Have you ever had a discussion with a conservative, trying to introduce facts into a conversation, facts that they don’t accept? When you suggest different sourcing the average conservative simply refuses to even consider the fact that something might be contrary to the world as they see it. The very fact that a source, a tidbit of information may come from a less than acceptable source – i.e. liberal, is enough for many to close their minds and refuse to even consider the possibility that their version of the world is false because their provider of sourcing and facts is completely inaccurate. The word The Pink Flamingo likes to use is “convoluted”.
Convoluted is defined as extremely complex, difficult to follow, intricately folded, twisted, or coiled, occasionally devious. As far as “truth” is concerned, there are differing ways to look at it.
“…Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality or fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. The opposite of truth is falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also take on a logical, factual, or ethical meaning. The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy and religion. Many human activities depend upon the concept, which is assumed rather than a subject of discussion, including science, law, and everyday life.
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. Language and words are a means by which humans convey information to one another and the method used to recognize a “truth” is termed a criterion of truth. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective or objective, relative or absolute…”
After dealing with Frank Waters for nearly a decade, The Pink Flamingo has learned that “truth” is subjective and is in the eyes of the beholder. When he wrote the final version of The Earp Brothers of Tombstone, which was published around 1961 or so, Waters swore that he wrote the “truth” about Wyatt Earp. The problem with Waters’ version of “truth” is it differed from the original version of his book, Tombstone Travesty, which was written sometime during the mid 1930s as a personal vendetta against Stuart Lake’s best-selling Wyatt Earp, Frontier Marshal.
Frank Waters’ wrote “truth”. Waters’ could wax poetic when dealing dealing with “truth”. What mattered to him was a greater philosophical version of “truth”. Factual accuracy was not important. Because of this, after writing a 528 page expose on Waters’ that contained nearly 23oo footnotes, The Pink Flamingo no longer gives a damn about “truth”. I am interested in factual accuracy.
This is the problem within the conservative world. The right is interested in “truth” the same way Frank Waters’ was. Factual accuracy doesn’t matter as much as that greater “truth” that provides confirmation of a narrative. It doesn’t matter that the narrative is not accurate, cannot be verified, or documented. All that matters is that greater “truth”.
The far right has ever so many “truth tellers” who refuse to deviate from their narrative. Facts don’t matter. Documentation doesn’t matter. Provable facts that can be documented don’t matter. What matters is the narrative – for the greater good.
The problem with this sort of thing is the fact that “truth” destroys with lies. The Pink Flamingo was one of the first historians to be able to prove that Frank Waters’ version of “truth” is in fact, nothing but canard, prevarication, lies. Unfortunately, because of his reputation, most “scholars” who are involved in the in the ongoing acceptance of Waters’ are within academia and the historical ‘hacks’ who shop a book idea, get a contract, and walk all over those of us who do the actual research to disprove this sort of thing.
This is the situation within the conservative world. The far right adores it’s “truth” tellers. They maintain this narrative, providing their version of the world, in order to authenticate and promote their agenda. There is nothing wrong with this, if the buyer knows what is going on and is willing to explore the difference between “truth” and accuracy.
The average conservative is the salt of the earth, patriotic, trusting man or woman who is suspicious only of liberals and liberal media. They are so trusting of their “truth-tellers” that they cannot even conceptualize of the possibility that their “truth-teller” is lying. Because we are dealing with honest, honorable men and women, they take everyone at face value. They never even consider that they’re being made fools of by the very people they trust.
The Pink Flamingo has been accused, rightly, of depending more on so-called liberal sources than conservative sources. There is a reason. As a researcher, historian, and writer, my work in the real world is only as good as my reputation and my use of documented material. For some strange reason, liberals have a tendency to more accurately and obsessively document their work. They have a general tendency not to take things a face value. Conservative sources on the other hand, are far too trusting. If a ‘trusted’ source says something, then they go with it.
I also think there is a general pride in being as obtuse as possible. It is more than pride, it is an arrogance. By falling into this trap, time and time again, Because the sources are conservative, they are to be given consideration over liberal sources, no matter how accurate things are.
When I make a decision about something, I want both sides of a story. I want more than one set of facts, more than one opinion, and more than one view. In the conservative world, just this very process renders my judgment, reasoning, decision process and logic flawed. In the real world, this sort of process is considered judicial, ideal, and wise. In the conservative world it is to be castigated, pushed aside, and derided.
Why are conservative afraid of facing political realities, new facts, and information that is contrary to their world view? is their version of “conservative” so fragile, their hold on reality so fragile that it cannot be disturbed?