Berkeley Mews by Ben Zaehringer for December 09, 2024

Uh…

Word salad much?

Well, he’s not wrong.

Humpty Dumpty!

This actually makes sense. For example: based on the available information, economists agree that tariffs will wreck the economy. Donald Trump, based on a mistaken belief that tariffs will be paid for by other countries and not American taxpayers, believes that they won’t. So the correct thing here is to believe the experts with their evidence. If it turns out that Trump is right, then the economists were wrong. But at the time, they were right. Trump would be right, but he was still wrong at the time because there was no evidence to support his position. So he shouldn’t get credit for being right in the present, because based on what was known at the time he was wrong. He’s wrong because, even though he turned out to be right, he was right when all the available evidence said he was wrong.

In other words, we shouldn’t give people credit for lucky guesses and we should listen to experts using evidence even though they’re not always right because that’s more likely to be right than any other way that’s available to us (e.g., the gods speaking to us).

Very convincing

I’m pretty sure that that’s not what is meant when we’re told we should “right a wrong”.

Felix, where Art had had “had,” had had, “had had.” “Had had” had had Felix’s approval.

Election reality, world has gone crazy.