America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[AProudLefty]

I took a look at Wikipedia's definition of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it seems to be something very different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect

No it is not different.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias (cited in that article you linked to) whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.[/I]

In the article you linked to the first time about the "ideological opponents", the arguer assumes that the other person have no clue or is being ignorant and the arguer knows better and thinks he knows something they don't or understand.

Again, the "Ideological opponent" phenomenon is just a fancy words for DKE. It's pretty similar, if not the same.

[Hawkeye10]

Decided to do a bit of research of this. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term certainly sounds good:

**
aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

That certainly -sounds- good.

BullShit.

[Hawkeye10]

"WOKE appears to me to be revenge against God for the crime of being, it is the classic Cain and Abel story"
Jordan Peterson.

It is also a yearning for UTOPIA, which is driven by a combination of ignorance and mental illness.

[Flash]

I'd agree that there is no -hard- evidence that it could have affected the election, but as I just told PRS (Poor Richard Saunders), it doesn't take much of a leap to consider that had the mainstream media been so quick to label it disinformation and instead put more energy into investigating its veracity, it may well have.

I doubt serious any loyal Democrats or Trump haters are going to change their vote because of something Hunter Biden did. At the time that laptop information was released there was no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong--only speculation--and that is still true.

In the 2016 election many negative stories appeared about Trump's personal life and it did not stop loyal Republicans or Trump supporters from voting for him.

[T. A. Gardner]

I doubt serious any loyal Democrats or Trump haters are going to change their vote because of something Hunter Biden did. At the time that laptop information was released there was no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong--only speculation--and that is still true.

In the 2016 election many negative stories appeared about Trump's personal life and it did not stop loyal Republicans or Trump supporters from voting for him.

Given that Joke has repeatedly and forcefully stated he had nothing to do with his son's business dealings but has been seen in photos with his son and his son's business associates, and that Bagman's business partners say Joke was involved intimately with his son's business deals, it's likely that it won't take much digging to turn up some very inconvenient truths that will damage Joke severely.

[Flash]

Given that Joke has repeatedly and forcefully stated he had nothing to do with his son's business dealings but has been seen in photos with his son and his son's business associates, and that Bagman's business partners say Joke was involved intimately with his son's business deals, it's likely that it won't take much digging to turn up some very inconvenient truths that will damage Joke severely.

Public figures take pictures with people all the time. To claim that shows they were involved in their business affairs is a big stretch. What people say with no evidence means nothing--show us something illegal or questionable they did.

A former president and millions of his supporters "say" the 2020 election was stolen. But all the evidence show all those claims are lies or they fail to understand how elections work. I am still waiting for a JPP poster to name one county where there were more votes than registered voters.

[T. A. Gardner]

Public figures take pictures with people all the time. To claim that shows they were involved in their business affairs is a big stretch. What people say with no evidence means nothing--show us something illegal or questionable they did.

A former president and millions of his supporters "say" the 2020 election was stolen. But all the evidence show all those claims are lies or they fail to understand how elections work. I am still waiting for a JPP poster to name one county where there were more votes than registered voters.

It's one piece of many pieces of evidence that shows Joke was in a lot deeper with his son's business dealings than he admits. Joke has claimed repeatedly that he never met with any of his son's business associates.



Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden with oligarch Kenes Rakishev of Kazakhstan, one of Bagman's business dealings. Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to your son and his business partner in a photo isn't it?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's one piece of many pieces of evidence that shows Joke was in a lot deeper with his son's business dealings than he admits. Joke has claimed repeatedly that he never met with any of his son's business associates.



Vice President Biden and Hunter Biden with oligarch Kenes Rakishev of Kazakhstan, one of Bagman's business dealings. Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to your son and his business partner in a photo isn't it?

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

[Flash]

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

That is just one piece of evidence showing Trump was intimately involved in Epstein's child sex ring.

[T. A. Gardner]

Would you say that this picture is proof that Trump knew that Epstein was providing underage girls for sex?

Kind of hard to say you knew nothing when you are standing next to him in a photo, isn't it?

I'm sure you still don't see how ridiculous your attempt at logic is.

There's a distinct difference. Joke said He never met with his son's business partners or talked to them or his son about their business. The equivalent would be for Trump to say he didn't know who Epstein was.

Joke is clearly lying about his having never met his son's business partners. Whatever they did or didn't discuss is a separate issue.

[Phoenyx]

Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.

As I just told A Proud Lefty, what you're doing right now is what I call 'asking your ideological opponent to make your case for you'. You are the one making the claim that the RT piece is propaganda. As such, the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. This is an online forum, you can ofcourse refuse to provide any evidence. But that would affect your credibility, not mine.

I already did provide evidence when I refuted with specific points.

Link to where you did this then.

Try my post #49.

I already responded to that post in post #95. You responded to that in turn in post #115, I responded to that one in post #141, you responded back in post #148, I responded back in post #174 and your final response so far is in post #176. I'm currently on this post of yours (Post #167), should get to to 176 soon enough.

Then why did you ask for my evidence since you already had it?

I did a bit more research and have realized that you're getting things mixed up. In post #49, you made a bunch of points that I then responded to in post #95. None of your points in that post substantiated the assertion you made in post #114. Here's the specific assertion you made back then:
**
Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.
**

If you look back at the nested quote tree in this post, you'll see that -that- is the assertion that I wanted you to provide evidence for in this sub thread.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

There's a distinct difference. Joke said He never met with his son's business partners or talked to them or his son about their business. The equivalent would be for Trump to say he didn't know who Epstein was.

Joke is clearly lying about his having never met his son's business partners. Whatever they did or didn't discuss is a separate issue.

You seem to have left off a rather large part of what would make this equivalent. Trump has claimed to not have met a lot of people where there are photos of him with the person. Lev Parnas comes to mind.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ionship-100058

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I did a bit more research and have realized that you're getting things mixed up. In post #49, you made a bunch of points that I then responded to in post #95. None of your points in that post substantiated the assertion you made in post #114. Here's the specific assertion you made back then:
**
Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.
**

If you look back at the nested quote tree in this post, you'll see that -that- is the assertion that I wanted you to provide evidence for in this sub thread.

This is simple shit and we have actually discussed it already.
RT only mentions leaked documents. Intercept mentions 3 ways documents were received, FOIA, lawsuit and leaked. The majority of the documents the Intercept article refers to actually came from the lawsuit.
Do you agree or disagree that RT omitted the other ways the reporters got documents?

Let me know when you grow up enough to think for yourself and become informed.

[T. A. Gardner]

You seem to have left off a rather large part of what would make this equivalent. Trump has claimed to not have met a lot of people where there are photos of him with the person. Lev Parnas comes to mind.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ionship-100058

False equivalence in the form of another red herring. When you can demonstrate that Trump denied ever meeting someone for business or other reasons where he actually did meet that person under the conditions he denied, then you have something.

Joke REPEATEDLY has denied that he ever met with or discussed anything with anyone his son was involved with in business. It is clear from photographic evidence alone this is a lie and false. Joke did meet with persons that his son was involved in business dealings with. Whether he discussed anything to do with that business or not is another issue entirely. Clearly Joke has lied, and done so repeatedly, on never meeting any of his son's business associates or clients.

Since that is provable, the question becomes What else has Joke lied about in regards to his son's business dealings?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

False equivalence in the form of another red herring. When you can demonstrate that Trump denied ever meeting someone for business or other reasons where he actually did meet that person under the conditions he denied, then you have something.

Joke REPEATEDLY has denied that he ever met with or discussed anything with anyone his son was involved with in business. It is clear from photographic evidence alone this is a lie and false. Joke did meet with persons that his son was involved in business dealings with. Whether he discussed anything to do with that business or not is another issue entirely. Clearly Joke has lied, and done so repeatedly, on never meeting any of his son's business associates or clients.

Since that is provable, the question becomes What else has Joke lied about in regards to his son's business dealings?

ROFLMAO. So you have evidence that Joe met with them for business? This is right after you claimed you had no evidence of that actually being the case.