#conviction — Public Fediverse posts

A quotation from Eric Hoffer

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American writer, philosopher, longshoreman
True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Part 3, ch. 14, § 83 (3.14.83) (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/hoffer-eric/11263/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #erichoffer #agitprop #belief #confirmation #confirmationbias #conviction #disinformation #fear #ideas #justification #opinion #passion #predisposition #prejudice #propaganda #reinforcement #truebeliever

A quotation from Eric Hoffer

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American writer, philosopher, longshoreman
True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Part 3, ch. 14, § 83 (3.14.83) (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/hoffer-eric/11263/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #erichoffer #agitprop #belief #confirmation #confirmationbias #conviction #disinformation #fear #ideas #justification #opinion #passion #predisposition #prejudice #propaganda #reinforcement #truebeliever

A quotation from Eric Hoffer

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American writer, philosopher, longshoreman
True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Part 3, ch. 14, § 83 (3.14.83) (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/hoffer-eric/11263/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #erichoffer #agitprop #belief #confirmation #confirmationbias #conviction #disinformation #fear #ideas #justification #opinion #passion #predisposition #prejudice #propaganda #reinforcement #truebeliever

A quotation from Eric Hoffer

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American writer, philosopher, longshoreman
True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Part 3, ch. 14, § 83 (3.14.83) (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/hoffer-eric/11263/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #erichoffer #agitprop #belief #confirmation #confirmationbias #conviction #disinformation #fear #ideas #justification #opinion #passion #predisposition #prejudice #propaganda #reinforcement #truebeliever

A quotation from Eric Hoffer

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already “know.”

Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American writer, philosopher, longshoreman
True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, Part 3, ch. 14, § 83 (3.14.83) (1951)

More about this quote: wist.info/hoffer-eric/11263/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #erichoffer #agitprop #belief #confirmation #confirmationbias #conviction #disinformation #fear #ideas #justification #opinion #passion #predisposition #prejudice #propaganda #reinforcement #truebeliever

A quotation from Josh Billings

Whare thare iz one man obstinate bekauze he iz wize, thare iz 4,695,853 obstinate bekauze they are ignorant.
 
[Where there is one man obstinate because he is wise, there are 4,685,853 obstinate because they are ignorant.]

Josh Billings (1818-1885) American humorist, aphorist [pseud. of Henry Wheeler Shaw]
Josh Billings’ Farmer’s Allminax, 1874-12 (1874 ed.)

More about this quote: wist.info/billings-josh/83874/

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #joshbillings #conviction #determination #ignorance #obstinacy #sticktoit #stubbornness #wisdom

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

#341: How Radical Should You Be In Your Belief?

https://youtu.be/mOoLMJQRrQY

How radical should you be in your belief? If you believe in something, shouldn’t you aim to believe in it more? So, let’s discuss.

All of us have our ideas that we prefer over others. All of us may have our political, religious, cultural preferences. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what we do. That’s what makes us human.

If we believe deeply that something is correct, that something is good, should we not think also that more of that is better? It’s a seductive idea and it seems logical initially. If you are X, if you believe in X, shouldn’t you believe in it more so? That seems to be the case because otherwise why would you believe in it? Is your belief really that weak that you can’t strengthen it?

So that’s the idea. And if you for some reason don’t want to fully commit, maybe you really never believed it completely. Maybe you’re not really a true believer. That’s the other part of the idea.

However, I would say this ignores certain facts about ideas, because every idea — whether it’s a religion, a philosophy, a cultural preference — typically has safeguards. When you look at all the big religions, they have some sort of clause, some sort of warning against taking it too far. Because that’s what the very idea of divinity is. That’s what the very idea of God is: that which we as human beings cannot completely understand. God is that which we cannot even approach so much that we can be certain of what God is. Because if we could, wouldn’t that mean in some way that we could become God? And that’s the very warning that most religions promote.

Believe, but don’t assume for a moment that you have all the answers.

There’s this joke that camels always look at humans in a specific way. The joke is that God has 100 names. We know 99 of them. But the camel knows all 100. And that’s why the camel looks so superior.

But that is the idea of religion. The idea of religion is a combination — as strange as this may sound — of belief and humility. We are not God. We are not everything in the universe. We are not all-knowing. We are not omnipotent. And we will never get there. So whatever you think of as God — whether you think that’s a religious idea, whether you think that’s nature, whether you think that’s the universe, whether you think that’s just the ultimate good — this idea is clear: do not pretend to be all-knowing yourself. Have some sense of humility.

Now that also goes for philosophy. You may say, I follow philosopher so-and-so. But philosophy is an ongoing conversation about wisdom — the love of wisdom; that’s what philosophia means. Each idea in philosophy lives in interaction with other ideas. Philosophy is more than just footnotes to Plato. Plato can be footnotes to Plato — if you look at the Laws and the Republic, there are two very different ideas there, and more than two.

Philosophers are typically smarter than those who follow a specific philosophy. Because every philosopher knows that in order to put out the strongest version of their idea, they have to leave some of the complications out. But there are always complications. And philosophy X always lives in some form of exchange with philosophy Y or Z or however many there are. Every idea lives in an ecosystem of ideas. It lives in relation with others.

Philosophy X may be good or better in certain respects than philosophy Y. Maybe philosophy Y is good in other aspects. But the truth emerges in the interaction between the two.

So you may believe that the individual is the source of all morality. But how far do you want to take this? Do you believe this to the complete abdication of responsibility for others? Do you believe this to the complete rejection of the state? Similarly, if you believe the state is the authority over everything else, at which point does this have to stop? At which point does the state have to even question itself as to how far it should go?

Everything costs money. Does this mean that everything should be judged by its price tag? Even though price is not a static thing — it depends on a lot of factors. Is the price tag always the value of something, or is it just our momentary expression of our social and cultural priorities? Of course there’s supply and demand which regulate that. But is that still everything? Aren’t there things where we should find some difficulty putting a price on? Aren’t there some things that we can’t really measure very well? So isn’t there a limit to this kind of positivist, materialist way of looking at things?

Equally, if we say the materialistic world doesn’t matter and we need to live in a more spiritual, contemplative state of mind — that may be true to a point, but eventually bills will have to be paid. You do live in some form of reality, and that reality means that resources typically are limited and there needs to be a prioritizing. How do you organize that?

The material and the spiritual belong together. They will always have friction between each other, but they will always complement each other. If you’re too materialistic — if you believe that only that which can be measured, only that which can be owned, only that which can have a price tag matters — you should maybe think about some more spiritual components of life. If you’re too spiritual, maybe you need to be rooted more in the fact that there’s also a materialist component of life.

If X drowns out Y, sides of X may appear that make it wrong, because you need that balance. And there are more than just two — X and Y is easier, but you could say XYZ or whatever.

So in fact the saying may be true that too much of a good thing is indeed not good. It distorts what it is.

This is why you see me frequently call for moderation. You could argue that too much moderation is also wrong — you need some passion and some intensity and some belief. Well, yes. But moderation can also be just a middle ground between these different poles. All these different ideas around us lead us to negotiate our space within them. Moderation does not mean you don’t have convictions. It means that you question at which point your convictions turn into such a radicality, into such an extreme version, that they become wrong — that they are undermined by their own conviction.

Is radicality the truest expression of an idea? No. It may be the most flamboyant, the most interesting. But it can’t survive well. If you turn too radical, too extremist, your idea may be more attractive to people who really think like you. But then look at history. Every time an idea became too radical, it fails. It has failed. No matter what the idea — because in its radicality, in its extremism, it loses its power of conviction towards those who don’t agree with you. And the number of people in the world who agree with you is always going to be punctuated by the number of people who disagree with you.

If you want to build a successful movement, if you want to build a successful approach to politics, to religion, to whatever your cultural or social idea may be, you need to convince others. You need to find ways of integrating aspects of the other into your own.

Which is why this very familiar symbol of yin and yang — masculine, feminine, black, white, dark, light — shows you these two parts, but there’s always something of the other in the bigger part. You know the symbol.

If we don’t find a way to integrate that with which we disagree — as some sense of doubt, as some sense of humility within our convictions — then our convictions will be nothing but arrogance, nothing but self-congratulatory pose, and turn out to be nothing else than solipsism: centering on yourself and that which you think defines you as the only thing that matters.

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]

“Yet another paedophile convicted from the Labour-right [pro-Israel - my edit] production line...”

via The Canary on Telegram

@UKLabour
@uk_politics

Read more here:
https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2026/04/11/labour-right-another-paedophile/

#Press #SocialMedia #UK #Labour #LabourParty #Paedophile #Conviction #Starmer #LabourIsFinished

WTAF!?

#SteveBannon wins #SCOTUS order likely to lead to dismissal of his #criminal #conviction for refusing to #Congress.

“Prodded” [instructed] by the #Trump admin, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a #subpoena from the #House committee that investigated the #Jan6, 2021 #insurrection by Trump supporters.

#law #SeparationOfPowers #LegislativeBranch #oversight #ChecksAndBalances #SubpoenaPower
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-bannon-trump-4a4cf324096fc1bfed204d42b54d191e

WTAF!?

#SteveBannon wins #SCOTUS order likely to lead to dismissal of his #criminal #conviction for refusing to #Congress.

“Prodded” [instructed] by the #Trump admin, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a #subpoena from the #House committee that investigated the #Jan6, 2021 #insurrection by Trump supporters.

#law #SeparationOfPowers #LegislativeBranch #oversight #ChecksAndBalances #SubpoenaPower
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-bannon-trump-4a4cf324096fc1bfed204d42b54d191e

WTAF!?

#SteveBannon wins #SCOTUS order likely to lead to dismissal of his #criminal #conviction for refusing to #Congress.

“Prodded” [instructed] by the #Trump admin, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a #subpoena from the #House committee that investigated the #Jan6, 2021 #insurrection by Trump supporters.

#law #SeparationOfPowers #LegislativeBranch #oversight #ChecksAndBalances #SubpoenaPower
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-bannon-trump-4a4cf324096fc1bfed204d42b54d191e

WTAF!?

#SteveBannon wins #SCOTUS order likely to lead to dismissal of his #criminal #conviction for refusing to #Congress.

“Prodded” [instructed] by the #Trump admin, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a #subpoena from the #House committee that investigated the #Jan6, 2021 #insurrection by Trump supporters.

#law #SeparationOfPowers #LegislativeBranch #oversight #ChecksAndBalances #SubpoenaPower
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-bannon-trump-4a4cf324096fc1bfed204d42b54d191e

WTAF!?

#SteveBannon wins #SCOTUS order likely to lead to dismissal of his #criminal #conviction for refusing to #Congress.

“Prodded” [instructed] by the #Trump admin, the justices threw out an appellate ruling upholding Bannon’s conviction for defying a #subpoena from the #House committee that investigated the #Jan6, 2021 #insurrection by Trump supporters.

#law #SeparationOfPowers #LegislativeBranch #oversight #ChecksAndBalances #SubpoenaPower
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-bannon-trump-4a4cf324096fc1bfed204d42b54d191e

#US #army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal #conviction for #marijuana or #drug #paraphernalia #possession.

People aged up to 42 can now enlist in the army, the army national guard and the army reserves, according to the new US army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.

#TrumpRegime needs larger army?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions

#USAggression #USThreats #DementiaDon #ComradeKrasnov

#US #army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal #conviction for #marijuana or #drug #paraphernalia #possession.

People aged up to 42 can now enlist in the army, the army national guard and the army reserves, according to the new US army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.

#TrumpRegime needs larger army?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions

#USAggression #USThreats #DementiaDon #ComradeKrasnov

#US #army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal #conviction for #marijuana or #drug #paraphernalia #possession.

People aged up to 42 can now enlist in the army, the army national guard and the army reserves, according to the new US army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.

#TrumpRegime needs larger army?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions

#USAggression #USThreats #DementiaDon #ComradeKrasnov

#US #army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal #conviction for #marijuana or #drug #paraphernalia #possession.

People aged up to 42 can now enlist in the army, the army national guard and the army reserves, according to the new US army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.

#TrumpRegime needs larger army?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions

#USAggression #USThreats #DementiaDon #ComradeKrasnov

#US #army has raised the maximum enlistment age to 42 years old and scrapped a barrier for potential recruits who have a legal #conviction for #marijuana or #drug #paraphernalia #possession.

People aged up to 42 can now enlist in the army, the army national guard and the army reserves, according to the new US army regulation, lifting the previous ceiling of 35 years old.

#TrumpRegime needs larger army?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/25/army-max-enlistment-marijuana-restrictions

#USAggression #USThreats #DementiaDon #ComradeKrasnov

"The speed with which people will disavow themselves tomorrow from what they do today will astonish you." - Futurist Jim Carroll

Just watch.

There will be countless people tomorrow who will say, "Well, I wasn't really a supporter." "I wasn't behind it." "I never really believed in all those ideas." "Ya, I always thought it was wrong."

They will suggest they are innocent. They were doubters all along. They had nothing to do with it.

That they would have spoken up except that....

The list goes on.

Tomorrow, they will try to bend the truth to whatever new reality they want to slide into.

Remember this post.

You'll watch it happen.

The speed with which people back away from their previously strongly held beliefs indicates that those beliefs were really nothing but temporary expediency.

This happens with innovation and leadership too. Think about it! Think about all the excuses, attitudes, and shifts in perspective when they disavow their previous stance as the future suddenly appears. 

Who are they?

People who aren't very good at innovation, but who are great at excuses.

Take a look around you.

You are surrounded by them.

People who are shallow in their belief system, narrow in their ethics, and quick
to disavow their past.

And in your mind, you know that their minds are often just simply empty vessels of expediency, where they will do and say and act with whatever repulsive idea, hateful belief or conspiracy-laden agenda that fits their shallowness.

Or whatever agenda-of-the-moment they can adopt, espouse, and support that fits into their belief system.

Just watch.

You know I'm right.

---
**#Disavow** **#Excuses** **#Truth** **#Accountability** **#Leadership** **#Integrity** **#Character** **#Revisionism** **#Ethics** **#Beliefs** **#Honesty** **#Innovation** **#Shallow** **#Expediency** **#Memory** **#Courage** **#Values** **#Authenticity** **#Tomorrow** **#Hypocrisy** **#Watch** **#Reality** **#Conviction** **#Warning** **#Onwards**

Futurist Jim Carroll figures you know exactly who he is writing about.

Original post: https://jimcarroll.com/2026/03/daily-inspiration-innovation-the-speed-with-which-people-will-disavow-themselves-tomorrow-from-what-they-do-today-will-astonish-you/

Le mot « #inacceptable » n’est pas tolérable.
Pour rappel, en #République, rien n’est intouchable, et encore moins des structures #religieuses qui, rappelons-le, reposent sur une simple #hypothèse, l’idée de l’existence d’un #dieu. Quand on a la #conviction de ses idées, on doit aussi avoir la force de les défendre face à la #critique, et plus encore face à l’#AthéismeRéformé.
@GenerationAthee

‘47 Ronin’ director Carl Erik Rinsch convicted of defrauding Netflix https://www.byteseu.com/1621918/ #clothing #conviction #DirectorCarlErikRinsch #Entertainment #MarchIndictment #MoneyLaundering #netflix #NewYork #PersonalAccount #rinsch #ronin #SciFiShow #thursday #TvShow #U.S.Attorney #WireFraud

A quotation from Franklin Roosevelt

We can gain no lasting peace if we approach it with suspicion and mistrust — or with fear. We can gain it only if we proceed with the understanding and the confidence and the courage which flow from conviction.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933-1945)
Speech (1945-01-20), Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C.

More about this quote: wist.info/roosevelt-franklin-d…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #fdr #franklinroosevelt #franklindroosevelt #franklindelanoroosevelt #confidence #conviction #courage #fear #foreignrelations #internationalaffairs #internationalrelations #mistrust #peace #principles #suspicion #understanding

Why did Donald Trump commute George Santos' prison sentence? The proof is in the party

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/politics/why-trump-pardon-george-santos

Pokémon company protests Homeland Security ‘Gotta Catch ‘Em All’ post

The company behind the po…
#UnitedStates #US #USA #america #California #card #company #conviction #Department #detainee #Dhs #federalagency #gamingcompany #GavinNewsom #HomelandSecurity #imagery #immigrationprotests #LAimmigrationprotests #LAprotests #losangeles #NationalGuard #OriginalContent #photograph #pokémonvideo #recognizablethemesong #unitedstatesofamerica #USnews #USAnews #Xaccount
https://www.europesays.com/2442341/

A quotation from Joseph Joubert

When we think what we do not feel, we lie to ourselves. We must always think with our whole being, soul and body.
 
[Penser ce que l’on ne sent pas, c’est mentir à soi-même. Tout ce qu’on pense, il faut le penser avec son être tout entier, âme et corps.]

Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) French moralist, philosopher, essayist, poet
Pensées [Thoughts], ch. 9 “De la Sagesse, de la Vertu, etc. [On Wisdom and Virtue],” ¶ 52, 1798 entry (1850 ed.) [tr. Collins (1928), ch. 8]

Sourcing, notes, other translations: wist.info/joubert-joseph/77134…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #joubert #josephjoubert #conviction #emotion #feeling #intellect #passion #selfdeception #thinking #thought

A quotation from Mignon McLaughlin

What you were sure of yesterday, you know now to be false, but what you are sure of today is absolutely true.

Mignon McLaughlin (1913-1983) American journalist and author
The Neurotic’s Notebook, ch. 10 (1963)

Sourcing, notes: wist.info/mclaughlin-mignon/77…

#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #assurance #belief #certainty #change #changeofmind #conviction #error #falseness #opinion #perspective #truth

New York Judge Denies #Trump’s Bid to Throw Out #Conviction Over #Immunity Ruling. Justice Juan M. Merchan thwarted one of several attempts by #DonaldTrump to clear his record of 34 #felonies before returning to the #WhiteHouse. “The People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch,” the judge, Juan M. Merchan, wrote in a 41-page decision. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25459328/merchan-immunity-ruling.pdf

#EliRubashkyn, #convicted #of #tomato #juice #assault on #TERF #Hatemonger #PosieParker, #appeals #sentence in #Auckland #HighCourt

#Defence #lawyer #JamesOlsen argued to #Justice #DavidJohnstone that #Judge #KirstenLummis had erred by not fully considering the #impact a #conviction would have on his #client.

#Women #Transgender #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA #NewZealand #UK #TERFS #Hate #Bigotry #Violence #Transphobia #TERFIsland #ExportingHate

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/crime/eli-rubashkyn-convicted-of-tomato-juice-assault-on-posie-parker-appeals-sentence-in-auckland-high-court/ZMW6J6V72ZC5XEJGMZZFBN4TUI/

#Trump supporters tried to #dox #jurors last week after his #conviction, & they also targeted #prosecutors & the #judge, Justice #Merchan, in the case w/ #threats. During the trial, the mother of a fmr police officer, #MichaelFanone, who was nearly killed on #Jan6, 2021, by *rioters* who believed Trump's lies about the #2020election was "#swatted" after her son called Trump "an authoritarian" w/ "a violence fetish."

#StochasticTerrorism #Terrorism #PoliticalViolence #MAGA #Republicans #law

Anchorage Jury Convicts Marley Marque of Murdering her Five-Year-Old Son
[the_ad id="37544"]

Marley Marque. FB Profiles

(Anchorage, AK) On Tuesday, an Anchorage jury found Marley Jolie Marque, 32, guilty of murdering her 5-year-old son, Jobe Christensen, on Nov 20, 2020. She was also convicted of assaulting two...
https://alaska-native-news.com/anchorage-jury-convicts-marley-marque-of-murdering-her-five-year-old-son/70561/
#marque #murder #son #jobe #christiansen #anchorage #conviction

Anchorage Jury Convicts Marley Marque of Murdering her Five-Year-Old Son
[the_ad id="37544"]

Marley Marque. FB Profiles

(Anchorage, AK) On Tuesday, an Anchorage jury found Marley Jolie Marque, 32, guilty of murdering her 5-year-old son, Jobe Christensen, on Nov 20, 2020. She was also convicted of assaulting two...
https://alaska-native-news.com/anchorage-jury-convicts-marley-marque-of-murdering-her-five-year-old-son/70561/
#marque #murder #son #jobe #christiansen #anchorage #conviction

Anchorage Jury Convicts Marley Marque of Murdering her Five-Year-Old Son
[the_ad id="37544"]

Marley Marque. FB Profiles

(Anchorage, AK) On Tuesday, an Anchorage jury found Marley Jolie Marque, 32, guilty of murdering her 5-year-old son, Jobe Christensen, on Nov 20, 2020. She was also convicted of assaulting two...
https://alaska-native-news.com/anchorage-jury-convicts-marley-marque-of-murdering-her-five-year-old-son/70561/
#marque #murder #son #jobe #christiansen #anchorage #conviction

Anchorage Jury Convicts Marley Marque of Murdering her Five-Year-Old Son
[the_ad id="37544"]

Marley Marque. FB Profiles

(Anchorage, AK) On Tuesday, an Anchorage jury found Marley Jolie Marque, 32, guilty of murdering her 5-year-old son, Jobe Christensen, on Nov 20, 2020. She was also convicted of assaulting two...
https://alaska-native-news.com/anchorage-jury-convicts-marley-marque-of-murdering-her-five-year-old-son/70561/
#marque #murder #son #jobe #christiansen #anchorage #conviction

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan won a 2018 #conviction against an associate of #Luft. Patrick Ho, the head of the NGO backed by the Chinese oil conglomerate, had been charged w/ #bribing ofcls in 2 African countries in hopes of gaining a business advantage for the energy company. He was #sentenced to 3 years in #prison.

#RepublicanIneptitude
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gal-luft-indictment-china-hunter-biden-investigation-8a8560c7

Jordan Joplin Convicted of Ketchikan Doctor’s Murder
[the_ad id="30587"]

Murder victim Dr. Eric Garcia.

(Anchorage, AK) – Thursday, in Anchorage, a jury found Jordan Joplin guilty of murdering Dr. Eric Garcia using a fatal dose of liquid morphine. Joplin, 38, was convicted of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and theft in...
https://alaska-native-news.com/jordan-joplin-convicted-of-ketchikan-doctors-murder/68171/
#ericgarcia #jordanjoplin #murder #ketchikan #conviction