Jimmy Fallon’s Response to Trump
I love Jimmy Fallon’s response to President Trump and the state of our country right now. He speaks so authentically.
You probably feel it from his heart-felt speech that he was sincere. But even more fascinating is that he makes microexpressions of disgust and anger that cannot be denied and support his speech.
Did you catch them?
Thank you, Jimmy, for saying what you said. I couldn’t agree more.
He spoke out, even in the face of his own fear. You go, Jimmy! I love watching him. He has such fun on that show. I think his enthusiasm is so contagious. I hope his tender and humble approach touches hearts as well. (((Jimmy)))
This is an excellent example of the limits of lie detection. Someone can be absolutely, sincerely, telling the truth, and not know what they are talking about.
Huh?
I think we have a hater here–that’s why there is no other explanation. To Beuilded, any hate rhetoric, and you’ll be banned. I WILL NOT tolerate hate here.
Eyes, I 100% agree with you! If Beguiled wants to bring a tollerant conversation, I am open. Otherwise, I don’t have the time-
Yeah, absolutely they can. Some people even deliberately engage in ignorance for precisely that reason— if they don’t *know* what they’re saying isn’t true, they can say they weren’t lying. Now of course, their ignorance belies their naivety, because if they REALLY believed what they said wasn’t a lie, they’d never have remained ignorant about it in the first place.
Perhaps you’d explain why any of that is relevant to this post, though?
And to add some nuance to what you were saying, that isn’t a limit of lie detection. To say that’s a limit of lie detection is to misunderstand from the outset what lie detection is and what it isn’t. Lie detection is deception detection, not fact checking. Those are two related but very different things.
Without making the point I made and that you agreed with, this post conflates Fallon’s sincerity with what he is saying, and becomes political in nature.
The relevance is that I come to this blog to learn about spotting lies, not to be told what to think.
The nuance is the responses to my mildly critical comment:
“I think we have a hater here–that’s why there is no other explanation. To Beuilded, any hate rhetoric, and you’ll be banned. I WILL NOT tolerate hate here.”
“Eyes, I 100% agree with you! If Beguiled wants to bring a tolerant conversation, I am open. Otherwise, I don’t have the time-”
If you want to end violence like what happened at Charlottesville, stop demonizing and misrepresenting people.
The reason this country is in such a pickle right now is how comfortable groups and people have become in passing judgement on one another.
The comments I quoted above are ample evidence.
Don’t worry about naive speechs by ignorant celebrites. Just stop judging and silencing others.
And if you want to get out of lie detection and into political commentary, that is fine, just be honest about it.
A good day to all.
D. Beguiled
Your statement is absolutely inconsistent and ironic. “Just stop judging and silencing others,” you write. When just before that you say “Don’t worry about naive speechs (sic) by ignorant celebrities.”
Hello!
I am in support of human decency, kindness and compassion, and Fallen fits in with that. His message, in my eyes, was very heart-felt and sincere. You do not have to agree with me, but take your own advice. Please!
With respect, I think you are being more inconsistent than I am.
Neither you nor I know Jimmy Fallon, so neither of us can silence him. I am guilty of silencing no one.
I am assessing his statement as naive. This is not a judgement, it is an assessment. I didn’t say that he was bad for being naive, only that he was naive.
On the other hand, you, and another commenter immediately called me a hater for not toeing the party line. This is judgement. We don’t know each other, but then I was threatened with being banned. This is, in its limited way, a threat to silence.
You are muddying the water to say you are in support of human decency, kindness, and compassion. This give the impression that I am not. Any reasonable decent person believes in these values, and I do as well.
I never said anything against these values as you imply.
I also never said, and if you read my comment you will clearly see that, never said that his message wasn’t heartfelt or sincere. I only said that he did not know what he was talking about in regard to the situation in Charlottesville.
There is a lot of high emotion and projection happening here, and it is not coming from me.
I really like your blog, and I come here for the Eyes For Lies Stuff, and will speak up when I get political rhetoric disguised as lie detection.
The only thing I am guilty of is that I don’t compliment you when you get it right, and I will do that in the future.
I think many people are getting swept up in group think, and have been for years, and this has led to legitimate voices being silenced and shamed.
Things like Charlottesville are happening in reaction to the constant virtue signalling and shaming from the left, and if you or Jimmy Fallon want it to stop, you need to stop shaming and silencing people.
One more heartfelt statement following the party line, whether from you or Jimmy will solve nothing, and only make things worse.
Holy Guacamole. I almost feel unappreciated around here.
I guess you threw that “sic” in there because I forgot to put an ‘e’ at the end of speeches. I will take the high road and let you go for misspelling Fallon’s name.
As always, I hope everyone has a nice day.
Beguiled, I think you are being too sensitive concerning the politics. “…[ I ] will speak up when I get political rhetoric disguised as lie detection.” you said. In this post there was more human behaviour/lie detection than political rhetoric. Micro-expressions, heart-felt. Those are all lie-detection material. Whether there was politics involved was a side issue, put into the background. But you have put it into the foreground. I believe there is politics involved – the post was about the president – so its not as if you are detecting anything there. However, I don’t see Eyes post as being disguised political rhetoric – as if there was some further intent. I see Eyes as agreeing with Fallon, that would be my Guess, but that is not the main issue here, nor was it presented that way. It is a study in authenticity if you were interested in the lie detection.
Where and how does this post conflate Fallon’s sincerity with what he was saying? This post identified the markers which demonstrated that he believed what he was saying— that he was being honest and not deceptive. There’s no conflating anything with that. The one is the indicator that the other wasn’t a lie.
You can argue that what he was saying was political in nature (it wasn’t, but you could certainly argue that it was), but even then, you can’t extend that to say that this post about it was political in nature. This post was about deception detection and human behavior in nature, and happened to be made by someone who’s a human being with a point of view.
The word “apolitical” exists, Jimmy even used it in this video, but the concept is imaginary and doesn’t exist in reality. Politics can never be subtracted entirely from any human endeavor. To attempt to do so only ever serves tyrants, despots, and crooks, and never serves ordinary, decent, honest people who aren’t in politics.
As an example, you mention how we should stop silencing others. But you’re commenting about how this blog about deception has a post that’s political in nature (it’s not, it’s human in nature, but again, you can certainly make that claim and argue it). The unspoken flip side of that coin is that you’d like that political nature not to be present on a blog about deception, which would de facto require that it be silenced, even when it’s an inherent part of the subject being posted about, and even though you didn’t say the words that you’d like to silence the politics. You might even believe that you don’t want to silence it, but if it were included as regularly as crimes in the news, you would either prefer to leave and find another source of information on deception detection, or tune out, or skip past those posts, or just be less satisfied in the content of the blog, so that almost certainly wouldn’t be accurate.
The truth is, no one wants to see politics on this blog, or anywhere else in their lives. Not even the people who say they do. Nobody wants it because it’s ugly and divisive, and Eyes has avoided wading into it because as soon as it comes up, people tend to become emotionally charged and incapable of reason and objectivity, and become blinded to their own biases and incapable of learning or applying what they’ve learned effectively to what they’re engaging with. It truly is a hopeless cause. Politics will be the death of us all.
And the thing about remaining apolitical or non-political or not engaging in politics or tuning out politics is that it’s the literal embodiment of political correctness. The expectation that people leave politics out of things is a large part of the reason that we’re so divided, that we’re no longer capable of handling disagreement like reasonable adults, that we’re incapable of working together with people who are different from us, or who have different points of view, or who have different values, or who have different beliefs, or who have different backgrounds, etc., etc. We are killing ourselves because we’ve created this imaginary playground where we don’t have to be confronted by anything that’s different from us or from what we want, and that’s the real reason that we’re in such a pickle right now. The passing of judgment is merely a symptom of our own engaging in the kind of political correctness that says that anything should be or even could be non-political, or that politics can or should be factored out of anything in our lives.
Politics grows out of human nature, so to deny politics is ultimately to deny humanity itself. It’s easy to see why that’s such a disaster. In the real world, people are different. People have different points of view. People have different values. People come from different backgrounds. People have different wants and needs and desires and pursuits. That will always cause tension and eventually lead to conflicts, and to survive, and to thrive as a species, a family, a community, a nation, a world, or any other measure of more than one person, we need to be able to resolve those conflicts when they arise rather than just burying our heads in the sand or turning away from them or sticking our fingers in our ears and squeezing our eyes shut and going “LA LA LA LA” while wishing it away or pretending it doesn’t exist where it very clearly does. This fantasy land we’ve created for ourselves where we don’t have to face politics and our differences is why we can no longer tolerate people who are even the slightest little bit different from us— we’ve crippled our ability to be able to resolve conflicts with each other, and be able to work with people who are too unlike us. We’ve left no room for any “other”. We shouldn’t be surprised when that winds up biting us in the rear, because that’s the only thing that can ever result from such a choice.
Even worse still, this problem has snowballed to such an extent today that we can’t even recognize a threat as a threat, and a non-threat as a non-threat, or tell the difference between something that’s deceptive and something that’s honest. And so people view differing political viewpoints as a threat to their existence rather than as what it most often is— a different way of seeing what’s in front of us and a different approach to engaging with it and a different approach to solving problems. Meanwhile, on the other side, we see actual existential threats as things that are mere differences in points of view or different values. The whole world has gone topsy turvy because we’ve gone so far down this path of failure to resolve conflicts in our lives that we think up is down, black is white, good is bad, and destruction is creation.
So consider this, if you will. Eyes For Lies is a deception expert, which is the primary reason that you came here and continue to come here— you’ve said as much yourself. The reason that Eyes For Lies is so good at deception detection, and most people are so bad at deception detection, is that Eyes For Lies knows something that the rest of us don’t. She sees things that the rest of us just aren’t capable of seeing. She understands the nuances that are extraordinarily subtle to the rest of us— to the point that they’re often completely invisible to most of us— and she can connect the dots that we don’t know are even there and see the whole picture. This picture allows her to see when something is true vs. when it’s complete nonsense. Those skills are precisely the ones that have caused her to engage in politics on her blog despite the simple fact that politics will NEVER work on this blog, that people will NEVER be able to see through their own biases, that most of us will NEVER be able to be unemotional enough to see what’s in front of us clearly enough to use it effectively, and that it will NEVER change anything.
In other words, Eyes For Lies has chosen to do something that’s useless and impossible, and she’s chosen to do it because that’s now become better than the alternative for her readers, even though it’s going to make a large number of them quit coming here, or become incapable of learning, or try to double down on what they don’t know to the detriment of everyone else who doesn’t know enough yet to be able to tell the difference between the two. We have reached a point where it’s better to try to save a few who can be saved than it is to try to save the many who can’t. America, and Eyes For Lies’ blog are in triage mode now, because that’s how far things have gone down the wrong path in terms of how what’s going on in the world around us interacts with that human nature that she’s so exceptionally skilled in understanding. That’s how bad things have gotten, and that’s how dire the situation is. It’s no longer an option to support the delusion that politics can be excluded, or that it doesn’t belong and that we should shun it. What we need to do is expose ourselves to it and learn how to resolve the conflicts it causes, because anything else will end in our ultimate demise. We must learn conflict resolution, and in a hurry.
I think for too long, we Americans sought to avoid conflict all together by insulating ourselves from people with different ideas and points of view. We lost the art of productive conflict. For example, many of the Founding Fathers hated each other, yet they still managed to create the Constitution and its Amendments. We think that today’s politics or free press is beyond the pale, but people should go back and read what Jefferson and Hamilton wrote about John Adams. That’s just one example. I agree with Keith that we can no more avoid politics than we can avoid our own humanity. We are political animals by design. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Mrs Odie, your American politics has been going downhill for a long time. Trump is in a bizarre way the logical next step. Really you are looking for an authoritarian dictator. Productive conflict is nothing more than rational discussion. When people are rational they have the ability to modify their emotions. Your founding fathers were part of the enlightenment
It’s a semantic argument. Design, necessity. Human beings are social animals. We literally go insane or die in isolation. Therefore, Group relations are part of our humanity. We have to relate to each other in groups or we don’t survive.
Mrs Odie, I don’t agree that we are political animals — by Design. We are political by necessity. Politics is the branch of philosophy that deals with what actions are permissible in society. It is basically ethics applied to group relations. The politics of freedom are actually based upon humans being capable of reason.
Keith, it is always a possibility that people will be less emotional and more rational at the appropriate time.
Eyes said Jimmy was being authentic. That was her expert opinion. Then she said she loved what he said. That was her personal evaluation of his message. The two are different things. Plenty of people go on TV and say what their writers write for them. I read this blog post the following way: Eyes telling us that Jimmy Fallon is being sincere about his feelings and opinions. He’s not saying what he said because he feels like he has to, or for ratings.
I saw this and could not believe some of the responses below…namely that Fallon could be truthful but naive. I’m not sure how it was naive, that’s how I felt about my son! As in ugh – I have to talk about this…again!?
I could sense his sincerity. I saw his digust. I missed the expression of anger (Makes me wonder if my disgust or anger appear when I discuss intolerance & hate).
I am glad he shared his opinion and I am glad you shared this too! Keep coming w the video’s please. It helps to see what you see (even if very little)!
I wrote a longer post that got caught in a spam filter that explained his naivete, but I summarize it here. His naivete was in who was the cause of the violence, and I think it’s due to a failing of the press. Antifa has been showing up of over a year specifically to violently shut down political rallies. The stab people, crack heads open, knock people out cold with shovels, and most disgusting of all throw feces and urine at everyone (including cops and journalists).
I just found out there was another rally by the same organizers in Charlottesville at the same park in May. They marched there, they did some speeches at the statue of Robert E Lee, they left. No violence, no property damage, and most import of all no one knew anything about it. I’ve seen a video produced by CNN about Antifa and it’s a total puff piece, it’s beyond disgusting.