''Alternative Facts are essential for understanding fundamental laws of the universe"

>I think 'not real' might have been the intention
Imaginary, isn't that literally what the i stands for

Imaginary, not real. Tomatoe* tomato.

I doubt the intended message was 'super useful complex number shit'

>*bonus points if you know which under-educated US politician I'm mocking.

>/pol/ has turned off this board so much that people don't even get mad at the obviously cringey march

...

>not 'j'

i agree

Well, that's reddi- I mean /pol/'s fault for thinking every board is their safe space. They should've known by now that people on Veeky Forums are contrarian as fuck, their movement wouldn't get approval by everyone and would turn on itself eventually.

first and fourth are not necessarily correct tho

Just fucking end all leftists.

Last one should be [eqn] \left[ \begin{matrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{matrix} \right] [/eqn]

>Let's just fucking end 90% of scientists
why are you here
if you generalise like that you obviously didn't graduate highscool

> 90% of scientists

Cool true fact you got there.

In many fields liberals outnumber conservative scientists 10 to 1
heterodoxacademy.org/problems/

>heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
Liberals and leftists are not the same thing, numbnuts.

I was under the impression the terms are synonymous in america

The difference between a leftist and a left-leaning person is that leftists set left-leaning politics as their axioms, while left-leaning people derive their left-leaning politics from facts

I had to read this a couple times, but it actually sounds reasonable, thanks

>Muh Tories will destroy muh NHS

For the love of God this isn't happening. Also this belongs on /pol/.

...

>Honestly
>I honestly think
You are honestly retarded.

They're not the useful ones, though.

Alternative facts is a term in law to describe inconsistent sets of facts put forth by the same party in a court given that there is plausible evidence to support both alternatives.

Alternative facts was a retarded term used by Conway to describe that the media wasn't capturing the whole picture. It was a retarded mistake, not some 1984 concept.

Don't conflate classical liberals, neo liberals, to modern day leftist liberals

It's not a term used generally in law. You can find a few instances of the word alternative next to the word facts because pleading in the alternative is a thing and sometimes this has brought up the issue of whether two pleadings by the same party can be based on contradictory statements of the facts of a case. Not to mention that what Conway called an "alternative fact" had no evidentiary basis in the first place and so could not even be called a fact in a legal setting.

I don't see how the specific number of attendees can be considered a different "side of the same picture." There was only one number of attendees. What alternative facts refers to is a fantasy world in which the number of attendees was larger than it was.

No it doesn't, it refers to an alternative set of information that led him to a different conclusion.

>comflating classical liberals with mentally ill modern liberals

hey

hey buddy

go fuck yourself.

you can be a liberal and still believe in white male supremacy and black inferiority

Because most people with an education know about the shittiness of the past and want to do better for their countrymen. Pretty much the opposite of conservatism

the point is that there is not an objective 97% of scientist consensus on the number of attendees. Such a thing is different to determine and there are different timeframes and circumstances to examine.

The media pushes the concept of "fact checking" and "post-fact era" to convince you that the enirety of world events are reduceable to a single irrefutable viewpoint. They use things like politifact and snopes to try and establish an "observer" who impartially referees the world, when in reality things are NEVER that simple.

For example, is immigration good or bad? Well the "fact" is that economists agree it increases GDP so of couse! Well it also descrease scoial capital and increases atomization as de facto degregation increases, as per the Putnam study. But try and give an alternative viewpoint, and you are "post fact"

Its similar with the question of job creation. We have like 15 million different unemployment indicators and you can craft a narrative useing any combination of those. The obama admin was creating tons of McJobs while workers felt displaced, so they switched to Trump. However, the media continued to go off on how hes just lying about jobs and everything is great just look at this fact check!

The bottom line is that if somebody tries to "Fact check", they are trying to sell an narrative. Conqay was absolutly justified in talking about "alternative facts", because they do, absolutly, exist.

>No it doesn't, it refers to an alternative set of information that led him to a different conclusion.
Oh really? So what was that information and who gave it to him?

I guarentee if you ask her what she means by that, she would say that sqrt(-1) doesn't exist and you can't use it

the point is she is pushing significantly more scientific illiteracy than she is protesting.

But this is all we do. It's blasé. At this point protesting is what our grandparents were doing. The rebellious nature of the American people is default. Basic. And absolutely innefective because we've convinced ourselves that walking around with signs (the norm) is somehow doing anything to make the world a better place instead of actually making the world a better place.

If we put half the effort into rebuilding inner city homes, and pursuing community education and skill based projects as we did protesting we wouldn't have any of the issues we protest about.

>the point is that there is not an objective 97% of scientist consensus on the number of attendees.
I didn't ask for a scientific consensus, I simply pointed out that there is no evidentiary basis for Spicer's claims about the number of attendees.

>Such a thing is different to determine and there are different timeframes and circumstances to examine.
Which exactly were examined to come up with the 420,000 number?

>The media pushes the concept of "fact checking" and "post-fact era" to convince you that the enirety of world events are reduceable to a single irrefutable viewpoint. They use things like politifact and snopes to try and establish an "observer" who impartially referees the world, when in reality things are NEVER that simple.
This is an idiotic strawman. Fact-checking does not imply there is a single irrefutable viewpoint. It implies that certain claims can be refuted based on the evidence available. The world does not have to be black and white for us to determine that Spicer was wrong about the number of attendees being record-breaking.

The information was that the audience was large and i don't know who gave it to him.
I'm not trying to argue the validity of the information just the term.
You seem to think it's some 1984 end of free speech style shit but really it's just a guy recieving incorrect information and wording something poorly.

That's how Euler wrote it.

I can see what was the intention, but it kind of undermines the supposed spirit of the march to compare alternative facts to complex numbers.

But he didn't do so in 2017.

>90% of scientists

Found the statistician.

...

...

If it's incorrect information why call it a fact? Conway avoided calling it incorrect and everyone knows it.