Comment by vel0city

6 days ago

Trump's Truth Social feed? The Vice President spreading racist lies about Hatians eating neighbor's pets on national television?

14 comments

vel0city

Reply
reliabilityguy  6 days ago

[flagged]

  • ben_w  6 days ago

    > And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence.

    Given he's the president, if Trump's own tweets don't count, what possibly could?

  • grayhatter  6 days ago

    > And no, saying things like “read his tweets/NYT/whatever yourself” is not evidence

    It actually is evidence. Just not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect you're not going to get the better responses that might actually convince you. 1) because you're clearly being argumentative (nothing wrong with that) but primarily 2) because the people smart enough to read through the bullshit and construct an argument with real evidence and citations, are already smart enough to know you're not actually interested in the reasonably convincing argument they might produce.

    You're demanding, repeatedly, for concrete evidence. You're not going to get whatever impossible standard you're asking for. Which does seem to be your intent. You don't appear to want to understand because you refuse to engage with anything other than perfect undeniable proof. That's actually an absurd way to behave.

    Imagine you're talking to your friend, they think their spouse is cheating on them. Their spouse used to joke about that kinda thing, they're constantly leaving for business trips that they seem to be searching for, they never used to lock their phone but now it's constantly locked, or hidden away when they walk into the room. Oh and you then find out that they've cheated on their previous spouse before their first divorce.

    Are they cheating again?

    Here I'm sure you'd demand video proof of them having sex with someone other than their spouse, ideally with a newspaper in the frame so you know it's not from before, right?

    That's not what a reasonable person would demand. You've right to demand a higher standard when you're going to convict someone in a legal proceeding. It's inane to place that standard on every single observation or conclusion. If one idea is a better predictor of future actions and outcomes. It's reasonable to use that until you get better evidence. Burying your head in the sand and pretending [thing you don't like] isn't true because no one has concrete evidence of them admitting guilt... is the dumbest thing I've read today. It's still early but I'm hoping you still win, because holy shit dude!

    • reliabilityguy  6 days ago

      You are saying that basically we do not have to hold anyone to any standard because (1) it’s hard, and (2) it’s enough to use prior behavior and common sense to deduce the conclusion.

      Great!

      If the US government explicitly stated their goal of promoting racist ideology, then it should not be hard to find a video clip of a video conference, a published policy memo, or anything of the sorts, that states this. Not an interpretation written by a journalist of something, but a raw source. But, there is nothing.

      All we have is articles written in media (which can be biased), which you parse with your own specific bias (so, it’s already bias(bias(rumor))), and you want me to accept it?

      I’m sorry, but it sounds like BS.

      5 replies →