|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it.
On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video.
You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm.
So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses.
@DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so.
On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting?
I never even posted the video
|
On January 31 2023 22:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually laughable how blind everyone gets the moment they see a post from blackjack. seeing the words "blackjack" just automatically triggers some impulse to interpret everything he says in the worst light possible in order to create some justification to shit on him. If you'd take the time to read the immediate responses to BlackJack's post, you'd see that we criticized Project Veritas and BJ's decision to promote unverified conspiracy theories, not just some ad hominem argument about BJ being BJ. If you want to assert that he's being treated unfairly, you'd need to wait for other people to post Project Veritas videos, to see if they're not being equally scrutinized. i dont understand how from his very first post, anyone could reasonably conclude that he is promoting "unverified conspiracy theories". questioning why content of a certain political colour is not held to the same degree of scrutiny or accountability does not automatically mean he is in agreement with the content. maybe if another user made the exact same post everyone would have reacted the same way. in that case then yeah, i guess it isnt blackjack's user name that triggers everyone. however, it would still be evidence of the fact that a large number of people in this thread are incapable of reading shit without massive bias tinted glasses. I can't speak for anyone else, but I attempted to justify my conclusion here: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=680#13594 And I cited his exact words.
you can justify your conclusion all you like but to me a wrong conclusion is a wrong conclusion. and it cant have been that hard to actually deduce what point he was trying to make because i got it right on my first read
|
On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. Show nested quote +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video
Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake.
Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you.
|
On January 31 2023 22:32 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:15 evilfatsh1t wrote:On January 31 2023 22:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually laughable how blind everyone gets the moment they see a post from blackjack. seeing the words "blackjack" just automatically triggers some impulse to interpret everything he says in the worst light possible in order to create some justification to shit on him. If you'd take the time to read the immediate responses to BlackJack's post, you'd see that we criticized Project Veritas and BJ's decision to promote unverified conspiracy theories, not just some ad hominem argument about BJ being BJ. If you want to assert that he's being treated unfairly, you'd need to wait for other people to post Project Veritas videos, to see if they're not being equally scrutinized. i dont understand how from his very first post, anyone could reasonably conclude that he is promoting "unverified conspiracy theories". questioning why content of a certain political colour is not held to the same degree of scrutiny or accountability does not automatically mean he is in agreement with the content. maybe if another user made the exact same post everyone would have reacted the same way. in that case then yeah, i guess it isnt blackjack's user name that triggers everyone. however, it would still be evidence of the fact that a large number of people in this thread are incapable of reading shit without massive bias tinted glasses. I can't speak for anyone else, but I attempted to justify my conclusion here: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=680#13594 And I cited his exact words. you can justify your conclusion all you like but to me a wrong conclusion is a wrong conclusion. and it cant have been that hard to actually deduce what point he was trying to make because i got it right on my first read
Except you didn't, and the rest of us did. Including me.
+ Show Spoiler +See what I did there? You can't just assert that you're right, because someone could just as easily assert the opposite... Except the rest of us actually used his entire post, in context. Not caring about justifying a conclusion with evidence is really weird, especially when you're accusing everyone else of being biased.
|
wtf do u think blackjack is? the riddler?
you dont have to disect every word of his with forensic analysis to come up with some twisted conclusion that fits your narrative. use basic english. its quite obvious to anyone who employs unbiased reading comprehension that my interpretation of his post is correct. hell, lets ask the guy who wrote the post what he really meant should we? oh wait, he already said what he meant and its exactly what i said
|
On January 31 2023 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually laughable how blind everyone gets the moment they see a post from blackjack. seeing the words "blackjack" just automatically triggers some impulse to interpret everything he says in the worst light possible in order to create some justification to shit on him.
his initial discussion point wasnt that he thought the video was credible. without going back to read everything, i dont believe he actually gave his own assessment on whether the video was credible or not. i may be wrong, but thats not what i recall.
his discussion point was clearly a question about why mainstream news outlets were not creating any articles or reports to rebuke the contents of the video if the video was as controversial as people claim it to be.
this question itself does not provide his own assessment or opinions of the video. theres no reason for any reader to suddenly infer from his post that he is supporting the video, agrees with the video, or is generally in support of the author.
among the responses that completely missed the mark, there were a few responses that were direct answers to his intended question. my response was one of them, because i understood the point of his post to begin with. its too early to hold suspicion about why any reputable media outlet had not even acknowledged the video. perhaps if a month or two passes with a continued lack of addressing of the video from reputable media outlets, then blackjacks' first post and the question he poses would be a more relevant discussion point. as it stands, his question was rather silly but his post overall should mean no harm to any unbiased reader.
of course the very fact that im making this post now will lead some people to say im taking blackjack's side. the truth is, i read his post like i read everyone's, with as little bias as i could possibly have. whether or not people believe me, i dont really care, but my assessment is that there are too many users here that wear massively tinted glasses whenever blackjack posts something. its so fucking tiring reading the same back and forth shit flinging any time any regular user posts here because the guys on the "other side" cant read a post without some seriously prejudiced lens. somehow, no matter what the initial discussion point is, the conversation degenerates into some bullshit about right wing conspiracy nutjobs. you all need to take a hard look in the mirror cause the quality of discussion here is shameful
I don't think that is correct. I rarely actually look who wrote something before reading.
In this case, it was not "Blackjack" that triggered my response, it was "Project Veritas" in combination with a large amount of JAQing off.
And the core problem with rightwing crazy "News" is that you can produce Bullshit a lot faster than people can refute it, and even if they do, there are still a large amount of people who get reached by the Bullshit, but never the refutation.
And here Blackjack was once again giving them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, he didn't say that what they "reported" was true, but he said that it raises questions, and that we should think about it, all that nice muddy stuff where you can then later paddle back and hide behind afterwards.
Good news has credibility. You build credibility by not lying. Project Veritas lies, fakes, manipulates and shifts everything according to their agenda. That is simply not worth interacting with. There is especially no duty to other people to figure out how and why they lied about what, once again. It would be upon PV to prove in some credible way that what they produced is not another of their propaganda pieces.
And yet BJ insinuated through his posting of PV as a source, and how it "makes you think", that we should actually carefully weigh if some parts of the stuff the proven liars produced now may not be right. That is Bullshit.
|
On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you.
Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine.
I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video.
I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome.
|
On January 31 2023 22:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you. Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine. I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video. I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome.
Your point was "the media isn't covering this stuff i saw in a PV video". And that point is as much about "the media" as it is about PV.
No, you don't take a position. You just JAQ off and then get offended when people assume that you are taking the position you are clearly taking with those "just asked" questions.
|
On January 31 2023 22:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:
wtf do u think blackjack is? the riddler?
you dont have to disect every word of his with forensic analysis to come up with some twisted conclusion that fits your narrative. use basic english. its quite obvious to anyone who employs unbiased reading comprehension that my interpretation of his post is correct. hell, lets ask the guy who wrote the post what he really meant should we? oh wait, he already said what he meant and its exactly what i said
I try my best to avoid being a victim of gaslighting and/or Poe's Law, so I'm going to stop responding to you about this topic.
|
On January 31 2023 22:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:02 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its actually laughable how blind everyone gets the moment they see a post from blackjack. seeing the words "blackjack" just automatically triggers some impulse to interpret everything he says in the worst light possible in order to create some justification to shit on him.
his initial discussion point wasnt that he thought the video was credible. without going back to read everything, i dont believe he actually gave his own assessment on whether the video was credible or not. i may be wrong, but thats not what i recall.
his discussion point was clearly a question about why mainstream news outlets were not creating any articles or reports to rebuke the contents of the video if the video was as controversial as people claim it to be.
this question itself does not provide his own assessment or opinions of the video. theres no reason for any reader to suddenly infer from his post that he is supporting the video, agrees with the video, or is generally in support of the author.
among the responses that completely missed the mark, there were a few responses that were direct answers to his intended question. my response was one of them, because i understood the point of his post to begin with. its too early to hold suspicion about why any reputable media outlet had not even acknowledged the video. perhaps if a month or two passes with a continued lack of addressing of the video from reputable media outlets, then blackjacks' first post and the question he poses would be a more relevant discussion point. as it stands, his question was rather silly but his post overall should mean no harm to any unbiased reader.
of course the very fact that im making this post now will lead some people to say im taking blackjack's side. the truth is, i read his post like i read everyone's, with as little bias as i could possibly have. whether or not people believe me, i dont really care, but my assessment is that there are too many users here that wear massively tinted glasses whenever blackjack posts something. its so fucking tiring reading the same back and forth shit flinging any time any regular user posts here because the guys on the "other side" cant read a post without some seriously prejudiced lens. somehow, no matter what the initial discussion point is, the conversation degenerates into some bullshit about right wing conspiracy nutjobs. you all need to take a hard look in the mirror cause the quality of discussion here is shameful I don't think that is correct. I rarely actually look who wrote something before reading. In this case, it was not "Blackjack" that triggered my response, it was "Project Veritas" in combination with a large amount of JAQing off. And the core problem with rightwing crazy "News" is that you can produce Bullshit a lot faster than people can refute it, and even if they do, there are still a large amount of people who get reached by the Bullshit, but never the refutation. And here Blackjack was once again giving them the benefit of the doubt. Sure, he didn't say that what they "reported" was true, but he said that it raises questions, and that we should think about it, all that nice muddy stuff where you can then later paddle back and hide behind afterwards.Good news has credibility. You build credibility by not lying. Project Veritas lies, fakes, manipulates and shifts everything according to their agenda. That is simply not worth interacting with. There is especially no duty to other people to figure out how and why they lied about what, once again. It would be upon PV to prove in some credible way that what they produced is not another of their propaganda pieces. And yet BJ insinuated through his posting of PV as a source, and how it "makes you think", that we should actually carefully weigh if some parts of the stuff the proven liars produced now may not be right. That is Bullshit.
well at least you admitted that you got triggered by a keyword, rather than actually reading his post properly.
where did this bolded part happen again? because what i read was blackjack raising questions about the comparatively lax effort by media outlets to scrutinise content that has generally been aligned with their political colour. the pv video and the apparent radio silence around it was just an example. you could substitute the pv video for anything of the same political colour and his point would still stand.. the content of the pv video isnt actually the subject of the discussion. so youve just highlighted once again that people in this thread dont even understand the subject of the discussions they engage in.
On January 31 2023 23:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:51 evilfatsh1t wrote:
wtf do u think blackjack is? the riddler?
you dont have to disect every word of his with forensic analysis to come up with some twisted conclusion that fits your narrative. use basic english. its quite obvious to anyone who employs unbiased reading comprehension that my interpretation of his post is correct. hell, lets ask the guy who wrote the post what he really meant should we? oh wait, he already said what he meant and its exactly what i said I try my best to avoid being a victim of gaslighting and/or Poe's Law, so I'm going to stop responding to you about this topic.
im not sure how poes law even applies here. and i dont think you see the irony of you saying you dont want to be a victim of gaslighting but youve actively engaged in basically throwing a gaslighting party for blackjack.
were at the point now where someone cannot even attempt to clarify the meaning or intention behind their post because some users have already determined that the poster meant something else entirely and literally wont listen to any further attempt to clear the air. this thread is a fucking shambles
|
On January 31 2023 22:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you. Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine. I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video. I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome.
Verbal conversations are far easier to retcon than written ones. People can literally read through the back-and-forths you had with each of us after your post. The suspicious quotes and conspiracy theories you wrote about in your original post weren't just about the Project Veritas video that you came across, but didn't watch, but you wish the mainstream media talked about what the video talked about even though you don't know what it talked about, but you shouldn't be held accountable for bringing it up as a source that's asking great questions that the mainstream media doesn't, even though it's also sketchy and biased, but doesn't make up things, but does make up things - there were plenty of other comments you made outside of that first paragraph that were unfounded, and we cited those too. I don't know if you believe you're making valid points (good faith) or if you're just looking for attention (bad faith), so I'm going to remove myself from this specific conversation.
|
Can someone at least watch the PV video and give me a synopsis of the key points? I should at least have the details of the conspiracies I’m supposedly peddling.
|
Note that "triggered my response" is not the same statement as "i got triggered by".
Bold part: I have no clue how you got what you got from BJs post that triggered this discussion (not me!) on page 679. Considering how widely differing our opinions on what he wants to say are, i think we can agree that he didn't really make his point very clear.
When you can't make your point clear, it is not everyone elses fault. And when you are purposefully obtuse, people will start making assumptions regarding what you are trying to say.
I must also say that i find the way you talk down to people kind of annoying, evilfatsh1t. Just because i don't have the same interpretation of that post as you do means i don't understand the subject of the discussion i am taking part in? Maybe you didn't understand the subject? Or maybe there were multiple subjects at once?
I think I'll do the same as DPB and stop responding to this. It is getting kind of exhausting and i think i can do better with my time.
|
I want to propose a thread rule that limits the permitted daily use of a personal accusation to once per person, i.e. if A accuses B of something (e.g. misinterpreting a comment), A is prohibited from using that same accusation a second time towards B for the next 24 hours.
|
On January 31 2023 23:33 Simberto wrote:
Note that "triggered my response" is not the same statement as "i got triggered by".
Bold part: I have no clue how you got what you got from BJs post that triggered this discussion (not me!) on page 679. Considering how widely differing our opinions on what he wants to say are, i think we can agree that he didn't really make his point very clear.
When you can't make your point clear, it is not everyone elses fault. And when you are purposefully obtuse, people will start making assumptions regarding what you are trying to say.
I must also say that i find the way you talk down to people kind of annoying, evilfatsh1t. Just because i don't have the same interpretation of that post as you do means i don't understand the subject of the discussion i am taking part in? Maybe you didn't understand the subject? Or maybe there were multiple subjects at once?
I think I'll do the same as DPB and stop responding to this. It is getting kind of exhausting and i think i can do better with my time.
well i cant testify to the fact that he didnt make his point clear, because i understood it perfectly well. and i know ive understood it well because thats what he fking said rofl. if the poster literally says that ive understood his post correctly, then i dont see how theres any ambiguity.
and due to the above, the answers to your bolded section are all no. blackjack has confirmed that ive understood what he intended the subject of his post to be. so the fact that you didnt, means you are in fact failing to understand what you should be discussing, not me.
im sorry that you feel offended by the tone of my posts. i cant help but be frustrated by the conduct in this thread sometimes (actually most of the time now). i struggle to understand how people can come to such ridiculous conclusions about what a plain english text is saying, and the only conclusion i could come up with was youre all biased and acting in bad faith. i would throw a bone to anyone here who genuinely isnt a natural english speaker, but i know that a lot of people here are, so there really arent any excuses.
|
Norway28597 Posts
On January 31 2023 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you. Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine. I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video. I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome. Verbal conversations are far easier to retcon than written ones. People can literally read through the back-and-forths you had with each of us after your post. The suspicious quotes and conspiracy theories you wrote about in your original post weren't just about the Project Veritas video that you came across, but didn't watch, but you wish the mainstream media talked about what the video talked about even though you don't know what it talked about, but you shouldn't be held accountable for bringing it up as a source that's asking great questions that the mainstream media doesn't, even though it's also sketchy and biased, but doesn't make up things, but does make up things - there were plenty of other comments you made outside of that first paragraph that were unfounded, and we cited those too. I don't know if you believe you're making valid points (good faith) or if you're just looking for attention (bad faith), so I'm going to remove myself from this specific conversation.
While I think that is a smart choice and while I think BJ could at least have expected some of the fallout and he should've specified what he meant by 'makes you think', I think your first sentence shouldn't be correct, even accepting that it might be. By this I mean, if someone makes a post that clarifies their original point and it wasn't what people argued against, then imo people should just accept this clarification rather than insist that their initial interpretation was the right one. Maybe it was perfectly reasonable according to the information they had - but a clarification adds more information. This thread and forum are not supposed to constitute battles of who are right or not, but to share and discuss topics of relevance and interest.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'll say - I've been teaching how to deal with conspiracy theories to a high school sociology class lately, and as part of that, I wanted to subject them to some primary sources. They've been hard to come by - when I Google why arguments for a particular conspiracy theory, I end up with answers explaining why it isn't. I don't think that's entirely on topic for this thread, I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with that, and it might just reflect my search history, but it also has made me think. Definitely used to be easier to find stuff of that nature.
|
|
|
On January 31 2023 23:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 23:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you. Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine. I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video. I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome. Verbal conversations are far easier to retcon than written ones. People can literally read through the back-and-forths you had with each of us after your post. The suspicious quotes and conspiracy theories you wrote about in your original post weren't just about the Project Veritas video that you came across, but didn't watch, but you wish the mainstream media talked about what the video talked about even though you don't know what it talked about, but you shouldn't be held accountable for bringing it up as a source that's asking great questions that the mainstream media doesn't, even though it's also sketchy and biased, but doesn't make up things, but does make up things - there were plenty of other comments you made outside of that first paragraph that were unfounded, and we cited those too. I don't know if you believe you're making valid points (good faith) or if you're just looking for attention (bad faith), so I'm going to remove myself from this specific conversation. While I think that is a smart choice and while I think BJ could at least have expected some of the fallout and he should've specified what he meant by 'makes you think', I think your first sentence shouldn't be correct, even accepting that it might be. By this I mean, if someone makes a post that clarifies their original point and it wasn't what people argued against, then imo people should just accept this clarification rather than insist that their initial interpretation was the right one. Maybe it was perfectly reasonable according to the information they had - but a clarification adds more information. This thread and forum are not supposed to constitute battles of who are right or not, but to share and discuss topics of relevance and interest. + Show Spoiler +
I'll say - I've been teaching how to deal with conspiracy theories to a high school sociology class lately, and as part of that, I wanted to subject them to some primary sources. They've been hard to come by - when I Google why arguments for a particular conspiracy theory, I end up with answers explaining why it isn't. I don't think that's entirely on topic for this thread, I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with that, and it might just reflect my search history, but it also has made me think. Definitely used to be easier to find stuff of that nature.
I didn't mean "retcon" as a sort of lighter, more generic "let me clarify something I said earlier by adding more context"; I meant it as a literal "I swear I never said X" claim, which someone could go back a page or two and actually verify, but I apologize if I didn't make that clear. (I was still thinking about the term "gaslighting", so maybe that's a better word for what I meant.) Either way, I'm moving on from this specific discussion 
|
On January 31 2023 23:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. + Show Spoiler +On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video That is not funny it is a concerning pattern. You clearly often just read the titles or very little of your sources then you come guns a blazing in here with how right you are over and over. This is not something to brag about. Please read, watch whatever your whole sources. Might stop the goalpost moving if you knew what youl were arguing for from the start.
why would he have to watch the video when the point he wants to make basically has nothing to do with the actual contents of the video, rather the reaction to the video by the media when the video has already been deemed (not by blackjack himself) as controversial?
seriously, after a whole bunch of posts just addressing what his first post is actually saying this is what you post? jesus christ.
|
On January 31 2023 22:59 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2023 22:55 BlackJack wrote:On January 31 2023 22:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 31 2023 22:24 BlackJack wrote:The funniest thing about this is I didn't even bother to watch the Project Veritas video. I saw maybe like 10% of it at most while skimming through it. On January 30 2023 06:32 BlackJack wrote:
Last night I came across a Project Veritas video where they purportedly interview someone working in Pfizer R&D that's talking about mutating the virus to work on vaccines or something like that, I was kind of skimming through the video. You know because "or something like that" is a phrase we all use when we really think there's a lot of substance there /sarcasm. So yes evilfatsh1t you are right that I haven't offered my own opinion on the credibility of the contents of the video because I haven't even watched the video. My thoughts are as I described in the OP: I don't think Project Veritas fabricated some Pfizer guy out of a thin air and used a crisis actor. I think whoever was in the video was or is employed by pfizer at some point. The statement that pfizer put out in response to the video didn't even deny that the guy in the video was an employee which you would think would be an obvious thing to do if it was some stooge. The point of the post is to ask why so few in the MSM want to touch this story with even a ten foot pole, despite the fact that it could drive hella clicks to their for-profit businesses. @DPB, I have no problem taking responsibility for this hot take. I don't have to take responsibility for whatever interpretation of my posts you want to invent, and it's not "playing victim" to object to doing so. On January 31 2023 21:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why the hell would you post the video and your comment if you thought that PV wasn't worth trusting? I never even posted the video Post *about* the video. I forgot a word; that's my mistake. Also: What the hell? When you said you came across a PV video and skimmed through it, and then tried to find other corroborating sources talking about what the PV video talked about, it's absolutely clear that you're telling us you watched the video. You used it as an excuse to peddle nonsense when you said that PV was making a point that no one else was making. I don't know if this admission of lying attempt at backtracking with semantics is better or worse for you. Your inability to understand that my initial post was about the media and what they decide to cover and not about the PV video and conspiracies they present is your fault, not mine. I’ve said entirely one thing about the contents of the video and I had to add the disclaimer “or something like that” because I didn’t even watch the video. I hope that your desperate attempt to keep the spotlight on Project Veritas is because you know they are an easy punching bag to score points on. If you really think I’m peddling PV talking points from a video I haven’t even seen then that’s really troublesome. Your point was "the media isn't covering this stuff i saw in a PV video". And that point is as much about "the media" as it is about PV. No, you don't take a position. You just JAQ off and then get offended when people assume that you are taking the position you are clearly taking with those "just asked" questions.
It’s funny because this is the same tactic used in the US politics thread when I brought up the social media suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop sometime ago
“Hey twitter censored the hunter biden laptop story”
“The laptop is a nothing burger. Why are u obsessed with it”
“I’m not obsessed with it. I care about social media censorship”
“But Rudy Giuliani had the laptop so why was nothing found?”
“I don’t care I’m talking about social media censorship”
“You are just trying to witch-hunt Hunter Biden”
“I don’t care about Hunter Biden, I care about social media censorship”
And around and around we go. Same story here
“Hey why won’t the MSM cover this PV video”
“Project Veritas has no credibility”
“Yeah but the MSM should at least fact check it”
“Project Veritas project Veritas!”
“I don’t care about PV I’m talking about the MSM and the stories they cover”
“PROJECT VERITAS PROJECT VERITAS PROJECT VERITAS!!”
fun times
Edit: oh and btw I don’t even know what was supposedly on the hunter Biden laptop either. I don’t even know the side story about Rudy Giuliani having it in his possession. Nor do I even care about any of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
