The article is very clear and references the DOGE site.
Your point seems to be that truth depends on packaging the context it’s served in.
This is a classic post-truth move:
Distracting from the substance by debating the style. It’s a diversion, not a logical argument. When truth is pushed to the background in favor of delivery, it’s no longer about facts, but about framing those facts to fit an agenda.
You're suggesting that truth's value hinges on its presentation...A classic post-truth deflection that shifts attention from substance to style. In proper logic, a fact remains true regardless of its packaging.
> - Can you independently verify the accuracy of the data presented?
You can go to the DOGE site and also ask for more transparency. Something
many argue is now impossible since they have write access to government records.
> - Are the errors due to the data itself being wrong, or are the underlying sources unreliable?
> - Do these errors appear to be the result of intentional bias, or are they reasonable mistakes?
> - Ultimately, do these issues undermine the credibility of DOGE as a trustworthy source?
Your point seems to be that truth depends on packaging the context it’s served in.
This is a classic post-truth move:
Distracting from the substance by debating the style. It’s a diversion, not a logical argument. When truth is pushed to the background in favor of delivery, it’s no longer about facts, but about framing those facts to fit an agenda.
You're suggesting that truth's value hinges on its presentation...A classic post-truth deflection that shifts attention from substance to style. In proper logic, a fact remains true regardless of its packaging.