Pudendum wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

And of course, you're 'interested' in the 'discussion' surrounding a film by a known conspiracy theorist fantasizing about an election fraud, but can't seem to muster a single fuck about the former President of the United States calling a secretary of state to try and scam the election on his behalf.

That is correct. No matter how much you wish it were otherwise.

I tricked you by stating my interest clearly in the initial post, and then seemingly triggered you by sharing what some on the right have said about it.

Regarding the film criticisms and my opinions on it, we are in complete agreement. Aside from the fact that you REALLY want to point out that I haven't seen it.

I would find that embarrassing, had I not stated that in my very first post.

Not interested in actual election fraud - absolutely cannot find a single word at all to express any opinion, any recognition, any notice of the actual conversation by Trump wherein he attempted to commit election fraud - but failed, as he did with all his loony authoritarian fantasizing - but instead we're to talk about 'the evidence' in a film, by a known conspiracy theorist, that you hadn't even watched yourself, and you're still pretending to be 'serious' about.

It's really not us. It's not. Sorry, but this is entirely you.

I recall an old phrase I never actually used in my entire posting history: chew toy.

That's what your posts are: chew toys.

You got kicked from Rationalia for a reason. Best learn from it rather than find another group of people to use in your internet drama.

One last word of advice - remember there's a bigger world out there than any binary will ever allow you to know.

Spearthrower wrote:I recall an old phrase I never actually used in my entire posting history: chew toy.

That's what your posts are: chew toys.

You got kicked from Rationalia for a reason. Best learn from it rather than find another group of people to use in your internet drama.

One last word of advice - remember there's a bigger world out there than any binary will ever allow you to know.

Forgive me if I won't take advice from you. You seem to have confused ideas about who I am, and what I've written. I don't want to base anything of import off that kind of misunderstanding.

Pudendum wrote:...
Well, they haven't disagreed with anything I've written, only with what they imagine that I think...

Facts matter. The opinions of those who declare their fantasy as my motive, not so much.

Who are these "they" of which you write? No one in this topic has taken you seriously and you have provided no reason why anyone should.

Look on the bright side and stay positive. Or don't.

Spearthrower and Coito

They sound like they disagree with what they think I meant. Not understanding each other very well, at any rate.

If you are hearing things in an internet chat box, it's probably time to seek help.

newolder wrote:If you are hearing things in an internet chat box, it's probably time to seek help.

Oh, I've got all the help I've asked for here!

Even a few unsolicited offerings. I usually treat them like prayers for my soul.

'Bye then.

newolder wrote:'Bye then.

Bye!

Bongino's daily show talked about this, in glowing, positive terms. He interviewed DeSouza, who addressed the cell phone data.

Later, I found on a different podcast, Shapiro posted an interview with Bill Barr. Barr also expressed opinions about the film, and to me, Barr sounds a lot more reasonable, of the two.

Barr basically said that it was irresponsible of DeSouza to over-blow what information he had, and he didn't think the data purchased by the group was as good as represented.

Bongino
DeSouza
Shapiro
Barr

Lol

There's some hard-hitting credible reportage.

My bingo card almost full. I haven't been paying much attention, have we had Stone and Lindell yet?

Fenrir wrote:Bongino
DeSouza
Shapiro
Barr

Lol

There's some hard-hitting credible reportage.

My bingo card almost full. I haven't been paying much attention, have we had Stone and Lindell yet?

On Rationalia:

cited:
Mike Cernovich (American fascist)
Jack Posobiec (American fascist)
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
Brett Weinstein (anti-vaxxer)
The Gateway Pundit (American fascist/conspiracist site)

defended:
Tommy Robinson (British neo-nazi)
Gavin McInnes (American fascist, founder of Proud Boys)
Proud Boys (Fascist Militia)
Trump


ETA:

He also doesn't acknowledge the existence of the alt-right.
He doesn't believe systemic racism exists in the US.

And perhaps most egregious of all, he calls himself a "lefty".

When someone uses a label like 'alt-right', I want to know who's label it is.

Then let that person define it.

Nice and simple, for anyone using the term honestly.

Pudendum wrote:When someone uses a label like 'alt-right', I want to know who's label it is.

Then let that person define it.

Nice and simple, for anyone using the term honestly.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it behooves a fascist in, say, a democratic nation with an entire generation of voters that grew up being taught the values of democracy, to be forthcoming with their beliefs?

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:When someone uses a label like 'alt-right', I want to know who's label it is.

Then let that person define it.

Nice and simple, for anyone using the term honestly.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it behooves a fascist in, say, a democratic nation with an entire generation of voters that grew up being taught the values of democracy, to be forthcoming with their beliefs?

It depends on the context.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often helpful to have their definition.

So if you call someone 'democratic', your definition matters, as you are using it as a label. If someone calls themselves 'democratic', then their definition is the more significant one (to the conversation)

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:When someone uses a label like 'alt-right', I want to know who's label it is.

Then let that person define it.

Nice and simple, for anyone using the term honestly.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it behooves a fascist in, say, a democratic nation with an entire generation of voters that grew up being taught the values of democracy, to be forthcoming with their beliefs?

It depends on the context.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often helpful to have their definition.

So if you call someone 'democratic', your definition matters, as you are using it as a label. If someone calls themselves 'democratic', then their definition is the more significant one (to the conversation)

Okay.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often unhelpful to have their definition.

This is because many people are incentivized to obfuscate their position.

Generally any shitty YT pundit would work as an example, tbh.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:When someone uses a label like 'alt-right', I want to know who's label it is.

Then let that person define it.

Nice and simple, for anyone using the term honestly.

Out of curiosity, do you think that it behooves a fascist in, say, a democratic nation with an entire generation of voters that grew up being taught the values of democracy, to be forthcoming with their beliefs?

It depends on the context.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often helpful to have their definition.

So if you call someone 'democratic', your definition matters, as you are using it as a label. If someone calls themselves 'democratic', then their definition is the more significant one (to the conversation)

Okay.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often unhelpful to have their definition.

This is because many people are incentivized to obfuscate their position.

Generally any shitty YT pundit would work as an example, tbh.

If someone labels someone a 'shitty YT pundit', but then won't define what they mean by 'shitty', I can just assume shitty is meant as an insult, and says more about the speaker than the subject.

There are likely YT pundits who describe themselves as 'shitty YT pundit', but then the shitty pundit's definition is the relevant one.

If understanding is the goal, I mean.

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Out of curiosity, do you think that it behooves a fascist in, say, a democratic nation with an entire generation of voters that grew up being taught the values of democracy, to be forthcoming with their beliefs?

It depends on the context.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often helpful to have their definition.

So if you call someone 'democratic', your definition matters, as you are using it as a label. If someone calls themselves 'democratic', then their definition is the more significant one (to the conversation)

Okay.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often unhelpful to have their definition.

This is because many people are incentivized to obfuscate their position.

Generally any shitty YT pundit would work as an example, tbh.

If someone labels someone a 'shitty YT pundit', but then won't define what they mean by 'shitty', I can just assume shitty is meant as an insult, and says more about the speaker than the subject.

There are likely YT pundits who describe themselves as 'shitty YT pundit', but then the shitty pundit's definition is the relevant one.

If understanding is the goal, I mean.

That's fair enough; my considering someone as shitty doesn't tell you much, aside from my personal opinion of them.

So what if I were to accuse Kent Hovind of lying about particulars of evolutionary theory? Surely Kent himself would tell you that this simply isn't true. He'd likely follow that by trying to defend his take on evolution by trotting out the same arguments he made against it roughly twenty years ago - arguments that he has been confronted about dozens, if not hundreds of times. At some point, given his refusal to engage with further conversation and his apparent desire to default to the same talking points he's been confronted on multiple times, I have to wonder if he genuinely believes his position or if he's actively lying to pursue some other goal.

Either way, he certainly won't tell you that he's lying. He'll argue quite passionately that he's the only one telling the truth. Doesn't really change that he's lying, though.

A liar isn't incentivized to tell you that they're a liar. They're incentivized to tell you that they're the only one telling the truth. Taking them at their word will only make it harder for you to discern their true nature.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

Pudendum wrote:
It depends on the context.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often helpful to have their definition.

So if you call someone 'democratic', your definition matters, as you are using it as a label. If someone calls themselves 'democratic', then their definition is the more significant one (to the conversation)

Okay.

What I was getting at, is that to know what a person means, it is often unhelpful to have their definition.

This is because many people are incentivized to obfuscate their position.

Generally any shitty YT pundit would work as an example, tbh.

If someone labels someone a 'shitty YT pundit', but then won't define what they mean by 'shitty', I can just assume shitty is meant as an insult, and says more about the speaker than the subject.

There are likely YT pundits who describe themselves as 'shitty YT pundit', but then the shitty pundit's definition is the relevant one.

If understanding is the goal, I mean.

That's fair enough; my considering someone as shitty doesn't tell you much, aside from my personal opinion of them.

So what if I were to accuse Kent Hovind of lying about particulars of evolutionary theory? Surely Kent himself would tell you that this simply isn't true. He'd likely follow that by trying to defend his take on evolution by trotting out the same arguments he made against it roughly twenty years ago - arguments that he has been confronted about dozens, if not hundreds of times. At some point, given his refusal to engage with further conversation and his apparent desire to default to the same talking points he's been confronted on multiple times, I have to wonder if he genuinely believes his position or if he's actively lying to pursue some other goal.

Either way, he certainly won't tell you that he's lying. He'll argue quite passionately that he's the only one telling the truth. Doesn't really change that he's lying, though.

A liar isn't incentivized to tell you that they're a liar. They're incentivized to tell you that they're the only one telling the truth. Taking them at their word will only make it harder for you to discern their true nature.

Of course, but if you called Hovind something, YOUR definition of that word would be relevant.

If you had called him a liar, I could ask what you mean by liar. If you said 'a man who has been confronted...etc.', I would understand your definition.

Because HIS definition wouldn't matter in that case. Yours is the only one that would.

That's too simple an example, maybe, but you didn't label him, so I worked with what you presented.

[moved]