You know what's fascinating about truth these days? It's become like a subscription service.

You can apparently switch between paid opinion mode and paid facts mode, depending on your current role, and nobody bats an eye.

That's such an interesting way to put it.

And this story about Dan Bongino really shows how normalized it's become.

Doesn't it?

Exactly right.

Here's a guy who went from confidently claiming there was this massive federal cover-up to becoming deputy FBI director and completely reversing his position.

But instead of acknowledging he was wrong, he just casually mentions,

oh, yeah, I was paid for opinions back then. The way he phrases it is almost beautiful in its absurdity,

going from every single detail nugget tendril to that remarkable collapse where he uses the word

there five times in one sentence. You know what's wild? When you break down that sentence structure, it's like watching someone

try to juggle while the balls keep disappearing. There isn't there in some of these cases.

The there you're looking for is not there. It's like linguistic quicksand.

Hmm. It reminds me of those magic eye pictures.

The more you stare at it, the less sense it makes.

But what really gets me is how he frames this complete reversal as some kind of intellectual

evolution.

Right.

And that's where this gets really concerning for our whole information ecosystem.

Because when someone can say,

I was paid for opinions then, I'm paid for facts now, and frame it as growth rather than contradiction,

what does that tell us about how we value truth? So you're saying it's not just about this one case.

...