You can prove otherwise? Why would I doubt they have 2,000 people that fit the criteria they themselves chose? My contention is it isn’t sufficient to just make the accusations and a movie, hand over the data and let’s see what’s what.
The baseline position is not to automatically believe claims until they are proven false.
That’s what you say now.
But your other posts - even the first sentence of this one - belie that by placing responsibility on others to disprove the claims.
1 Like
If it’s false I want it officially debunked. Why? Because distrust in elections is very dangerous.
It is difficult to reconcile your statement that “distrust in elections is very dangerous,” with your posts legitimizing the claims of people actively seeking to sow distrust in our elections.
2 Likes
If by legitimizing you mean saying they should turn over any evidence they claim to have so it can be examined, you got me.
Yes, that’s exactly what I mean. You are doing exactly what they want you to do, towards their goal of sowing distrust.
If they actually had anything, they would have turned it over in the first place.
1 Like
Probable and the longer they go without doing so the less credible their claims are. I would just prefer they hand over the evidence or shut up but apparently that makes me a huge supporter.
How long are you willing to wait?
It seems like you’re very invested in holding out hope.
Not holding out hope of anything, you think I am dumb enough to think we get a do over on 2020?
How long are you willing to wait for “evidence” that you’ll never get, before you admit that they’re lying?
Like I said, their credibility fades with every day they don’t produce actual evidence. And I never believed them to begin with, they haven’t proved anything.
2 Likes
A homeless man told me that Donald Trump is a shapeshifting lizard-alien sent here to conquer the world. This clearly would be very dangerous if it were true, so I’m going to loudly demand that it must be disproven, and Trump must give a DNA sample to prove he’s human.
4 Likes
Yes, you clearly did - and do.
Thanks. I have a similar opinion of TTV’s claims.
Would love for someone else to buy the same location data and make it available.
I also notice you didn’t answer my question.
Which means I doubt you’ll ever admit that they’re lying.
2 Likes
He gave a fair assessment of the claims here.
Plus D’Sousa does an OK job of “not technically lying” by strongly insinuating connections between data and narrative but not quite saying that they are fully connected.
The more egregious lies come into play downstream in articles and forum posts when people state the insinuations as proven fact, adding terms like “irrefutable”. This is how the propaganda is laundered.
2 Likes
I don’t agree.
I don’t think that pretending D’Souza et al. are arguing in good faith - even a little bit - can be considered a “fair assessment.”
I don’t accept that the film deserves any benefit of the doubt.
I’m well aware - which speaks entirely to my point.
Approaching this with any assumption of good faith by arguing a position that even considers that the claims are true is itself actively sowing distrust in our elections.
Which I’ve been told is “very dangerous.”
2 Likes
When he’s in human mimcry form the change is so complete his DNA still passes.
Some are say’n, can’t say who, but some…
You have to catch him in lizard form.
WW
2 Likes
I approach all of the claims with thimble of objectivity. I do not think I am sowing distrust in the elections.
TTV has actually uncovered isolated incidents of voter fraud which makes it harder to say outright that everything they say is a lie.
I do think they are mainly an activist organization generating propaganda to realize their agenda.
I approach this topic the way the police approach mentally ill persons reporting an outrageous crime, or the way a doctor handles a hypochondriac patient.
“Objectivity” does not require that bad faith propositions be taken at face value.
I do not think you are sowing distrust in our elections. I think by taking the claims seriously and in good faith, you are legitimizing that distrust.
That’s quite a problematic statement (speaking as someone who has loved ones who are severly mentally ill, and who has witnessed interactions between them and the police).
But I understand what you’re saying.
What I am saying is good faith debate is not a counter to misinformation - it’s an assist.
2 Likes
