This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no “serious personal and professional consequences” before you trust a source, you’d have to dismiss almost all of them.
And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of “stable rule of law” doesn’t preclude this.
This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no “serious personal and professional consequences” before you trust a source, you’d have to dismiss almost all of them.
I think the heuristic of “do not trust a source to accurately report X if it faces serious personal and professional consequences for many plausible beliefs about X” is not a particularly weird heuristic? That seems extremely normal to me, and I am confused what’s going on here. Most people, especially in the US do not face serious personal and professional consequences for most beliefs they express, and when they do, you should absolutely dismiss them as a source.
This proves too much. If you consistently require there be no “serious personal and professional consequences” before you trust a source, you’d have to dismiss almost all of them.
And outside the US, statements the government finds offensive often run the risk of criminal prosecution as well. The existence of “stable rule of law” doesn’t preclude this.
I think the heuristic of “do not trust a source to accurately report X if it faces serious personal and professional consequences for many plausible beliefs about X” is not a particularly weird heuristic? That seems extremely normal to me, and I am confused what’s going on here. Most people, especially in the US do not face serious personal and professional consequences for most beliefs they express, and when they do, you should absolutely dismiss them as a source.