|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 09 2023 00:45 oBlade wrote:
DeSantis may have just been a lowly boarding school teacher from the Ivy League, not like a math professor or something exalted like that, but I'd bet he at least has the good skeptical sense not to believe every anonymously sourced political hit piece from 2022 or 2021 posted on Truth Social by a guy with a Pepe avatar.
It's funny how last week some of the same people that were arguing you should ignore or wait for corroborating evidence from reputable sources before posting anything are the same ones now that are like "well Ron DeSantis seems very unprofessional here in this photo posted by Pepe the frog." Somehow that skepticism and scrutiny disappears once it's the other team that is getting embarassed. Funny that. Credit to Simberto for bringing the same energy to both instances, though.
|
|
|
United States41942 Posts
On February 09 2023 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how last week some of the same people
Name names or be quiet.
|
On February 09 2023 07:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how last week some of the same people Name names or be quiet.
If you insist, dear.
On January 30 2023 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video ... Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. If you find any corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources, please let us know. The absence of real references is not evidence of a cover-up.
On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 21:43 BlackJack wrote:Btw this is another great case study on the tribalism mentality of this thread and everyone's inability to see clearly once they are triggered. So let's run back the transcripts: I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote:
What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well?
Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: On January 30 2023 08:35 BlackJack wrote:
I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm Of course it's your fault. You're the one who posted Project Veritas and used it as a springboard to pitch conspiracy theories about how they're on to something when mainstream media is ignoring or hiding the truth. Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? We saw that you said that you think PV is biased and sketchy, yet it's apparently not biased or sketchy enough for you to wait for corroborating evidence. Take some responsibility for what you post instead of pretending to be a victim. For the rest of us, there's no need to appeal to PV because actual news would be corroborated by actual news sources (and so, even if PV was right about something, we'd still find out from other sources). In your world, you think it's important to appeal to PV because the real news sources are purposely avoiding the truth about conspiracy X.
On February 09 2023 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2023 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When I was in high school I hosted a party for my class towards the end of the year and somewhat jokingly told my teacher (I guess he was 35ish?) that he was welcome to join us. I mean, I was serious in that he could, but I absolutely didn't expect him to follow through.
He showed up at 1 am with a friend and some beers. We weren't underage, so there was nothing illegal about it. We really liked him as a teacher, was a swell, cool dude who also knew his stuff.
It was highly unprofessional and I think he woke up the day after feeling like an idiot. But I'm pretty confident he didn't show up because he was hoping to get laid. Also drank with some other teachers during school trips - not to the point where they were 'drunk', but where one, in the age of cell phones, easily could have seen them posing with students while holding beer. I guess the US is generally different in this regard and that this might, by default, be 'worse', and I dunno how old those girls in that picture are (with the legal drinking age in Norway being 18, I think there's a marked difference between drinking with 17 year olds and 19 year olds), but I mean... One picture on its own doesn't really give us any info, here. (I do assume Kwark is just playing on hypocrisy btw)
I mean, I've been invited to join graduation parties by several of my high school students, and while I've been a very firm no and wouldn't dream of doing that, I have also been out drinking in clubs after I became a teacher. If I happened to run into some students of mine (again, legal drinking age being 18 makes it a possibility) and they asked for a selfie to share with their whatsapp group I'd totally give them one without really seeing how that's problematic in any way. Yeah it's definitely different in the United States, where it's illegal for high school students / people under 21 to drink. If you run into someone at a bar or a club and you're both adults, then that's fine. Also, I don't believe DeSantis was grooming or anything like that (that word has pretty much lost all meaning afaik); I think he was just a complete moron to go to a high school party where his students aren't even adults yet, let alone able to legally drink.
Straight from "you should wait until this is corroborated by reputable sources before even posting" to "I think this picture posted by Pepe the Frog makes DeSantis a moron but not a groomer."
Also want to point out that the general feeling of the thread was that the PV video should be completely ignored and no effort should even be used trying to corroborate any of it. Don't ask me about the logic of saying "wait for this to be corroborated" while also saying "Nobody should bother trying to corroborate this." I'm just pointing out that only Simberto is bringing the same energy to both instances.
|
On February 09 2023 07:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 07:16 KwarK wrote:On February 09 2023 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how last week some of the same people Name names or be quiet. If you insist, dear. Show nested quote +On January 30 2023 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video ... Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. If you find any corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources, please let us know. The absence of real references is not evidence of a cover-up. Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 21:43 BlackJack wrote:Btw this is another great case study on the tribalism mentality of this thread and everyone's inability to see clearly once they are triggered. So let's run back the transcripts: I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote:
What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well?
Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: On January 30 2023 08:35 BlackJack wrote:
I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm Of course it's your fault. You're the one who posted Project Veritas and used it as a springboard to pitch conspiracy theories about how they're on to something when mainstream media is ignoring or hiding the truth. Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? We saw that you said that you think PV is biased and sketchy, yet it's apparently not biased or sketchy enough for you to wait for corroborating evidence. Take some responsibility for what you post instead of pretending to be a victim. For the rest of us, there's no need to appeal to PV because actual news would be corroborated by actual news sources (and so, even if PV was right about something, we'd still find out from other sources). In your world, you think it's important to appeal to PV because the real news sources are purposely avoiding the truth about conspiracy X. Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2023 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When I was in high school I hosted a party for my class towards the end of the year and somewhat jokingly told my teacher (I guess he was 35ish?) that he was welcome to join us. I mean, I was serious in that he could, but I absolutely didn't expect him to follow through.
He showed up at 1 am with a friend and some beers. We weren't underage, so there was nothing illegal about it. We really liked him as a teacher, was a swell, cool dude who also knew his stuff.
It was highly unprofessional and I think he woke up the day after feeling like an idiot. But I'm pretty confident he didn't show up because he was hoping to get laid. Also drank with some other teachers during school trips - not to the point where they were 'drunk', but where one, in the age of cell phones, easily could have seen them posing with students while holding beer. I guess the US is generally different in this regard and that this might, by default, be 'worse', and I dunno how old those girls in that picture are (with the legal drinking age in Norway being 18, I think there's a marked difference between drinking with 17 year olds and 19 year olds), but I mean... One picture on its own doesn't really give us any info, here. (I do assume Kwark is just playing on hypocrisy btw)
I mean, I've been invited to join graduation parties by several of my high school students, and while I've been a very firm no and wouldn't dream of doing that, I have also been out drinking in clubs after I became a teacher. If I happened to run into some students of mine (again, legal drinking age being 18 makes it a possibility) and they asked for a selfie to share with their whatsapp group I'd totally give them one without really seeing how that's problematic in any way. Yeah it's definitely different in the United States, where it's illegal for high school students / people under 21 to drink. If you run into someone at a bar or a club and you're both adults, then that's fine. Also, I don't believe DeSantis was grooming or anything like that (that word has pretty much lost all meaning afaik); I think he was just a complete moron to go to a high school party where his students aren't even adults yet, let alone able to legally drink. Straight from "you should wait until this is corroborated by reputable sources before even posting" to "I think this picture posted by Pepe the Frog makes DeSantis a moron but not a groomer." Also want to point out that the general feeling of the thread was that the PV video should be completely ignored and no effort should even be used trying to corroborate any of it. Don't ask me about the logic of saying "wait for this to be corroborated" while also saying "Nobody should bother trying to corroborate this." I'm just pointing out that only Simberto is bringing the same energy to both instances.
You're seriously bringing up your Project Veritas post in a second thread, after being told to stop it in the covid thread? Dude, move on. People have already been warned/banned in the other thread for supporting that kind of crap and not letting it go. I've already made my opinion clear on whether or not I think it's appropriate for American teachers to hypothetically party with students who are underage and drinking, whether or not DeSantis actually did it. I also think he'd be a bad teacher. You don't have to agree with me. Also, it's a little weird how obsessed you are with me, across both threads. I'm flattered, but I just don't see things working out between us. I mean, I like you, but I just don't like-like you, ya know?
By the way:
"Several students recalled DeSantis went to parties with the seniors, the New York Times said, citing anonymous sources. Two students recalled DeSantis attending two parties where alcohol was served, though they said it was after graduation. They reported they weren't bothered by it at the time, though they now questioned it, the report said." https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-shares-photos-of-desantis-alleging-partied-with-high-schoolers-2023-2
To quote you quoting me: I consider the New York Times to be "corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources". NYT is certainly not as sketchy as Project Veritas, so stop it with your false equivalence.
|
|
|
On February 09 2023 07:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 07:16 KwarK wrote:On February 09 2023 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how last week some of the same people Name names or be quiet. If you insist, dear. Show nested quote +On January 30 2023 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video ... Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. If you find any corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources, please let us know. The absence of real references is not evidence of a cover-up. Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 21:43 BlackJack wrote:Btw this is another great case study on the tribalism mentality of this thread and everyone's inability to see clearly once they are triggered. So let's run back the transcripts: I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote:
What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well?
Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: On January 30 2023 08:35 BlackJack wrote:
I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm Of course it's your fault. You're the one who posted Project Veritas and used it as a springboard to pitch conspiracy theories about how they're on to something when mainstream media is ignoring or hiding the truth. Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? We saw that you said that you think PV is biased and sketchy, yet it's apparently not biased or sketchy enough for you to wait for corroborating evidence. Take some responsibility for what you post instead of pretending to be a victim. For the rest of us, there's no need to appeal to PV because actual news would be corroborated by actual news sources (and so, even if PV was right about something, we'd still find out from other sources). In your world, you think it's important to appeal to PV because the real news sources are purposely avoiding the truth about conspiracy X. Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2023 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When I was in high school I hosted a party for my class towards the end of the year and somewhat jokingly told my teacher (I guess he was 35ish?) that he was welcome to join us. I mean, I was serious in that he could, but I absolutely didn't expect him to follow through.
He showed up at 1 am with a friend and some beers. We weren't underage, so there was nothing illegal about it. We really liked him as a teacher, was a swell, cool dude who also knew his stuff.
It was highly unprofessional and I think he woke up the day after feeling like an idiot. But I'm pretty confident he didn't show up because he was hoping to get laid. Also drank with some other teachers during school trips - not to the point where they were 'drunk', but where one, in the age of cell phones, easily could have seen them posing with students while holding beer. I guess the US is generally different in this regard and that this might, by default, be 'worse', and I dunno how old those girls in that picture are (with the legal drinking age in Norway being 18, I think there's a marked difference between drinking with 17 year olds and 19 year olds), but I mean... One picture on its own doesn't really give us any info, here. (I do assume Kwark is just playing on hypocrisy btw)
I mean, I've been invited to join graduation parties by several of my high school students, and while I've been a very firm no and wouldn't dream of doing that, I have also been out drinking in clubs after I became a teacher. If I happened to run into some students of mine (again, legal drinking age being 18 makes it a possibility) and they asked for a selfie to share with their whatsapp group I'd totally give them one without really seeing how that's problematic in any way. Yeah it's definitely different in the United States, where it's illegal for high school students / people under 21 to drink. If you run into someone at a bar or a club and you're both adults, then that's fine. Also, I don't believe DeSantis was grooming or anything like that (that word has pretty much lost all meaning afaik); I think he was just a complete moron to go to a high school party where his students aren't even adults yet, let alone able to legally drink. Straight from "you should wait until this is corroborated by reputable sources before even posting" to "I think this picture posted by Pepe the Frog makes DeSantis a moron but not a groomer." Also want to point out that the general feeling of the thread was that the PV video should be completely ignored and no effort should even be used trying to corroborate any of it. Don't ask me about the logic of saying "wait for this to be corroborated" while also saying "Nobody should bother trying to corroborate this." I'm just pointing out that only Simberto is bringing the same energy to both instances.
See, this is a great example of why I don’t think “other posters are being hypocrites” posts create a very good discussion in the thread. You think DPB is a hypocrite for posting about a story from a sketchy news source, because last week he criticized you for posting about PV stuff with no corroboration from more legitimate news sources.
Of course you clearly don’t actually think it’s bad to post about a story from sketchy news sources, because acknowledged in the first place PV was sketchy. So your criticism here is “you’re not living up to a principle I don’t even believe in, but you’ve said that *you* do.” That could still maybe be productive in elaborating on the previous discussion; suppose you replied to DPB “how do you square this with the principle you were enumerating last week regarding the PV story?” He could elaborate how he does or doesn’t consider his position now consistent with his position last week, and you might find his argument plausible or not.
But when people want to accuse other posters of hypocrisy they usually skip the discussion step. To *them* the inconsistency is self-evident, so much so that we can skip enumerating the actual hypocrisy and jump straight to what it means that there other side is hypocritical in this way (usually “therefore they’re wrong and/or idiots,” more or less). It’s more of a mic drop to end a discussion than an argument to start one.
In this case DPB has an argument for why it’s not hypocritical (and, to my mind, a pretty good one). So in this case I think the accusation misses pretty badly. But even if it didn’t, it’s born of grudge-holding from a previous argument, meaning people are likely to already have their blood up before it even starts, and it’s initiated in a way that’s both vague and accusatory, meaning there’s not much content to respond to productively.
I realize this post is more meta-discussion and maybe better suited to the feedback thread, and I don’t mean to single you out, BlackJack. But this kind of post (“lol look what hypocrites the other side is being”) has been extremely popular over the years, and I think this is a fantastic example of why that kind of post isn’t helpful to the quality of discussion in the thread.
+ Show Spoiler +I avoid the feedback thread unless I think something should be actioned by mods, which I certainly don’t think here. I’ve sometimes gotten the impression the mods besides Kwark and Drone don’t really read this thread, but they’re annoyed enough by its existence they’ll action kind of aggressively if you bring something to their attention, such as by quoting it over there.
|
On February 08 2023 23:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2023 23:16 Acrofales wrote:On February 08 2023 22:52 KwarK wrote:
If DeSantis, as a teacher, ever let it slip to his students that he’s straight that would make him a groomer. That’s just facts, children don’t need to know about the existence of wives or pregnancies. Imagine students and teachers having a conversation. Here I thought they were just having a friendly conversation to start the day, but they were actually grooming me. Now I feel dirty! They’re modeling their heterosexual relationships so that the impressionable young minds of their students think it’s okay to be heterosexual. Plus why would you let your female students know that you’re sexually attracted to their gender unless you want them to know you’re interested. We need to replace all teachers with asexuals, aces are the only truly moral among us.
Not good enough. Just because they don't potentially want to have sex with kids doesn't mean they don't want to have relationships with them. Teachers should be aro ace only. /s
|
How that conversation should have gone:
BlackJack and oBlade: Hey DPB, do you believe that when DeSantis was a teacher, he actually partied with his school's seniors who were drinking underage?
Me: Well, I did a quick Google search, and it seems that several of those students corroborated the story and the New York Times wrote about it, so there might be something to it. I don't know for sure though, and while I personally think that a teacher doing that is irresponsible, I don't think it'll seriously affect DeSantis's image, even if it's true.
BlackJack and oBlade: That's really interesting to learn! It's a good thing I didn't preemptively make fun of you!! Have a wonderful day!!!
Me: Thanks, you too! I always look forward to our productive discussions!
|
|
|
Yeah, I don’t think the possibility that Trump attacking DeSantis will hurt him is that farfetched. It’s a voter base that’s shown an extraordinary capacity to hate whoever Trump tells them to hate with paper-thin justification. Maybe Trump’s era is over and they don’t listen to him anymore but that’s been predicted a lot of times without coming true.
But I hate discussions about how something will “play.” It’s this insidious tendency of our political discourse to jump straight to “how will this effect the polls” without first discussing “what is the actual significance of this thing.” You wind up with dumb takes like “wow, Biden’s really fucked up this balloon thing. Of course, he just followed the advice of his experts, which was the best course for America’s interests for a bunch of reasons. But who cares about all that, how does it make him look?”
Of course, there’s not much else to go on if you’re discussing an attack ad story like this. I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a pedophile, and somewhat unprofessional behavior when he was 23 is not very high on a list of reasons why I think he’s awful. Maybe Trump or someone will successfully convince a bunch of Republicans he’s a pedophile, but I have trouble cheering too much for that. I think this “my opponents are pedophiles” rhetoric is going to lead to political violence sooner or later.
Of course, DeSantis is as responsible as anybody for the “groomer” rhetoric so there would be a certain poetry to him being sunk by it. A little like Robespierre getting guillotined. But in all likelihood this is just the opening salvo in an extremely ugly Republican primary that’s going to make the world a lot worse for all of us.
In short I’m not sure there’s much to say besides “Oof.”
|
On February 09 2023 08:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 07:44 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2023 07:16 KwarK wrote:On February 09 2023 06:48 BlackJack wrote:
It's funny how last week some of the same people Name names or be quiet. If you insist, dear. On January 30 2023 07:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video ... Almost all the results I got were from obscure news outlets or conspiracy youtube/twitter channels with very few subscribers. If you find any corroborating evidence from actual journalists or reputable news sources, please let us know. The absence of real references is not evidence of a cover-up. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 21:43 BlackJack wrote:Btw this is another great case study on the tribalism mentality of this thread and everyone's inability to see clearly once they are triggered. So let's run back the transcripts: I introduced Project Veritas video thread by saying that although PV is "biased" and "sketchy" I don't think they fabricated the contents of the video out of thin air. Then I was surprised that almost none of the reputable media was covering or fact-checking the story at all. Simberto said I thought the PV video/story was "legitimate" and I responded: On January 30 2023 07:06 BlackJack wrote:
I didn't say the story was "legitimate." My big complaint, if you re-read the post, is that I can't find any credible information on it from reputable sources. "Not credible" and "Legitimate" are not the same. In fact, they are a lot closer to being opposite. Acrofales asked why anyone should bother refuting the trash Project Veritas puts out and I said because we need credible people in the middle challenge those ideas: On January 30 2023 07:22 BlackJack wrote:
What's your idea? Just let everyone retreat to their own corners of the internet and propagate whatever ideas they want without anyone credible in the middle to challenge them? You think that's going to end well?
Simberto then told me O'Keefe has run out of credibility and doesn't warrant any fact checking from the reputable media. I responded in part: On January 30 2023 08:35 BlackJack wrote:
I also don't know of any difficulty finding MSM articles debunking any of O'Keefe's previous work. That's actually exactly how we know his work is often dubious: from reputable publications refuting what he puts out. Although I accepted their theory that there was a straw that broke the camel's back as plausible. So in brief, I've said Project Veritas is sketchy, biased, often dubious, non reputable and not credible. Never did I said anything about them being trustworthy, reputable, credible or to be taken at face value. My big ask was for a reputable media company to fact check their claims. But as usual it's entirely my fault for people arguing that I think Project Veritas is trustworthy or legitimate. Afterall those words are so similar to sketchy, biased, and dubious. It has nothing to do with everyone seeing "Project Veritas" and then simply seeing Red and going berserk that the enemy tribe is on their territory. /sarcasm Of course it's your fault. You're the one who posted Project Veritas and used it as a springboard to pitch conspiracy theories about how they're on to something when mainstream media is ignoring or hiding the truth. Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? We saw that you said that you think PV is biased and sketchy, yet it's apparently not biased or sketchy enough for you to wait for corroborating evidence. Take some responsibility for what you post instead of pretending to be a victim. For the rest of us, there's no need to appeal to PV because actual news would be corroborated by actual news sources (and so, even if PV was right about something, we'd still find out from other sources). In your world, you think it's important to appeal to PV because the real news sources are purposely avoiding the truth about conspiracy X. On February 09 2023 00:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 08 2023 23:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When I was in high school I hosted a party for my class towards the end of the year and somewhat jokingly told my teacher (I guess he was 35ish?) that he was welcome to join us. I mean, I was serious in that he could, but I absolutely didn't expect him to follow through.
He showed up at 1 am with a friend and some beers. We weren't underage, so there was nothing illegal about it. We really liked him as a teacher, was a swell, cool dude who also knew his stuff.
It was highly unprofessional and I think he woke up the day after feeling like an idiot. But I'm pretty confident he didn't show up because he was hoping to get laid. Also drank with some other teachers during school trips - not to the point where they were 'drunk', but where one, in the age of cell phones, easily could have seen them posing with students while holding beer. I guess the US is generally different in this regard and that this might, by default, be 'worse', and I dunno how old those girls in that picture are (with the legal drinking age in Norway being 18, I think there's a marked difference between drinking with 17 year olds and 19 year olds), but I mean... One picture on its own doesn't really give us any info, here. (I do assume Kwark is just playing on hypocrisy btw)
I mean, I've been invited to join graduation parties by several of my high school students, and while I've been a very firm no and wouldn't dream of doing that, I have also been out drinking in clubs after I became a teacher. If I happened to run into some students of mine (again, legal drinking age being 18 makes it a possibility) and they asked for a selfie to share with their whatsapp group I'd totally give them one without really seeing how that's problematic in any way. Yeah it's definitely different in the United States, where it's illegal for high school students / people under 21 to drink. If you run into someone at a bar or a club and you're both adults, then that's fine. Also, I don't believe DeSantis was grooming or anything like that (that word has pretty much lost all meaning afaik); I think he was just a complete moron to go to a high school party where his students aren't even adults yet, let alone able to legally drink. Straight from "you should wait until this is corroborated by reputable sources before even posting" to "I think this picture posted by Pepe the Frog makes DeSantis a moron but not a groomer." Also want to point out that the general feeling of the thread was that the PV video should be completely ignored and no effort should even be used trying to corroborate any of it. Don't ask me about the logic of saying "wait for this to be corroborated" while also saying "Nobody should bother trying to corroborate this." I'm just pointing out that only Simberto is bringing the same energy to both instances. See, this is a great example of why I don’t think “other posters are being hypocrites” posts create a very good discussion in the thread. You think DPB is a hypocrite for posting about a story from a sketchy news source, because last week he criticized you for posting about PV stuff with no corroboration from more legitimate news sources. Of course you clearly don’t actually think it’s bad to post about a story from sketchy news sources, because acknowledged in the first place PV was sketchy. So your criticism here is “you’re not living up to a principle I don’t even believe in, but you’ve said that *you* do.” That could still maybe be productive in elaborating on the previous discussion; suppose you replied to DPB “how do you square this with the principle you were enumerating last week regarding the PV story?” He could elaborate how he does or doesn’t consider his position now consistent with his position last week, and you might find his argument plausible or not. But when people want to accuse other posters of hypocrisy they usually skip the discussion step. To *them* the inconsistency is self-evident, so much so that we can skip enumerating the actual hypocrisy and jump straight to what it means that there other side is hypocritical in this way (usually “therefore they’re wrong and/or idiots,” more or less). It’s more of a mic drop to end a discussion than an argument to start one. In this case DPB has an argument for why it’s not hypocritical (and, to my mind, a pretty good one). So in this case I think the accusation misses pretty badly. But even if it didn’t, it’s born of grudge-holding from a previous argument, meaning people are likely to already have their blood up before it even starts, and it’s initiated in a way that’s both vague and accusatory, meaning there’s not much content to respond to productively. I realize this post is more meta-discussion and maybe better suited to the feedback thread, and I don’t mean to single you out, BlackJack. But this kind of post (“lol look what hypocrites the other side is being”) has been extremely popular over the years, and I think this is a fantastic example of why that kind of post isn’t helpful to the quality of discussion in the thread. + Show Spoiler +I avoid the feedback thread unless I think something should be actioned by mods, which I certainly don’t think here. I’ve sometimes gotten the impression the mods besides Kwark and Drone don’t really read this thread, but they’re annoyed enough by its existence they’ll action kind of aggressively if you bring something to their attention, such as by quoting it over there.
Sure, I mostly agree. I do think the hypocrisy is pretty self-evident. I disagree that DPB has a good argument to explain the inconsistency although I can see why you would think it’s a good one if you actually believe that he googled the story beforehand and not afterwards. The first reaction was was to rant about project Veritas and people getting banned for talking about them and say he was talking about a “hypothetical” of a teacher drinking with students regardless if DeSantis actually did or not. To me it’s pretty obvious that he googled it after the fact which is why he edited that into the post instead of leading with it.
|
Norway28553 Posts
I mean, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence while claims that elicit a ..so? reaction do not. DeSantis having been present at a couple parties for high school seniors when he was a 23 year old teacher is pretty believable.
But more than anything the whole 'let's rehash this tired argument in this thread too' is pretty silly. It's probably preferable if you take any issues you have with dpbs hypocrisy through PM or even more preferable if you don't bother at all. It is the type of argument nobody else really gives a shit about and most likely it doesn't really make life more interesting for you nor him either.
|
On February 09 2023 16:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence while claims that elicit a ..so? reaction do not. DeSantis having been present at a couple parties for high school seniors when he was a 23 year old teacher is pretty believable.
But more than anything the whole 'let's rehash this tired argument in this thread too' is pretty silly. It's probably preferable if you take any issues you have with dpbs hypocrisy through PM or even more preferable if you don't bother at all. It is the type of argument nobody else really gives a shit about and most likely it doesn't really make life more interesting for you nor him either.
DPB was just an example but the argument was directed at multiple people, I was actually going to post more in my response to ChristianS but I had to go.
I can recall the time I brought up how I thought it was wrong for Facebook and Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and everyone would rant at me about how nothing incriminating was found on the laptop and it's a nothingburger of a story. Last week Acrofales said the social media companies were right to censor the story because it was a nothingburger. I'm sure not "nothing" as in the laptop wasn't real, since nobody disputes that, but "nothing" in that nothing on the laptop was incriminating. So is that the bar now for the stories that should be suppressed on social media? Does Acrofales, or anyone else want to go on record and say that facebook/twitter should suppress this story on Ron DeSantis because we all agree it's a nothingburger and not incriminating? Or is the dividing line for whether a story should be suppressed whether or not it embarrasses someone on the left vs the right?
@ChristianS maybe you can weigh in on everyone's inability to grasp my arguments regarding this topic of censorship/selective media coverage. You seem to understand my posts quite clearly, writing in the COVID thread, "As usual BlackJack isn’t particularly interested in the thing itself, as much as what the thing can tell us about wokeness, censorship, etc. in our society." Why do you think everyone else that reads my posts responds by ranting about the details of the Hunter Biden laptop or ranting about how PV isn't trustworthy and insisting that I'm taking them at their word when I shouldn't? Do you think I'm not making my posts clear?
Anyway, I think it's great that I can go on google now and easily find a story from maybe 100 different publications talking about Trump's retweet (re-truth?) of a Truth Social post by a guy with a Pepe the Frog avatar that shows DeSantis at a party with high schoolers 20 years ago when he was a teacher. I think it's even better that the NYT took the effort to track down and interview some of the girls at that party 20 years ago. My complaint was that the mainstream media should have been doing more of this by corroborating/debunking the PV video instead of largely ignoring it. But I can understand if they don't have the time for that if they have to focus on huge stories like this one.
|
On February 09 2023 19:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 16:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence while claims that elicit a ..so? reaction do not. DeSantis having been present at a couple parties for high school seniors when he was a 23 year old teacher is pretty believable.
But more than anything the whole 'let's rehash this tired argument in this thread too' is pretty silly. It's probably preferable if you take any issues you have with dpbs hypocrisy through PM or even more preferable if you don't bother at all. It is the type of argument nobody else really gives a shit about and most likely it doesn't really make life more interesting for you nor him either. DPB was just an example but the argument was directed at multiple people, I was actually going to post more in my response to ChristianS but I had to go.
You posted an assertion, not an argument. Your exact post, in its entirety, was this (notice the lack of evidence or explanations, but rather just accusations that certain people are hypocrites):
"It's funny how last week some of the same people that were arguing you should ignore or wait for corroborating evidence from reputable sources before posting anything are the same ones now that are like "well Ron DeSantis seems very unprofessional here in this photo posted by Pepe the frog." Somehow that skepticism and scrutiny disappears once it's the other team that is getting embarassed. Funny that. Credit to Simberto for bringing the same energy to both instances, though."
And then you went 0 for 1 on substantiating that assertion. When KwarK said "Name names or be quiet", there's that second option to simply change the subject / not shitpost in the first place, and focus on actual political topics, instead of trying to win points against individuals in this (or the covid) thread.
My complaint was that the mainstream media should have been doing more of this by corroborating/debunking the PV video
It never ends with you. With all the advertising you do for them, they're going to have to rename themselves Projack Veritas. Or maybe Blackject Veritas? This isn't the covid thread. The mods made it very clear to stop talking about these things in the covid thread; why would you think to continue it over here?
On topic: Did anyone catch Biden's state of the union address? I missed it, but I wanted to know if he said anything particularly interesting or if there was any drama surrounding it (besides the typical list of presidential promises / "let's do better together" and the typical response of skepticism). What'd you think of his address?
|
On February 09 2023 19:54 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 16:31 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence while claims that elicit a ..so? reaction do not. DeSantis having been present at a couple parties for high school seniors when he was a 23 year old teacher is pretty believable.
But more than anything the whole 'let's rehash this tired argument in this thread too' is pretty silly. It's probably preferable if you take any issues you have with dpbs hypocrisy through PM or even more preferable if you don't bother at all. It is the type of argument nobody else really gives a shit about and most likely it doesn't really make life more interesting for you nor him either. DPB was just an example but the argument was directed at multiple people, I was actually going to post more in my response to ChristianS but I had to go. I can recall the time I brought up how I thought it was wrong for Facebook and Twitter to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and everyone would rant at me about how nothing incriminating was found on the laptop and it's a nothingburger of a story. Last week Acrofales said the social media companies were right to censor the story because it was a nothingburger. I'm sure not "nothing" as in the laptop wasn't real, since nobody disputes that, but "nothing" in that nothing on the laptop was incriminating. So is that the bar now for the stories that should be suppressed on social media? Does Acrofales, or anyone else want to go on record and say that facebook/twitter should suppress this story on Ron DeSantis because we all agree it's a nothingburger and not incriminating? Or is the dividing line for whether a story should be suppressed whether or not it embarrasses someone on the left vs the right? @ChristianS maybe you can weigh in on everyone's inability to grasp my arguments regarding this topic of censorship/selective media coverage. You seem to understand my posts quite clearly, writing in the COVID thread, "As usual BlackJack isn’t particularly interested in the thing itself, as much as what the thing can tell us about wokeness, censorship, etc. in our society." Why do you think everyone else that reads my posts responds by ranting about the details of the Hunter Biden laptop or ranting about how PV isn't trustworthy and insisting that I'm taking them at their word when I shouldn't? Do you think I'm not making my posts clear? Anyway, I think it's great that I can go on google now and easily find a story from maybe 100 different publications talking about Trump's retweet (re-truth?) of a Truth Social post by a guy with a Pepe the Frog avatar that shows DeSantis at a party with high schoolers 20 years ago when he was a teacher. I think it's even better that the NYT took the effort to track down and interview some of the girls at that party 20 years ago. My complaint was that the mainstream media should have been doing more of this by corroborating/debunking the PV video instead of largely ignoring it. But I can understand if they don't have the time for that if they have to focus on huge stories like this one.
I will happily go on the record to say that Twitter and Facebook should suppress posts that claim "De Santis is a groomer" unless someone actually finds some actual evidence (and I will also happily agree with you that a photo posted by an idiot with a pepe avatar on truth social does not constitute evidence).
|
On February 09 2023 19:54 BlackJack wrote:
@ChristianS maybe you can weigh in on everyone's inability to grasp my arguments regarding this topic of censorship/selective media coverage. You seem to understand my posts quite clearly, writing in the COVID thread, "As usual BlackJack isn’t particularly interested in the thing itself, as much as what the thing can tell us about wokeness, censorship, etc. in our society." Why do you think everyone else that reads my posts responds by ranting about the details of the Hunter Biden laptop or ranting about how PV isn't trustworthy and insisting that I'm taking them at their word when I shouldn't? Do you think I'm not making my posts clear?
I mean, I’m not sure I’m the guy to help you clarify your anti-wokeness/anti-censorship/anti-self-censorship/anti-media-bias argument, because the first problem I would highlight is “I think the enemy you seem to be fighting is vague, amorphous, and ill-defined.” In that thread “wokeness, censorship, etc.” was the narrowest categorization I thought you wouldn’t object to. I can list things I think you would include, things I’m not certain whether you would include, and things I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t include, but to me they look like 5 to 10 mostly-unrelated subjects. If you see a connection between them all you’d have to enumerate it for me, because I’m clearly missing it.
+ Show Spoiler [example] +In my best guess, would you include:
Biased social media moderation? Definitely.
All social media moderation? Maybe, probably not?
Biased moderation here on TL? Probably.
People considering it racist to say the “n word”? Usually not I think.
People talking about “microaggressions”? Almost certainly.
People calling someone a “TERF”? Probably.
Social media dogpiles in general? Probably.
The media (e.g. NYT) writing a story that’s unfavorable to Republicans? Maybe.
The media *not* writing stories about something that’s unfavorable to Democrats? Almost certainly.
The media writing a story that’s unfavorable to Democrats? Almost certainly not.
The media *not* writing a story that’s unfavorable to Republicans? Probably not.
An organization suspending an employee for an offensive opinion? Probably.
An organization releasing a statement saying they don’t agree with that employee’s opinion? Probably.
An activist group boycotting an organization for their association with an offensive opinion? Probably.
Again, these are just my best guesses about what you would include. But to me, these things are largely unrelated problems (to the extent they’re problems at all).
But aside from that, I think your posts tend to focus on some specific and only imply the general, which naturally invites people to debate that specific case and ignore the larger point you’d like to discuss. My own style is to explain my purpose pretty explicitly. For example: “I don’t care that much about the PV video specifically. The organization has no credibility and it wouldn’t surprise me if its claims are demonstrably untrue. But it feels like the media is trying to bury the story without actually rebutting its claims; if they’re demonstrably untrue, why not go ahead and demonstrate it?” I don’t advocate everyone copying my posting style, but that’s the way I know to try to avoid this kind of conversational misfire.
I do also think your posts tend to cultivate antagonism. It can be pretty hard to avoid some of that when you’re coming from an opposing viewpoint; GH’s posts tend to invite antagonism, too, and I don’t blame him for all of that. But the above conversation is a good example: if you had said “DPB, you’re posting here about x, but last week you said people shouldn’t post about things like x for [describe what you think his position was in your own words]. Don’t those seem inconsistent?” I don’t think it would invite acrimony. Alternatively, this approach: “Can you believe the hypocrisy in this thread? [pressed for specific example] Okay, fine:
*post DPB quote*
*post DPB quote from last week you think conflicts*
*no explanation, just bold the quoted sections you think are relevant *
That’s pretty much guaranteed to piss people off, yeah? Maybe sometimes people should be pissed off as part of being shown they’re wrong, but even if that’s true, you probably don’t want them primarily pissed off by the argumentative style rather than anything to do with the content.
Again, not to single you out. A lot of what I’m saying here could be improved on by most posters, and I’m sure if you dug through my posting history you’d find more egregious examples than anything you posted in the last few pages. But since you asked for advice, that’s what jumps out to me.
|
On February 09 2023 11:06 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is going actually effect him a lot. Groomer is a huge insult as bad as it gets and to MAGA culture wars are massive, the most important issue and desantis has leaned into it harder than anyone in the country. Which is the big reason why he is so well known.
Now people who believe that Truth social was an accurate name, think Trump is the savior and brining of the storm.
Had this come from anyone else on planet I think you are right. I think trump made it so people have to pick sides. Either trump is a liar or desantis is a groomer.
Does anyone know if conservative media is covering it? I would assume they are since Trump gets big airtime. What direction are they leaning or just completely ignoring the landmine for fear of losing viewership. Like no way Trump calls anyone else a groomer and its not lead story with lots of inuendos that its true.
No matter what the media say they are gauranteed to anger people at someone other than dems or the left! Are they going to be balanced? Do they know how to be? Will like fox support desantis and OAN support Trump and those viewers will split accordingly? Just leaving it alone would be good for the reps but Im not sure the networks care, especially the ones not on top.
This is exactly what I think the republicans like mccarthy are worried about. Trump only cares about him, he is only going to do more. And hes telling the kochs of the world who are saying they are going to put money behind other reps that if they do that they will lose to the dems because he is willing to burn it all down if its not him. Trump is selling him or no one. I would be shocked if desantis entered the race and this type of attack was not regular.
I had a quick check on right wing news media like Fox, Breitbart, New York Post, etc. This story doesn't seem to appear anywhere. Looks like it has been buried.
|
On February 09 2023 21:57 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2023 11:06 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is going actually effect him a lot. Groomer is a huge insult as bad as it gets and to MAGA culture wars are massive, the most important issue and desantis has leaned into it harder than anyone in the country. Which is the big reason why he is so well known.
Now people who believe that Truth social was an accurate name, think Trump is the savior and brining of the storm.
Had this come from anyone else on planet I think you are right. I think trump made it so people have to pick sides. Either trump is a liar or desantis is a groomer.
Does anyone know if conservative media is covering it? I would assume they are since Trump gets big airtime. What direction are they leaning or just completely ignoring the landmine for fear of losing viewership. Like no way Trump calls anyone else a groomer and its not lead story with lots of inuendos that its true.
No matter what the media say they are gauranteed to anger people at someone other than dems or the left! Are they going to be balanced? Do they know how to be? Will like fox support desantis and OAN support Trump and those viewers will split accordingly? Just leaving it alone would be good for the reps but Im not sure the networks care, especially the ones not on top.
This is exactly what I think the republicans like mccarthy are worried about. Trump only cares about him, he is only going to do more. And hes telling the kochs of the world who are saying they are going to put money behind other reps that if they do that they will lose to the dems because he is willing to burn it all down if its not him. Trump is selling him or no one. I would be shocked if desantis entered the race and this type of attack was not regular.
I had a quick check on right wing news media like Fox, Breitbart, New York Post, etc. This story doesn't seem to appear anywhere. Looks like it has been buried.
Oh my god, the media is suppressing this hugely important story. Media so biased!
|
It's biggish on /r conservative.
Fun read, would recommend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
