|
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 |
Fuck, it actually happened. Abbott has already shown his support for this and it will most likely pass. I will never willingly return to Texas at this rate
|
So it wasn't only about "protecting children". How utterly surprising to absolutely no one.
It sucks, but i think it is much saver than not to just assume that everything run by republicans will chip and chip away at peoples rights. They are quickly on their way to being a fascist theocracy, and seem to like where they are going. If i were any of the groups that republicans hate and living in a republican state, i would start planning my exit option quickly.
You can not argue with them, you can not convince them. Because they don't believe in any of the shit they are saying, it is all just a fucking smokescreen for their hate. All of their arguments are fake and they don't believe in any of them, they would absolutely be willing to argue the exact opposite of any of the principles they claim to have if that brings them more power or closer to oppressing a minority.
It is kind of disgusting.
|
On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 21:14 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
If you say so, I dont know what you are referencing Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): "The videos are, as is typical of O'Keefe's, work somewhat of a gish gallop, comprising a constellation of allegations and assertions that is virtually impossible to fact check without complete clips of the involved conversations. Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. ...
California’s then-attorney general Jerry Brown noted after an investigation into the tapes and the organization that “sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor.” Those same words now seem applicable to the latest O’Keefe sting, which further tarnished NPR’s reputation and took down its CEO. As we noted, Glenn Beck’s conservative website, The Blaze, was first to report on discrepancies between the first edited eleven-and-a-half minute video released on the Project Veritas website and a later, unedited two-hour version ... NPR media reporter David Folkenflik addressed the dubious editing on Morning Edition and in a written report for NPR’s website. ...
“I tell my children there are two ways to lie,” Tompkins said. “One is to tell me something that didn’t happen, and the other is not to tell me something that did happen. I think they employed both techniques in this.” Columbia Journalism Review reiterated assessments and warnings about O'Keefe's methods in a 2011 piece targeting NPR. That article noted that the time-consuming nature of fact-checking (particularly when source material is obscured) has led to Project Veritas efforts skating past cursory review ...
It is now clear that O’Keefe’s editing of the raw video from his interview with NPR’s top fundraiser, Ron Schiller, was selective and deceptive. The full extent of this distortion was exposed by a rising conservative Web site, the Blaze. O’Keefe’s final product excludes explanatory context, exaggerates Schiller’s tolerance for Islamist radicalism and attributes sentiments to Schiller that are actually quotes by others — all the hallmarks of a hit piece ... In this case, O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie. ...
The October 2016 releases weren't Project Veritas' first foray into the 2016 elections and the political climate of the day. In March 2016, O'Keefe infamously bungled an attempted "investigation" by failing to hang up his phone after calling a target (thereby exposing his plot to those whom he was trying to fool). ...
“It seems like most of the fraud O’Keefe uncovers he commits himself,” Richard Hasen, a professor of election law at the University of California, Irvine, says. ...
Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible." https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s
Oh shit, an example.
In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old.
During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.”
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation)
So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old.
So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped.
Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen.
|
On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): [quote] https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. Show nested quote +During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen.
Do you have stock in Project Veritas or friends that work there or something? Its baffling how much you seem to shill for them.
You do know about the fetus tissue stuff too right?
|
On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 21:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] Project Veritas regularly splices and edits video footage in deceiving ways to provide "evidence" for their conspiracies. That's one of the reasons why so many of us refused to take your PV bait in the covid thread, and why there was immediate cautioning against using PV as an example of a supposedly reasonable source that is graciously talking about important issues that the mainstream media is covering up. Here is an example of four videos about the same topic (when PV asserted that Hillary Clinton was rigging the 2016 election): [quote] https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question. It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show. I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. Show nested quote +During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen.
So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you?
|
I wish I were surprised  I'm so sorry.
|
|
|
On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 18 2023 22:52 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things. I said if something is shown to be a fabrication, e.g. someone asks Hillary Clinton if she tried to rig the 2106 election and she says no but they splice in video footage of her answering yes to a different question.
It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here. It sounds like in some instances we have the raw video and the edited video so we should have some examples to show.
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices. "I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you. "It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here." Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you?
“Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?”
I’ve never said otherwise? Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet.
I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position that you can punch down on? Has this ever worked for you? All that happens is I get annoyed people are misconstruing my words then people say I’m playing victim and then the thread gets shitted up. Maybe we can stop doing this.
|
But as you pointed out, they did do this stunt at multiple Planned Parenthood locations. Another time was in Memphis and according to the LATimes article
https://ghostarchive.org/archive/2BTEx (Wikipedias source)
She posed there in July as a 14-year-old impregnated by a 31-year-old; a Planned Parenthood staffer says, “Just say you have a boyfriend, 17 years old, whatever.”
Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. Omitting the employees that were doing the right thing and only showing the employees that were behaving badly does not alter the reality that some of the employees were behaving badly. Therefore it’s not a fabrication which I said was my standard for purging things from the internet. Sadly this isn’t the “gotcha” you were hoping for.
But why do you think Wikipedia omitted nearly all of these details of the employees telling her to lie about her boyfriends age or that they were fired? Why do you think the incorrectly attributed the quote from the Indianapolis clinic to the UCLA clinic? Do you suppose they would rather talk about the time she posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 24 year old instead of a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old? Don’t you think that’s deceptive as well?
|
On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise?
This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that Project Veritas is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for them.
Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position
I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. You haven't even accepted that PV does this, so there's no way to follow up with a second step of something like "Since we're in agreement that PV does X, do you think that PV should face any consequences?" It might be an interesting conversation to have, but we won't get that far.
Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff.
PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Again, we're establishing that PV edited videos:
Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story.
You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs.
Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? Can we at least establish that first fact before talking about whether what PV does is good/neutral/bad or warranted/unwarranted or should be celebrated/punished?
You: ..........What about Wikipedia?
You're bending over backwards to avoid admitting what Gorsameth originally claimed. I just don't understand why you're so loyal to Project Veritas. Would your life significantly change in some way if you agreed that PV uses some pretty shifty and deceitful tactics to try and push its agenda? Why are you protecting them?
Maybe we can stop doing this.
Sounds good, although it's still being noted that:
(1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised);
(2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you (Snopes, election law professors, the Columbia Journalism Review, etc.), not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you've created a new rule that you won't believe the source unless you follow up with them firsthand (or speak with PV) while also simultaneously conceding that you can't be bothered to do exactly that.
|
On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand.
I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better.
1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful.
2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences.
If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with.
|
On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful.
He has technically said that (without giving any examples and dismissing every example provided), and I think your statement is misleading because of the other 95% of posts he makes about PV. Based on everything he's been posting, it's clear he's more pro-PV than anti-PV. He's pushing the leading narrative of: PV is just asking innocent questions here and trying to uncover some unpopular truths, and isn't it weird that the mainstream media isn't spending all their time on this conspiracy theory or refuting the potentially-unfalsifiable claims that PV is making? I mean, sure, maybe PV isn't perfect but it really makes you think...
He did that in the covid thread and then he brought it over to here.
2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences.
This first part that I've bolded: Where did he admit this? I don't see him agreeing with me at all that PV was an unreliable narrator that was deceitful in those examples, regardless of the effects. Perhaps I missed it, but I do see where he said the opposite: "Sadly this isn’t the “gotcha” you were hoping for", as if I were claiming that this should lead to "purging things from the internet" (his words, not mine). It seems that he always breezes right past acknowledging that the video is spliced. Also, sometimes those "real consequences" aren't good things, and a conversation about certain practices leading to certain consequences can't be had if we can't first establish that certain practices are even occurring in the first place.
|
|
|
Norway28553 Posts
On February 19 2023 22:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. He has technically said that (without giving any examples and dismissing every example provided), and I think your statement is misleading because of the other 95% of posts he makes about PV. Based on everything he's been posting, it's clear he's more pro-PV than anti-PV. He's pushing the leading narrative of: PV is just asking innocent questions here and trying to uncover some unpopular truths, and isn't it weird that the mainstream media isn't spending all their time on this conspiracy theory or refuting the potentially-unfalsifiable claims that PV is making? I mean, sure, maybe PV isn't perfect but it really makes you think... He did that in the covid thread and then he brought it over to here. Show nested quote +2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. This first part that I've bolded: Where did he admit this? I don't see him agreeing with me at all that PV was an unreliable narrator that was deceitful in those examples, regardless of the effects. Perhaps I missed it, but I do see where he said the opposite: "Sadly this isn’t the “gotcha” you were hoping for", as if I were claiming that this should lead to "purging things from the internet" (his words, not mine). It seems that he always breezes right past acknowledging that the video is spliced. Also, sometimes those "real consequences" aren't good things, and a conversation about certain practices leading to certain consequences can't be had if we can't first establish that certain practices are even occurring in the first place.
I don't think it's clear he's pro PV at all. I have the impression he thinks it's not a trustworthy source of information (although despite this, not necessarily that everything posted by them is fabricated), and he doesn't necessarily think they qualify as the type of disinformation agent deserving being purged from the internet. There's a two-fold disagreement going on. 1: (as touched by Acrofales earlier), BJ probably has a higher threshold for what information should be 'censored' than Acro (and probably many others), and 2: BJ doesn't think it's been demonstrated that PV is at an infowars/russian troll farm level of dishonesty (where for at least the latter, he seems to agree with censorship). However, he pretty clearly considers them unreliable/shady/not trustworthy and if you're asking for a 'more for' or 'more against' dichotomy then he's clearly in the latter group.
|
|
|
Norway28553 Posts
I mean, I think PV is total garbage and I'm on board with just ignoring/dismissing everything from PV by default. On the off chance that this makes me lose out on some actual truth, so be it. But taking stuff out of context in such a way that the meaning behind a statement changes isn't unique to them, arguably plenty tabloids have been guilty of the same for decades. Journalistic integrity is obviously desirable but plenty media, also print and with editors, lack it. Not saying you're arguing for it - but to me, it's entirely reasonable to not consider being dishonest and manipulative reasons for wanting some censorship enforced.
Also, I saw PV being compared to a Sasha Baron Cohen for right wingers, with a chief difference in SBC clearly doing comedy and PV claiming to be serious journalism. Still - watching who is America there were plenty of oh my God I can't believe this person said or did this moments even knowing that it's definitely taken out of context and that plenty footage is omitted. But then I laugh at it. The Georgian dude got burned, though. :D
|
On February 20 2023 00:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 22:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. He has technically said that (without giving any examples and dismissing every example provided), and I think your statement is misleading because of the other 95% of posts he makes about PV. Based on everything he's been posting, it's clear he's more pro-PV than anti-PV. He's pushing the leading narrative of: PV is just asking innocent questions here and trying to uncover some unpopular truths, and isn't it weird that the mainstream media isn't spending all their time on this conspiracy theory or refuting the potentially-unfalsifiable claims that PV is making? I mean, sure, maybe PV isn't perfect but it really makes you think... He did that in the covid thread and then he brought it over to here. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. This first part that I've bolded: Where did he admit this? I don't see him agreeing with me at all that PV was an unreliable narrator that was deceitful in those examples, regardless of the effects. Perhaps I missed it, but I do see where he said the opposite: "Sadly this isn’t the “gotcha” you were hoping for", as if I were claiming that this should lead to "purging things from the internet" (his words, not mine). It seems that he always breezes right past acknowledging that the video is spliced. Also, sometimes those "real consequences" aren't good things, and a conversation about certain practices leading to certain consequences can't be had if we can't first establish that certain practices are even occurring in the first place. I don't think it's clear he's pro PV at all. I have the impression he thinks it's not a trustworthy source of information (although despite this, not necessarily that everything posted by them is fabricated), and he doesn't necessarily think they qualify as the type of disinformation agent deserving being purged from the internet. There's a two-fold disagreement going on. 1: (as touched by Acrofales earlier), BJ probably has a higher threshold for what information should be 'censored' than Acro (and probably many others), and 2: BJ doesn't think it's been demonstrated that PV is at an infowars/russian troll farm level of dishonesty (where for at least the latter, he seems to agree with censorship). However, he pretty clearly considers them unreliable/shady/not trustworthy and if you're asking for a 'more for' or 'more against' dichotomy then he's clearly in the latter group.
I appreciate the interpretation/elaboration, and I'm happy to move past this. I share your philosophy that you "think PV is total garbage and I'm on board with just ignoring/dismissing everything from PV by default". I hope we stop resurrecting PV conversations.
|
|
|
On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with.
I don't think I understand BJ's point the same way you do. His initial complaint (carried to multiple threads over multiple weeks) was basically "the media is censoring this PV video by not really covering it." You're right about 1), he doesn't actually think PV is a trustworthy source, he just wants the media to write articles following up on PV's claims about Pfizer. If they show that every PV claim is bullshit, great, he's happy with that, but he wants them to go show that. So it's not "Sure, PV is unreliable, but sometimes they kind of have a point!" It's "Sure, PV is unreliable, but I'd still like someone to actually do the work of showing they're full of shit!"
Thing is, I'm sympathetic to that (to a point). I'm not a huge fan of deciding someone is so morally bankrupt that I'm just going to stick my fingers in my ears when they talk – if they have a claim to make, and evidence to support it, I can hear them out even if I think they're deceitful, untrustworthy, etc. I'm not evaluating it on the strength of their character, I'm evaluating it on the strength of the evidence. I have limited time, of course, and I don't owe them my attention, but I still think it's a good thing in general for someone to hear out any given crackpot and do the work of showing why they're wrong (or, maybe, where they kind of have a point!).
But I went back and forth with him kind of a lot on this recently, and the problem is, either PV's most recent video doesn't have any allegations against Pfizer that are really fact-checkable, or at least BJ is unwilling to share a single one. I haven't watched the video, but I read a summary and thought it sounded mostly like the sorts of claims that are virtually impossible to disprove, but without any meaninful proof being offered there was absolutely no reason to believe them. I've encouraged BJ to provide counterexamples, and he had no interest in doing so.
Here's where I might be more sympathetic to DPB than you on this subject: BJ has brought this PV thing up so many times, always with this pugnacious tone, and is pretty consistently defensive of PV while being unwilling to, as I repeatedly suggested, point to specific allegations he'd like investigated and debunked. Is it totally unreasonable to look at that and conclude that the "I agree PV is unreliable" thing is just rhetorical cover? I mean, PV videos are essentially propaganda, and if you want to maximize the effect of propaganda you would probably want to keep people talking about it as long as possible while muddying the water as much as possible on any discussion of the actual truth value of it.
Imagine the following (not a real quote, but a hypothetical):
Don't you think this video is interesting? Shouldn't people be talking about it more? Oh, of course I don't know if it's true or not. What specific claims do I think are so 'interesting'? Oh, I dunno, the whole thing really! Listen, I'm just like you! I'm a skeptical viewer, and we can't just trust the video's claims as-is. But if traditional information sources aren't talking about this, doesn't that mean they're just as untrustworthy? Anyway, everyone should definitely watch the video in its entirety and discuss it everywhere they can. Hey, be skeptical! But be just as skeptical of anyone telling you it's not true, ya know?
I'm all for charitable interpretation, and for the record I don't think BJ is arguing in bad faith. But if you get enough rhetoric like the above, at some point aren't we being a bit dense to take it at face value? You can't say for certain that someone saying something like the above is intentionally trying to propagandize, obfuscate, and distort, but you can, at least, say they're arguing exactly like someone would if they were trying to propagandize, obfuscate, and distort. At which point I think a reasonable response might be "This is functionally indistingushable from propaganda, and the best response to propaganda is to not give it oxygen."
In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time.
|
On February 20 2023 04:27 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 21:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 19 2023 21:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 19 2023 14:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2023 11:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 07:41 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 07:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 06:58 BlackJack wrote:On February 19 2023 06:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2023 05:36 BlackJack wrote:On February 18 2023 23:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you wrote "I didn’t say we should ban things for being “selectively edited” or “lacking context” or whatever subjective standards you want to use to suppress things." Why are you quoting phrases like "selectively edited" and "lacking context"? Who are you quoting? I didn't say those things. Also, I'm not offering any "subjective standards" or saying what should or shouldn't be "suppressed". I'm just showing you examples of precisely the thing that you and Gorsameth agreed are bad practices.
"I said if something is shown to be a fabrication" Yeah, like splicing together footage to make it seem like X was being said/done, when in reality, it wasn't. As in, what PV did in the Snopes source I just gave you.
"It actually shouldn’t be that hard to give some examples here."
Why would you write this as a response to those examples? The evidence of that happening is what you just replied to. Maybe you think you gave examples of Porject Veritas deceptively editing things but what you really did was gave examples of people talking about Project Veritas deceptively editing things. Some of us like to evaluate things for ourselves instead of being told what to believe. No one is stopping you from doing research and potentially developing a rebuttal to the corroboration of everyone from journalists to election law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review to even conservatives like Glenn Beck. Go call up Project Veritas if you care so much about evaluating things for yourself and not believing what other people are reporting. We'll have to remember your semantics excuse next time you cite someone else's data as evidence for your position, or repeat a story written by someone who's not you, since that's apparently not good enough for you anymore. Kind of like: Sorry, but you're not allowed to trust this source, because the source isn't you. Your response to this article sounds a lot like you're "being told what to believe", instead of "evaluating things for yourself". Let us know the real story once you personally contact Quebec and NYC. “Any form of assistance to migrants crossing the border where it is strictly forbidden to do so should stop immediately,” a spokesperson for Quebec Premier Francois Legault said.
“We understand that the situation of migrants in New York poses major challenges, but the situation in Quebec and particularly in Montreal is even worse and constitutes an important humanitarian issue.” See how the article I linked has direct quotes? I'm actually not taking the NYPost's word for it that Quebec is asking NY to stop bussing migrants to its border. I can read those quotes and evaluate for myself that that's the gist of what they are saying. Juxtapose that with your article that doesn't contain any quotes from any PV videos and how it's been spliced to "make it seem like X was being done when in reality it wasn't." The Snopes article I linked has direct quotes, videos, links to follow-up information, and literally a bibliography of 9 additional sources. But by your logic: You can't trust those quotes in your NYPost article because someone else is writing them down. Did you hear those quotes being said? Were they said to you? What if they were taken out of context? Did you even call the people who were quoted, to confirm those quotes were real? At some point, you're going to need to actually trust secondhand sources, but you're cherry-picking: You don't get to use secondhand sources to defend a point you want to make, but then reject sources simply because they criticize your beloved Project Veritas. I don't care to keep going around in circles with you on this. If you want to give specific examples of what PV has done and ask me if I think it should be actionable by content moderators on the internet then fine. You've offered an article of people saying PV does X but not specifically examples of PV doing X. If you want to make another post insisting that the former is actually the latter then we can just drop it here. Do you think the moderators here would action your posts if the "law professors to the Columbia Journalism Review" told them your posts were actionable or do you think they would read your posts themselves and determine if your posts were actionable? Again, precisely zero people here are forbidding you from reaching out to Project Veritas (or the people whose quotes are in your NYPost article). Why don't you try to reach out to PV, since you're suddenly so obsessed with firsthand sources? What's the worst that could happen? You seem so sure that the world is against that poor, far-right activist group. For most of us, the well-documented examples of cut/spliced/edited footage, half-truths lacking context, and lies pushing conspiracy theories are enough for us to reject PV's claims unless they're corroborated by other, more reputable sources. Here's another example (which probably won't be convincing to you, because it's not PV literally admitting wrongdoing): "In 2006, O'Keefe met Lila Rose, the founder of an anti-abortion group on the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) campus.[63] They secretly recorded encounters in Planned Parenthood clinics in Los Angeles and Santa Monica, in which Rose posed as a 15-year-old girl impregnated by a 23-year-old male. Rose and O'Keefe made two videos incorporating heavily edited[38] versions of the recordings and released them on YouTube.[64] The video omitted the portions of the full conversation, in which a Planned Parenthood employee asked Rose to consult her mother about the pregnancy and another employee told Rose, "We have to follow the laws". Rose took down the videos after Planned Parenthood sent her a cease and desist letter in May 2007 asserting that the videos violated California's voice recording laws, which required consent from all recorded parties.[65][66]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas But feel free to contact PV and do your own research; I'm sure PV will be completely forthcoming and honest /s Oh shit, an example. In a twist of irony, the wikipedia entry you quoted seems to have been selectively edited as well. Per the wiki source, the quote of the worker saying "We have to follow the laws" does not appear to be from the UCLA clinic where "Rose" posed as a 15 year old impregnated by a 23 year old. It actually comes from a similar "sting" of an Indianpolis clinic where Rose portrays a 13 year old impregnated by a 31 year old. During a similar sting in 2009, codenamed “The Mona Lisa Project,” Rose posed as 13-year-old girl seeking help from Planned Parenthood. A heavily edited recording with added background music—presumably to increase its dramatic quality—captured a clinic worker telling Rose: “I didn’t hear the age. I don’t want to know the age. It could be reported as rape. And that’s child abuse.”
...
Edited out of the recording, another clinic worker is heard saying, “We have to follow the laws.” https://ghostarchive.org/archive/9VM9I (wikipedia's citation) So what you have is one clinic worker trying to do the right thing and another clinic worker essentially wanted to stick her fingers in her ears so she doesn't have to report a 13 year old being raped by a 31 year old. So No, I would not constitute this as PV splicing a video to make it look like something happened that didn't actually happen. Cerainly it would have been more honest if PV decided to include the worker doing the right thing along with the worker doing the wrong thing. But I don't think omitting that is a good reason to purge a video of someone trying to skirt their responsibility to prevent a 13 year old from being raped. Of course the irony here is how much wikipedia omits and selectively spliced a quote into a place where it didn't happen. So your excuse for the previous four 2016 election video examples on Snopes were that they don't count because PV didn't personally confirm anything with you, and your excuse for the Wikipedia Planned Parenthood examples is that PV admitted that they actually pulled their shady stunt at least twice, instead of just once? And that absolves PV of fault - you didn't even bother to address the part where they spliced the video footage - because part of the Wiki summary was related to their UCLA mess and part of it was related to their Indianapolis mess? All right then. Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices? What kind of evidence would persuade you? “Is there anything that would convince you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices?” I’ve never said otherwise? This would have been a great opportunity for you to explain what kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices. Instead, you chose to dodge the question, rather than clarify or justify your position. All you've been doing is making excuses for Project Veritas. Being unreliable is a completely different question than whether they should be purged from the internet. I think the question that needs to be asked is why do you constantly ask me these loaded questions to try to pigeonhole me into a stupid position I haven't mentioned PV being purged from the internet at all. Please stop changing the subject. Gorsameth asserted that PV had a reputation for this inappropriate behavior: "interview a person, then cut up and edit the recording in such a way that it changes the statements and context of the answers before broadcasting it". You responded with "I dont know what you are referencing", so then I provided examples of PV doing exactly that. Also according to the article the staffers at the Planned Parenthood that were skirting their mandated reporting duties were fired and additional training was given to remaining staff. PV has a history of getting a lot of people fired and organizations in trouble, including people/organizations who don't deserve it. Now, back on topic again, which is about PV's edited videos: Me: Here are more examples of PV splicing together footage that doesn't tell the entire story. You: But the effect of that edited footage is that some bad people lost their jobs. Me: And some good people too, but at least you admit that PV modified its footage in the first place, right? You: ..........What about Wikipedia? Maybe we can stop doing this. Sounds good, although it's still being noted that: (1) It doesn't appear that any kind of evidence would persuade you that PV is unreliable and engages in deceitful practices (and given the past few weeks of you zealously shilling for PV across two threads, I'm not surprised); (2) You've opened the Pandora's box of simply dismissing any sources that disagree with you, not because they've been identified as biased or unreliable, but merely because you don't want to follow up on them (or speak to PV) firsthand. I think this whole discussion is silly, but you can do better. 1) BJ has repeatedly identified PV as unreliable and deceitful. 2) BJ's point is pretty simple, the examples you provided showed PV being an unreliable narrator that was deceitful and BJ pointed out that regardless of that shameless manipulation, it still turned out to be actually incriminating video that was appropriately (at least as far as the US's internal reasoning applies) followed up on, and resulted in real consequences. If you're going to insist on these vacuous spats with BJ, the least you could do is actually engage with the arguments BJ is making instead of your (seemingly deliberate at this point) misinterpretations you're attempting to dunk on em with. In other words, can we all STFU about Project Veritas until somebody actually has a claim worth discussing that we can evaluate the truth value of? I'm willing to hear out a claim from anybody, including PV, if they're willing to bring evidence to back it up, but until BJ or somebody else actually brings something like that I think this is a waste of everyone's time.
I'd like to point out that I'm not the one that brought PV back into discussion. But if you want another claim you can evaluate the truth of you can start with the one DPB brought up with the undercover recording in the Planned Parenthood clinics of clinic workers advising a young teen of how to lie to avoid them having to report her rape to the authorities.
Personally I'm appalled that people seem to be more outraged by PV's unscrupulous methods than by workers at a healthcare clinic that were trying to do nothing to prevent someone posing as a literal child from being raped by a 31-year-old. I'm actually glad that the workers were terminated instead of this being "ignored" even if that puts me in the minority here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
