years as a director, he hasn’t budged on his position that there’s only one response: watch a basketball game, play the clarinet.
Facebook’s business only grows on the unsustainable basis that it can add new customers at a faster rate than the value of individual customers declines. It is peddling as fast as it can. And the present scenario gets much worse as its users increasingly interact with the social service on mobile devices, because it is vastly harder, on a small screen, to sell ads and profitably monetize users.[my emphasis]
Around 1910, a criminologist by the name of Edmond Locard arrived at a theory that every time something comes into contact with another it either takes or leaves a portion of itself or another. This theory is called the Edmond Locard Theory, which simply states “Every contact leaves its trace.” This theory is continually used today in crime scene investigations and the analysis of physical evidence.
The Hilderbrand article, quoting Paul L. Kirk, 1974:
Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothing, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects… All of these and more bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are, it is factual evidence, physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself; it cannot be wholly absent, only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value.”
[...] a court is not where one arrives at the truth. Instead, the sole purpose of court testimony is to ensure that the prosecution has prepared an “airtight” case, has established their case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that the rights of the defendant have not been compromised.