This has been very useful to me since I encountered it on the old sub. Within the last years, war has broken out. War seeds the clouds of formerly clear skies. The droplets of propaganda are now a torrent.
As such, I don't think it completely wise to follow this rule unaltered when states clash. The power, organization, and incentives come together to cloudy any former clarity. Lies, with a multitude of motivations, float freely.
What addendums would you add to this adage in an age of active conflict?
Not wrong, but I think I phrase the question poorly.
If I were to rephrase: Ignoring extreme statements that demand seriousness due to their gravity, what rules can a person follow to discern the truth without being cynical and treating statements about the self with seriousness.
In the Analects, Confucius said to listen to one's words and observe one's actions. Or in more contemporary language, talk is cheap. You discern someone is truthful through the consistencies between their words and their actions. If their words and actions repeatedly do not match, then they are untrustworthy. This holds true ranging from an individual's personal life to complex geopolitics. You shouldn't feel bad for trusting someone who didn't deserve your trust. You only have to simply label them untrustworthy and move on with your life.
When Tara Reade accuses Joe Biden of SA, we don't need to hear a goddamn word out of his mouth because we have already seen through his actions that he at the very least shelters sex pests. By his actions, I mean his full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill's allegations of SA despite being a member of the so-called progressive party. There's absolutely no reason why Biden had to go to bat for some reactionary judge accused of SA unless he himself had some skeletons in his closet as well. Tara Reade is that skeleton.
Reade's allegation happened, per Reade herself, in 1993, two years after Thomas' confirmation. Which tends to suggest she isn't the only one.