Messages

I have to give you guys credit. You always find very creative misreadings. My point was that "Read Snopes" guys argument could just as easily be applied to Cosby. Its just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. "Yes we have this long list of evidence for what you are claiming(excludes a large portion of the evidence) but that doesnt INFALLIBLY PROVE what you claim." Its setting a ridiculous standard of evidence that none of you would ever apply in any other context.

And since I know there are a lot of feminists on this board, why does "Listen and Believe" not apply to Bill Clinton?

Because evidence. Travelling on a plane with a friend is not equivalent to an admission of using date rape drugs. Standards of evidence apply to what would get you prosecuted and found guilty in law.
And just a quick fyi, i am not a guy, I am an elderly radical feminist academic. A discordian academic - so I'm not comfortable with Sarkeesian's "Listen and Believe". It seems to me that "Trust but Verify" is a much superior position to adopt.

also - I wasn't suggesting that you should mindlessly accept what Snopes or any other source, is telling you but look at the way that construct arguments to reach conclusions. These conclusions are often nuanced not always true or false but many times something inbetween.

Life isn't black and white. But that doesn't mean it is grey, it means it is multicoloured, you know?

Cosby says that the drugs were taken consensually, to get high. Not to date rape. Him owning date rape drugs does not prove he is a date rapist. So do you think he did it?

And its more than traveling in a plane with a man convicted of owning sex slaves. Consider what it means that he is, in your own words, friends with someone like that. Its traveling in a plane wtih a convicted owner of sex slaves to his orgy island. Combined with years of accusations including one of Epsteins victims. Combined with Hillary Clinton having long existing ties to an organization which was later caught kidnapping children(you insist this was an innocent misunderstanding) which she then went out of her way to bail out and which was defended in court by a man with undisputed connections to the human trafficking industry.

And again. By your standard of evidence Cosby is innocent. All he has are accusations and owning of a drug with completely nonrapey recreational uses.

[Washington Post]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj60OAh7O5U

Sigh.

So Snopes is wrong because it's not called crosby guilty prior to trial and is asking for substantiated evidence to back up the extraordinary claims relating to the clintons?

I have to give you guys credit. You always find very creative misreadings. My point was that "Read Snopes" guys argument could just as easily be applied to Cosby. Its just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. "Yes we have this long list of evidence for what you are claiming(excludes a large portion of the evidence) but that doesnt INFALLIBLY PROVE what you claim." Its setting a ridiculous standard of evidence that none of you would ever apply in any other context.

And since I know there are a lot of feminists on this board, why does "Listen and Believe" not apply to Bill Clinton?

On the other hand, there's what the CIA are saying re russia/trump.

This is, absolutely fascinating. In a post Saddam has WMDs, Gary Webb is fake news world suddenly the CIA is a trustworthy source. Not just that, we are suddenly just taking them at their word. Is there a shred of actual evidence to these claims?

From your own source:

Quoting an unnamed "senior US official", the Washington Post said "intelligence agencies" had "identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman".

So in other words. I know a guy who knows a guy who says Russia did it. Werent you all lecturing me about critical thinking just a page back?

You should read snopes brah.



Also Ive been ambivalent about Pizzagate in the past but this is silly:

http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/

They literally show NONE of the emails, Podestas creepy artwork, or spirit cooking.

Better version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOk6HB609po

Decent dead-pan on that kid mocking his audience.

That guy is a leading thinker in the Alt-Right. Im not even joking.

At any rate, this thread is predicated on a false premise. Most americans voted against him,

And in a hypothetical scenario where the presidential election is decided by the popular vote this would matter. This has not been the case for the past 230 years.

and many of the votes for him were the result of Russian interference

[citation needed]

Of course not. He got into the White House through a combination of abusing our electoral system and tampering on his behalf by Vladimir Putin.

This is gold."He abused the electoral system by winning more electoral votes." The whole point of the electoral system, and THE SENATE(which none of you get made about despite running on the exact same principle) is to keep densely populated states from pushing around the mores sparsely populated ones. Trump won by doing exactly what president Obama did. He actually campaigned in these less populated more backwater areas that had electoral votes he needed. But I guess when Densely populated Urban areas dont decide the election that means the system was "abused."

Hey and you know what all the people pushing "Putin did Trump" have in common? They all pushed Yellowcake Uranium and Saddam did 9/11. Hows that for "fake news."

Again, you have nothing at all to learn from this defeat. You did no thing wrong, even though you lost. It was all that big meanie Putin with his army of hackers on steroids, and that stupid electoral college which has never been a factor in any election ever before this one.

No, please, do detail your objection to snopes. Which bastion of objectivity dislikes them? Zero hedge?

Exactly what I said. Theyre a truth priesthood that people use instead of doing actual research. Literally from a guy who just wrote me a lecture about actually reading source materials and critical thinking "have you considered checking snopes." Nothing Ive posted is factually wrong and he knows this which is why he has yet to even try to prove this. Instead hes just pretending his refusal to draw very basic straightforward conclusions from the info is being a "critical thinker"(reading snopes also makes you a critical thinker).

If this was about anyone who was not sainted none of you would be pretending this is anything but being obtuse. Consider, Im willing to bet none of you doubt the Cosby allegations, which are based on even less evidence than this. Try to imagine someone coming into a thread and defending Cosby with these same arguments(which by the way also apply to the Cosby case.)

Yes Cosby has multiple allegations spanning 50 years. And yes Cosby admitted to getting Qualudes for the women he wanted to have sex with. Nobody is disputing that. However you are extrapolating from that that he is THEREFORE DEFINITELY and INDISPUTABLY a rapist. BTW I went to college and you should read snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/billcosby.asp

The priesthood has spoken. We may never know.

If he really is willing to look at all the evidence(he didnt by the way, he left out New Life's long existing ties to both the Clintons and ties to the human trafficking industry) and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to see here, shit thats just like his opinion man. Its just good to know that the main lesson SMART PEOPLE^tm have learned post-Savile/Yewtree is that when powerful people are accused of bad things, multiple times, and hang out with people convicted of bad things on their private island dedicated to bad things we shouldnt jump to conclusions, and we should check snopes.

But obviously such nuanced thinking is lost on me.

"I'm going to spend as much time as I can with a board of people who disagree with me because they're ALLLLLLL butthurt and wrong and stupid."

Ah, the things we tell ourselves to avoid embarrassment.

Are you kidding. This board is so slow I can not check in for days and be caught up in 10 minutes.

What's the SUREST way to tell if someone's truly butthurt?


Why they've lost the ability to walk away from the situation, of course.

Which is why youre still posting.

What I don't understand is why Eric doesn't just post a recipe or something fun or funny or useful. It all reeks of unhealthy obsession.

Eric?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjPQ_jVlEnQ#t=1m25s

Also note, the "I think Ive got something to say -> Oh no Im wrong" phases are done. Now its insult time. Please continue, your butthurt nourishes me.

 

totally not butthurt

[fake news]

Youre all getting that Ministry of Truth you want so much.

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=3765A225-B773-4F57-B21A-A265F4B5692C

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations – has passed the Senate as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation.

"The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us. While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on," said Senator Portman. "With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail."

"Congress has taken a big step in fighting back against fake news and propaganda from countries like Russia. When the president signs this bill into law, the United States will finally have a dedicated set of tools and resources to confront our adversaries' widespread efforts to spread false narratives that undermine democratic institutions and compromise America's foreign policy goals," said Murphy. "I'm proud of what Senator Portman and I accomplished here because it's long past time for the U.S. to get off the sidelines and confront these growing threats."

Also note, the "I think Ive got something to say -> Oh no Im wrong" phases are done. Now its insult time. Please continue, your butthurt nourishes me.

It thinks I'm talking TO it.

Again. This whole "Im not talking to you act" would be really awesome if any of you ever stuck to it and havent already been talking to me. Look forward to you "not talking to me" in this thread and in future threads again and again and again. You know because you just dont care. Obviously.

I consider a real mage to be someone who can produce magical effects for an open minded but skeptical observer.  Predicting an election is not enough, if you are going to do prediction you need to predict something which a much lower probability.  Or else reliably predict at a higher rate than probability.

I didnt predict the election with magic I predicted it by understanding the electoral college and how weak and unappealing a candidate Clinton was.