NPR’s CEO: truth is a distraction in the way of getting things done

[Bootstrap]

The fact two people don’t agree on something doesn’t mean there isn’t a correct answer or that truth doesn’t exist.

But it means that at least one of them does not know the correct answer. And very likely two.

The wilderness is the ground truth. Our individual maps are not. The hard work of exploring the wilderness together and correcting our maps as we go is the only real way to pursue truth.

[Bootstrap]

When I worked in public broadcasting, my job ...

I'm curious - what was your job? How long did you work there? When?

[Bootstrap]

I'm also curious about this: what is your source for the OP?

[Josh]

When I worked in public broadcasting, my job ...

I'm curious - what was your job? How long did you work there? When?

There’s a limit to how much I wish to share about my personal life with hostile counterparties in a public forum.

[Josh]

I'm also curious about this: what is your source for the OP?

The source is her TED Talk. I’m not quite sure what you’re asking? I often listen to Ted talks, particularly from people I disagree with.

[GaryK]

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.

Both the early Anabaptists and the people who killed the early Anabaptists agreed on that. They disagreed on what Jesus actually meant in the Bible. Dramatic torture and executions showed just how much our persecutors cared about "truth" as they understood it.

Shouting "truth" at the top of our lungs doesn't solve that problem. Careful study, together, with a willingness to understand the other's point of view can at least help solve that problem. Especially if we do it prayerfully, with discernment.

Are you suggesting the persecutors agreed with the Anabaptists that Jesus meant what He said about loving your enemies?

[temporal1]

When I worked in public broadcasting, my job ...

I'm curious - what was your job? How long did you work there? When?

There’s a limit to how much I wish to share about my personal life with hostile counterparties in a public forum.

astonishing. from one who just wrote essays on the importance of respect for online personal privacy.

[Bootstrap]

I'm also curious about this: what is your source for the OP?

The source is her TED Talk. I’m not quite sure what you’re asking? I often listen to Ted talks, particularly from people I disagree with.

But the TED talk was very clear that she was speaking for Wikipedia. It was also clear that NPR did not sponsor the talk. And the TED Talk is quite clear that she believes in objective truth. If you were just looking at the TED talk, how on earth did you reach these false conclusions?

And the false claim that NPR is state-sponsored propaganda like Russia Today is very much Elon Musk's Twitter/X campaign, which has been adopted by right wing political outlets. I don't think you got that from the TED talk. And you know or should know that it is false. I'm sure Trump and Biden would LOVE to have been able to tell NPR to lay off them, but neither President could. Putin can.

So most of the positioning in the OP is not original with you, and it's not from the TED talk. What were you looking at before you wrote the OP? Where did you get this positioning from?

[Bootstrap]

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.

Both the early Anabaptists and the people who killed the early Anabaptists agreed on that. They disagreed on what Jesus actually meant in the Bible. Dramatic torture and executions showed just how much our persecutors cared about "truth" as they understood it.

Shouting "truth" at the top of our lungs doesn't solve that problem. Careful study, together, with a willingness to understand the other's point of view can at least help solve that problem. Especially if we do it prayerfully, with discernment.

Are you suggesting the persecutors agreed with the Anabaptists that Jesus meant what He said about loving your enemies?

No, but I think they believed they were defending true Christianity from the heretics. Shouting that you are defending the true faith doesn't mean that you are. Claiming to follow the Bible doesn't mean that you have grasped what it actually commands.

I mean ... look at the Pharisees.

So we really do need ways to discuss things with people who disagree with us. Ways that challenge our own thinking, peeling away the things that keep us from seeing the truth.

[GaryK]

Both the early Anabaptists and the people who killed the early Anabaptists agreed on that. They disagreed on what Jesus actually meant in the Bible. Dramatic torture and executions showed just how much our persecutors cared about "truth" as they understood it.

Shouting "truth" at the top of our lungs doesn't solve that problem. Careful study, together, with a willingness to understand the other's point of view can at least help solve that problem. Especially if we do it prayerfully, with discernment.

Are you suggesting the persecutors agreed with the Anabaptists that Jesus meant what He said about loving your enemies?

No, but I think they believed they were defending true Christianity from the heretics. Shouting that you are defending the true faith doesn't mean that you are. Claiming to follow the Bible doesn't mean that you have grasped what it actually commands.

I mean ... look at the Pharisees.

So we really do need ways to discuss things with people who disagree with us. Ways that challenge our own thinking, peeling away the things that keep us from seeing the truth.

I'm curious then, what you were referring to when you said "Both the early Anabaptists and the people who killed the early Anabaptists agreed on that."

Here is what Josh said that you were responding to.

Anabaptists are actually people who decided to believe Jesus meant what he said in the Bible without the idea there are different “truths” for different people.