[krapp]

Ok. I'm not even claiming you're wrong, but again, if we can't trust anyone to determine what truth is, why should we believe you?

How can you prove you're right without invoking exactly the same sources of truth that are being discredited as untrustworthy due to their biases?

Once you play the "Who controls the truth?" card, it applies as much to you as anyone else. That argument becomes infinite and recursive when the implication is that no one can be trusted. Otherwise, the implication is that only certain sources of truth can't be trusted - which itself is simply a statement of bias. Just tell us which side you're on, in that case.

[cwkoss]

Epistemological proofs are an impossible standard. Take in what you think has credibility or value and make a personal judgement.

[bena]

But his point is that's not what's being asked. The original poster in this sub-discussion said "trust on one" then posted something he regards as "truth" to counteract "the narrative".

He was rightly called out for being someone we can't trust by his own definitions.

"Trust no one" is a bad philosophy because it's infinite regress. And anyone who claims to follow that philosophy at some point reaches a point where they have to be hypocritical and trust someone because unless they've acquired all of this information firsthand by being everywhere at all times they can't say they didn't acquire the information from someone else. And since someone isn't no one, we can't trust them.

[esyir]

The best measure of truth I've found is when someone reports something that goes against their own interests.

I use that as a rough barometer of reliability, amongst others.