The Trump loyalist has subjected dozens of his own team to the lie-detector test.
  • toppy@lemy.lolEnglish
    14·
    17 days ago

    Is polygraph test reliable ? Doesn’t it fall under pseudoscience ?

    • HowAbt2day@futurology.todayEnglish
      4·
      17 days ago

      The “original” snowflakes. “I can’t drink from the same water fountain as a colored person!” Type of people.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    17 days ago

    Cops and pseudoscience go together like chocolate and peanut butter.

    For more examples, see “bite mark analysis,” “911 call analysis,” “blood spatter analysis,” roadside drug testing with known false-positives, and even fingerprints (once the gold standard) have up to a 20% error rate.

    And that’s not even getting into how their methodology is exactly backwards: they have a claim that they set out to prove, but do no work to disprove what they already believe.

      • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        17 days ago

        At this point, we’re gonna end up have two “congress”, two “supreme court”, two “president”. Two groups of people having their own definitions and interpretations of what “The Constitution” means.

        A Divided States of America

        Coming soon in the 2029 season of USA DSA (Divided States of America)

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      17 days ago

      I don’t think so.

      They’re weeding out non-loyalists because the fascism is going to be ratcheted up tremendously, and for that to happen, they need people without a conscience. True believers.

  • BetaBlake@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    17 days ago

    All these fascists are such little weeny piss babies.

    And all the alpha bros look up to them, how embarrassing.

  • AskThinkingTim@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    16 days ago

    Enforcing polygraph testing will invariably make people less trusting of you. There needs to specific reasons that target specific people.

    • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
      1·
      17 days ago

      Only in as much as they know it’s bunk that only works if the participant believes it does.

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    4·
    17 days ago

    Real leaders don’t need to be paranoid about what their underlings think about them. Fascism is more fragile than it appears.

    • OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      17 days ago

      “[Their] need for control is so desperate because it is so unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. It breaks, it leaks. Authority is brittle. Oppression is the mask of fear.”

    • billwashere@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      17 days ago

      Real leaders would take the time to understand why someone doesn’t like them, do a little self reflection to see if it’s either a valid point or just a perception issue, and then work to fix the issue if there is one. If it’s just a person who just doesn’t like them but is good at their job, just ignore it. If they are truly not a good fit or just a bad actor who just thrives in negativity, then you either find a better fit for them or then you fire them.

      I’m very much a pleaser type personality but if someone doesn’t like me for whatever reason, I don’t really sweat it if it doesn’t affect me personally. Most people like me but not everyone and that’s ok. This constant need to be surrounded by yes men and sycophants is just disturbing.