M
member 1013
Guest
Yes
That's what I was thinking. Why sit on it if it's so big? Just doesn't make sense.
Tree fiddy?
It's looking that way.
Maybe.
M
member 1013
Guest
One of the hardest things a human can do is admit they are wrong.
Good luck mate.
I hope you will get there.
Thank you.
I have found it entertaining to split my time between MSNBC/Fox and OAN. It's hard to know exactly where the truth is.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
That's all I'm saying here. In normal times if there are a whole lot of different people making accusations I totally understand this idea of saying hey there's probably something going on. Right? I mean where there's smoke there's fire.
But that's long ago and not true right now. The same people continue to make claims. So it's not just random unbiased people.
These are people that have goals to manipulate information and they are the same ones saying unproven things over and over and over. It's not a new group of people.
And like I'm saying, I'm with you up front. Normally a whole bunch of people claim they saw something or heard something and I'd be suspicious too. The aggregate of people makes it more likely than one eye witness.
But after a while the burden of proof has to switch.
M
member 1013
Guest
Well put.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
See, I don't even see this as
@Mr Smokalotapotamus being wrong or right. It's that we are currently working in a disinformation overload. The way that any of us keep track of something being probably true or probably false is pattern recognition. We have certain known concrete things that continue to be true over and over and over and when something deviates from that it stands out. In this case you have a significant changing of information sources compared to a very short time ago. As above normally lots of people all stating the same thing over and over sounds like it's probably true. Historically with gatekeepers of information it was much more likely that things were vetted before you heard them. Yes there's the concern of biases being added or not all information and making it to the top, but in general things were factually true. It was very rare that something that didn't exist would be promoted as existing. Being 100% opposite reality is not a common thing for many information sources to agree on all at once. But in the world of social media and blogs and whatnot, one influencer could come across sounding like thousands of different sources due to the echo chamber.
I don't think people are being wrong here as much as they are operating with old data validation techniques in a different universe.
And then, when you couple this with begging for money.....
To make it be proved right...but the small print says that 60% of the money raised goes towards plugging a 1.6bn hole in election debts and the other 40% split between lawyers fees for finding a discrepancy that isn’t there and the rest towards funds for the next election......
I mean....mericans are famous the world over for being fleeced by snake oil salesmen. We’ve all seen the movie where eventually the guy gets run out of town and the townsfolk ruminate and learn their lesson and the credits roll....
but this time he has 70 million rubes. Probably 35 million still believe Rudi, Trump, the snake oil salesmen but out of those 35 million 17 million REALLY believe they are not mushrooms kept in the dark fed shit and they have guns. Lots of guns.
They think the reds are com8ng to take their freedom.
its not a long shot to see serious shit going down.
Admittedly out of those 17 million. 16.9 million are scared, uneducated people that would never go against authority.
but you still have an army the size of ISIS inside your country ready to wreak havoc at their orange gods request.
it’s very dangerous as I’ve put above.See, I don't even see this as
In this case you have a significant changing of information sources compared to a very short time ago. As above normally lots of people all stating the same thing over and over sounds like it's probably true. Historically with gatekeepers of information it was much more likely that things were vetted before you heard them. Yes there's the concern of biases being added or not all information and making it to the top, but in general things were factually true. It was very rare that something that didn't exist would be promoted as existing. Being 100% opposite reality is not a common thing for many information sources to agree on all at once. But in the world of social media and blogs and whatnot, one influencer could come across sounding like thousands of different sources due to the echo chamber.
I don't think people are being wrong here as much as they are operating with old data validation techniques in a different universe.
D
Deleted member 1
Guest
It's incredibly dangerous
At some point right/facts need to be upheld.
Its only been a matter of moments since comeinto the light Kellyanne said alternative facts was true.
its a nonsense.
i find it staggering that the media has been so downtrodden and played they are now used as a punchbag when all they are doing is rep the lies.
its madness.
Biden's Pennsylvania lead is now big enough to avoid an automatic recount
The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
theweek.com
Biden's Pennsylvania lead is now big enough to avoid an automatic recount
The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
this is why the billionaire needs the rubes/mushrooms money.
it will cost real money to do a recount.
