ADVERTISEMENT

Is it FOX? Or is it people "hear what they want to hear?"

Yes. I got it wrong. The quote is still inappropriate.

Because the "good people" on the Nazi side should have gone home when they saw the Nazis.

And, the Nazis, themselves, have even asserted that quote signaled "support" for them.
So you and the Nazis got it wrong.
That puts you on the side of the Nazis.
You know what that means...
 
I posted those to your point that liberal media or mainstream media doesn't give a platform to wackos and conspiracy theorists on the other side.

That's clearly not true. Rebekah Jones has been amplified everywhere on mainstream/liberal media. Ditto a discredited grifter/liars/crooks like Michael Avenatti. Virtually every conspiracy theory about Trump was given significant air time, and now the same for Desantis.

As for me addressing the rest of your post...I am not and never have been a defender of Newsmax, MAGA, capitol invaders, Tucker Carlson or any of that. You'll have to look elsewhere for a conservative that defends that wing.

What I do disagree with is this idea that conservatives are somehow mentally more open to conspiratorial thinking or confirmation bias than progressives. It's a human condition, its called confirmation bias.

On that thread I started, more liberals give credence to Rebecca Jones than conservative give credit to the election being stolen. Confirmation bias is a human thing, and you can't overcome it without actively trying to.

I DO however believe that currently Republicans have a bigger problem with conspiratorial thinking than progressives, because agents on the GOP side are purposely and aggressively operating to encourage and harness it among the percentage of wack jobs on their side. It's repulsive. And it's not even in the service of electoral victories, its in the service of one guy and his close cadre. And also grifting. Of course there's always grifting behind it.

There isn't a commensurate effort on the left right now...yet. But if you bounce back a couple years, when progressives believed anything and everything anyone came up with on Trump/Russia, and still believe despite the Mueller report...I would have said it was pretty damn even.

I just think the "we believe in facts, they believe in conspiracies" line being taken now is utter bullshit, and has been proven again and again that liberals and conservatives have confirmation bias.

Why do liberals think COVID is way, way worse than it is? Studies have shown that liberals overestimate the seriousness of COVID by more than conservative underestimate it? Why is that, with the facts so readily available?

I just want people to call bullshit on bullshit, whether its on their their side or not. It would go a hell of a long way toward reducing the current dysfunction. This idea that "progressives don't bullshit, and when they do progressives don't believe them" is just not true, nor productive.

My point was that liberal/left/dem/whatever have less issues with conspiracies than conservatives/right/Rep/whatever. I proposed that this was because libs haven't yet had leaders like Trump/MAGAs, they haven't been conditioned to label MSM reporting fake and left to crackpot websites that can write/say whatever they want with no reputation to defend.

I wasn't intending to convey that liberals are genetically superior to not fall for conspiracies or that they are immune to confirmation bias or that the MSM never gets something wrong or they aren't biased or that they are perfect.

I don't agree with your characterization of that thread you started, but whatever.

It turns out you do agree that Republicans have a bigger problem, that they have leaders operating in such a manner and that it isn't such of a phenomenon on the other side. That was my original point, and I offered some ideas for why that was the case.

Both sides are susceptible to confirmation bias, and tribal thinking. One side is just put into the position to defend a lot more really stupid, absurd, conspiratorial shit right now, because that side produces a lot more of it at the higher/leadership level.
 
My point was that liberal/left/dem/whatever have less issues with conspiracies than conservatives/right/Rep/whatever. I proposed that this was because libs haven't yet had leaders like Trump/MAGAs, they haven't been conditioned to label MSM reporting fake and left to crackpot websites that can write/say whatever they want with no reputation to defend.

I wasn't intending to convey that liberals are genetically superior to not fall for conspiracies or that they are immune to confirmation bias or that the MSM never gets something wrong or they aren't biased or that they are perfect.

I don't agree with your characterization of that thread you started, but whatever.

It turns out you do agree that Republicans have a bigger problem, that they have leaders operating in such a manner and that it isn't such of a phenomenon on the other side. That was my original point, and I offered some ideas for why that was the case.

Both sides are susceptible to confirmation bias, and tribal thinking. One side is just put into the position to defend a lot more really stupid, absurd, conspiratorial shit right now, because that side produces a lot more of it at the higher/leadership level.

Yes, I agree that the Republicans have a big problem, and a bigger problem with it right now, because it's being specifically cultivated and weaponized by Trump and Trump-adjacent grifters.
 
DeSantis is a horrible, slimy excuse for a human being.

Who cares if some particular accusation is off base - assuming it even was off base. That's like excusing a murderer because he was innocent of 1 out of 20 killings.
And you’re a useful fool for the left. Wait until he runs for office again, watch him speak and debate and then try to defend the opinion you’re spouting. If your handlers allow you to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDHN2013
No. It does not.

And, one more try: Can you or Scott Adams explicitly quote where Trump denounced Nazis and white supremacists? In clear, unequivocal, language.

Because the Nazis have rallied around his statements as though he supports them. And Scott Adams doesn't seem to want to touch that fact with a 100-ft pole.
I already did, in this very thread.
Look at the second red box:


AAA-Charlottesville-fine-people-hoax.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammer93
This is correct. It was well known ahead of time that this white nationalist rally was going to take place. In fact, the UVA President sent out an email to all staff and students a week ahead of the rally advising them to steer clear for their safety. Hard to believe there were many "good" or "fine" people showing up to support a statue.
Last week I chatted at length with one of the Charlottesville protest attendees. He hates racism, loves free speech, and wasn’t “marching with” anyone. He reports that there was chaos from the start, with lots of people all over the venue doing lots of different things. And there was no way to know what all of the people in normal street clothes were thinking by attending. He was there because he figured it would be a diverse group, from Antifa to neo-Nazis, with plenty of normal non-racists in between. Bolstering his argument is his Jewish heritage. He didn’t think he was attending a neo-Nazi event. He learned that from the press.

How dumb is that guy, you might reasonably ask?

I asked him to explain how he could look at the flyer for the event and NOT know it was organized by racists. I pointed to the little Nazi-looking winged image on the flyer to make my point. He said it looked like an American eagle to him. And when I started to push back on that point, he sent me other images of American eagles that are evil and warlike. At that point, I remembered a central truth about the human experience: If a hundred people look at exactly the same thing at the same time, they will arrive at wildly different opinions of what they are seeing. If you show that racist flyer to a hundred Americans, most would not recognize the names of the speakers, and many would not realize the graphic design was suggestive of a racist association. The fact that you and I would definitely recognize it for what it was does not suggest others would do the same. As evidence that people interpret the same information differently, consider every political disagreement ever. Most of it involves people looking at the same information and drawing mind-bogglingly different conclusions about what it all means. I wrote about that phenomenon in my book Win Bigly.

I remind you again that it doesn’t matter whether or not President Trump was accurate in his assumption that some non-racists attended. He stated his assumption and then spoke to the assumption. Worst case, the New York Times got the “fine people” story wrong, and Trump also got a detail wrong about the composition of the crowd. There was no reporting on the exact composition of the crowd, then or later. No one did a survey of opinions. We only know of the groups that had the highest profiles.

In America, if there is a large political protest of any kind, the most reasonable assumption one could make is that it will attract a diverse crowd including nearly every kind of opinion on just about everything. If the President is wrong about the existence at that event of some non-racists who were pro-statue, this would be one of the few times in history that there were only two opinions at an event attended by hundreds.

My point is that Trump could have been right or wrong about who attended, but it doesn’t change the fact that his words clearly and unambiguously condemned the marching racists while excluding them from his “fine people” category.

But there is something far more interesting going on here than just a story of fake news and quotes taken out of context. This topic is like a laboratory for testing cognitive dissonance. Rarely do you see a strongly held belief, such as the “fine people” hoax, which can be so easily and unambiguously debunked. You only need to show the transcript and/or the video of Trump’s comments in their entirety. The case is made. Easy, right?

After a few years of trying to deprogram people from this hoax, I have discovered a fascinating similarity in how people’s brains respond to having their worldview annihilated in real time. I call it the “fine people” hoax funnel. When you present the debunking context to a believer in the hoax, they will NEVER say this: “Gee, I hadn’t seen the full quote. Now that I see it in its complete form, it is obvious to me that my long-held belief is 100% wrong and the media has been duping me.”

That doesn’t happen.

Instead, people usually react by falling down what I call the Hoax Funnel. I use the funnel imagery because the big hoax (that the President called neo-Nazis fine people) is instantly replaced with a lesser hoax, and so on, until the final claim is laughably vaporous, consisting of a question without a claim.



It's an interesting read in it's entirety.
 
I already did, in this very thread.
Look at the second red box:


AAA-Charlottesville-fine-people-hoax.png
"They should be condemned"

NOTHING about "I absolutely condemn Naziism and White Nationalism"
Get it? It's a passive take; NOT a definitive declaration.

"They should be condemned" VS "I condemn them and their positions"

And it's mishmashed in with a whole lotta other bullshit, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
"They should be condemned"

NOTHING about "I absolutely condemn Naziism and White Nationalism"
Get it? It's a passive take; NOT a definitive declaration.

"They should be condemned" VS "I condemn them and their positions"

And it's mishmashed in with a whole lotta other bullshit, too.

How deep does the funnel go?

Biden’s comment that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy” is not accurate.
...
Two days later, on Aug. 14, 2017, Trump issued a statement from the White House, and referred to “KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”


Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.

This was the day before the statement you mis-remembered and insist on continuing to misconstrue.
 
How deep does the funnel go?

Biden’s comment that Trump has “yet once to condemn white supremacy” is not accurate.
...
Two days later, on Aug. 14, 2017, Trump issued a statement from the White House, and referred to “KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”




This was the day before the statement you mis-remembered and insist on continuing to misconstrue.

the trouble is, trumps statements were always so vague and meandering that you can pull any conclusion you want. Not to mention his utter incapability to stay on message. He would say one thing one day, and something completely contradictory the next. That’s why this debate has continued for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
97, maybe you should find a brick wall and argue with it instead. At least the wall isn't obligated by handlers or bot masters to refuse truth and logic and you won't be upset because you already know it lacks the capability to do so.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
the trouble is, trumps statements were always so vague and meandering that you can pull any conclusion you want. Not to mention his utter incapability to stay on message. He would say one thing one day, and something completely contradictory the next. That’s why this debate has continued for years.
A kernel of truth there, and yes, the left uses their own conclusion, because it helps their cause.
 
Do other developed countries have a large multilevel marketing industry? Hearing what you want is almost a national pastime I think.

A guy from work is from England and his parents are still there. Apparently they had no idea how ridiculous Trump was until he went home and told stories. They didn’t like how he treated allies and felt he was a buffoon, but without the tweets and 24/7 opinion coverage (the news is pretty restricted over there comparably) he was just another US President.

I have no idea how much that story was fabricated, but it was really interesting
 
A guy from work is from England and his parents are still there. Apparently they had no idea how ridiculous Trump was until he went home and told stories. They didn’t like how he treated allies and felt he was a buffoon, but without the tweets and 24/7 opinion coverage (the news is pretty restricted over there comparably) he was just another US President.

I have no idea how much that story was fabricated, but it was really interesting
I totally believe that, there are a lot of Americans in that same boat more or less because they're busy with whatever and mostly tuned out of politics in their own country. His parents probably don't tweet much so they just get a few headlines from BBC or Sky here and there.
 
97, maybe you should find a brick wall and argue with it instead. At least the wall isn't obligated by handlers or bot masters to refuse truth and logic and you won't be upset because you already know it lacks the capability to do so.
Are you kidding? I found the perfect foil to demonstrate to Art it isn’t just ‘Foxnews’ at work when people see and hear what they want.

If this wasn’t entertaining to me on some level I wouldn’t spend the time with it.
 
This was the day before the statement you mis-remembered and insist on continuing to misconstrue.

"Issued a statement from the WH"

That is not a Trump quote. Quit pretending it is.

WHEN did he come out and outright state it, himself?
Saying it "should" happen isn't HIM voicing it explicitly.

His quote needs to include the word "I".
 
the trouble is, trumps statements were always so vague and meandering that you can pull any conclusion you want.
Perhaps, but I've asked for an explicit Trump statement that says "I condemn this"


Not, "someone should". Or "it should be" condemned. That is absolutely handing the task off to "someone else". It is the passive voice, and it is not a declarative statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
Exhibit A

Question:

If you were invited to a rally that was entitled to "Preserve America For Our Progeny", and you showed up and it turned out to be an entire group of pedophiles, with NAMBLA flags and promoting sex with children:

Would you decide "Well, I really do wanna Preserve America, so I'm gonna march with these guys, anyway!"...?​

Do you immediately "switch gears" and decide that marching with pedophiles is probably "wrong"?

Or do you "stick to your guns" and "Preserve America" for pedophiles who want to have sex with children?

Simple Yes/No of whether you'd still march or go home. What Would Scott Adams Do?
 
"Issued a statement from the WH"

That is not a Trump quote. Quit pretending it is.

WHEN did he come out and outright state it, himself?
Saying it "should" happen isn't HIM voicing it explicitly.

His quote needs to include the word "I".
I guess you can click this link and watch him say it.
Then admit you were wrong. Again.

I can find it on BBC but not CNN.
Go figure.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40929627

P.S. The things you keep making up ('it's a statement, he didn't say it') are the hoax funnel. You're struggling so hard to come to grips with being wrong you keep trying to come up with some way to be right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
I guess you can click this link and watch him say it.
Then admit you were wrong. Again.

I can find it on BBC but not CNN.
Go figure.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40929627

P.S. The things you keep making up ('it's a statement, he didn't say it') are the hoax funnel. You're struggling so hard to come to grips with being wrong you keep trying to come up with some way to be right.

And he NEVER uses the word "I" in the video, does he?

Nope.
 
And he NEVER uses the word "I" in the video, does he?

Nope.
Do you admit you were incorrect and that he in fact made the statement himself?

He uses the word "I" twice in the statement.
He uses the word "we" eleven times in the statement.

When you use the word "we" do you thereby exclude or include yourself?

You hear what you want to hear.
You've done yeoman's work in this thread. Bravo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
He never used "I", which is what I've told you from the get-go.

It's "other people" who should condemn Nazis. Not Trump, himself.
Weird. You didn't respond to the part you quoted (being incorrect in asserting Trump didn't say the statement).

Doubly weird you insist he didn't use a word he uses twice in the statement you presumably saw and heard with your own eyes and ears after reading the text of the statement.

You see and hear what you want.

What does "we" mean to you Joes Place?
When you say "we" does it include you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIXERS24
Do you live alone?
I was wondering the same thing.

Wife: I said yesterday the trash should be taken out.
JP: Yes.
Wife: You said "Okay." What happened?
JP: You didn't say I should take out the trash, just that it needs to be. My agreement was passive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIXERS24
I have called bullshit on "stop the steal" a million times, at every opportunity.

Are you willing to do the same on your side?

Oh, wait, I know your answer..."My side doesn't bullshit. We're about facts."

So carry on.

So you agree that Liz Cheney should not have been removed because she believes in the truth?

My ‘side’ lies all the time. Always has. What your ‘side’ is doing right now is insane including your boy Andrew Clyde.

So you can carry on as well.
 
I was walking down the sidewalk yesterday and crossed paths with a widow from a couple houses down the street. I know she is rightwing, so I tread cautiously when politics of any kind come up. We only chatted for about sixty seconds, but at one point she said "And now Fauci wants to make everyone keep wearing masks for two more years!" I'm usually pretty deft at deflecting this kind of thing (in person I'm much more diplomatic than on HROT) and I agreed that I was tired of masks then said, "Fortunately, that was more a case of MSM twisting words than anything else. He actually said he thought some people might voluntarily decide to wear masks during flu season, not actually mandate them." Typically this kind of wording works pretty well -- agree with her, complain about MSM, then gently explain the truth -- but she stopped me cold, gave an angry look, and said "I heard him say it myself!"

Now, if you look at what he said, my paraphrasing was accurate, and hers is completely wrong. See his quote below. And this kind of thing happens all the time with my rightwing acquaintances. So is it just that they don't listen carefully? Or is FOX slicing-and dicing the quotes to fool them?

“We’ve had practically a non-existent flu season this year merely because people were doing the kinds of public health things that were directed predominately against COVID-19,” he said. “So it is conceivable that as we go on a year or two or more from now that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory borne diseases.”

I was walking down the sidewalk yesterday and crossed paths with a widow from a couple houses down the street. I know she is rightwing, so I tread cautiously when politics of any kind come up. We only chatted for about sixty seconds, but at one point she said "And now Fauci wants to make everyone keep wearing masks for two more years!" I'm usually pretty deft at deflecting this kind of thing (in person I'm much more diplomatic than on HROT) and I agreed that I was tired of masks then said, "Fortunately, that was more a case of MSM twisting words than anything else. He actually said he thought some people might voluntarily decide to wear masks during flu season, not actually mandate them." Typically this kind of wording works pretty well -- agree with her, complain about MSM, then gently explain the truth -- but she stopped me cold, gave an angry look, and said "I heard him say it myself!"

Now, if you look at what he said, my paraphrasing was accurate, and hers is completely wrong. See his quote below. And this kind of thing happens all the time with my rightwing acquaintances. So is it just that they don't listen carefully? Or is FOX slicing-and dicing the quotes to fool them?

“We’ve had practically a non-existent flu season this year merely because people were doing the kinds of public health things that were directed predominately against COVID-19,” he said. “So it is conceivable that as we go on a year or two or more from now that during certain seasonal periods when you have respiratory borne viruses like the flu, people might actually elect to wear masks to diminish the likelihood that you’ll spread these respiratory borne diseases.”
Boomers want to be pissed off and believe conspiracy shit about things being taken away from them
 
It is weird.

He cannot say it.

Notable you wouldn't answer the simple question of what "we" means, and if it includes the speaker, since it blows away the last thin reed you're trying to hold onto.

He did say it, but you can't hear or see it.
Provided in text you made up bullshit assertions that he didn't say it.
Provided video you then assert he doesn't say the words he actually says.

The word for that is delusional:
adjective
  1. characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
Do you tell your spouse "I will take the trash out" or "The trash should be taken out"?

Which one is a direct affirmative case, indicating YOU are going to take responsibility?
You didn’t answer my question. What a shock.
 
Notable you cannot identify any statement where he used the declarative "I".

I have. Multiple times.
You see what you want.
You hear what you want.

"We" is inclusive of "I". Are you too deluded to recognize that simple fact of the English language?

Can you count the 'I's and 'we's in his statement?

As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.
Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.
We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.
 
Is “we” inclusive of “I”?
Considering the word salad that was the usual Trump rhetoric I’m just laughing at this debate still going on, especially compared to the hostage videos whenever he gave a set speech.

To me, his actions before, during, and since make it clear what he meant. Trying to decipher the precise meaning of a single speech he made is impossible. I lost track of the number of times he seemingly took three different positions on the same topic inside one sentence.
 
ADVERTISEMENT