Members banned from this thread: evince, PostmodernProphet, Truth Detector, serendipity, Jade Dragon, Port Tack, Trumpet, saltydancin, Doc Dutch, Geeko Sportivo, Concart, BidenPresident and Gondwanaland


Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 96

Thread: On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson | Cynthia Chung

  1. #76 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QP! View Post
    When will those same people realize that not only does Tucker lie to them, but he admits he does?
    More unsubstantiated claims. You do a lot of those.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  2. #77 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by QP! View Post
    **
    ...Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

    She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

    Vyskocil, an appointee of President Trump's, added, "Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson's statements as 'exaggeration,' 'non-literal commentary,' or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable."...
    **

    Source:
    You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers | National Public Radio
    At last, you actually quote and cite a source. Certainly took you long enough -.- Anyway, the statements you quoted above are pretty vague. There is no mention of any actually statement from Tucker with evidence that it was a lie.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  3. #78 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    RT is running with the story too...I take this as Putin doing some light mocking of Tucker for not preparing, which I myself complained about in real time in Goats thread:

    https://www.rt.com/russia/592452-put...son-dangerous/
    A good article, thanks for bringing it up. I thought the conclusion of the article was very informative:

    **
    Asked if Carlson could face reprisals in the West, the Russian president pointed out that WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange “still sits” in a British prison.

    While the US has tried to accuse Assange of revealing state secrets, which is more difficult to pin on Carlson, “anything is possible in today’s US,” Putin said. While this kind of persecution would certainly be a bad thing for Carlson himself, it would be good for the world, because it would reveal the true face of the “liberal-democratic dictatorship” embodied by the ruling class in the US, the president concluded.

    **

    I certainly -hope- that the U.S. goes no further in its persecution of Tucker, but I'm sad to say that I wouldn't be too surprised if it did.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  4. #79 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    BLAH BLAH BLAH
    Blah. blah blah is how you face the facts.? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-...ld-trump-2024/ Tucker said many times he hates Trump. When he lost the election Tucker was happy that he did not have to deal with Trump anymore. Then he had to face the lies he told about Dominion. They programmed lying about Dominion on Fox and paid bigly. They have another bigger suit over their lies.
    Alright, I will grant you that it does appear that Tucker did privately say that he hated Trump. That does seem to be out of alignment with other things he has said about him, but I've never heard him -deny- that he wrote that, so there does seem to be some honesty there. I also think it's possible that Tucker may have -temporarily- hated Trump and has since changed his mind about him. As I imagine you know, I've personally never been a fan of Trump. As to the case regarding Dominion, I'm not familiar with the details, but I -have- heard that there has been evidence that voting machines have been rigged, and certainly not just from conservatives, so I wouldn't be surprised if many allegations against Dominion were true. One other thing- paying a fine does not mean that one is guilty. The truth isn't always revealed in courts of law.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  5. #80 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Never been a fan of Trump, sorry. I -do- recognize that he was less antagonistic with Russia in some ways, though he was pressured to not be so friendly and start supplying weapons to Ukraine. Well known journalist Aaron Mate wrote a very good article on the subject a few months after Russia started its military operation in Ukraine that I think was quite illuminating:
    Siding With Ukraine’s Far-Right, US Sabotaged Zelensky’s Peace Mandate | Scheerpost

    The west, vis a vis Boris Johnson, also sabotaged initial peace initiatives between Ukraine and Russia after the war had started as well:
    Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper | Common Dreams
    Excerpt from another response: The regurgitation of Mother Russia's original territory and who belonged to it is old hat. And guess what? THINGS CHANGE! SHIT HAPPENS!

    A country that went from monarchy to fascist dictatorship to communist to a brief spat of democracy to whatever-the-hell you want to call it now (oh, don't forget revolution, Japan-Russo War, WWII, the Cold War, the Yalta meeting) doesn't get to claim historical rights when masses of people threw that concept out the window. It's like this: the Maltese don't consider themselves mainland Italians, the Okinawans don't consider themselves main island Japanese. Same goes for a good portion of the Ukrainians.

    Now we can debate the Ukranian machinations dealing with neo-nazi types going after pro-Russian folk while officials looked the other way, but as I said before NOTHING EARTH SHATTERING CAME OUT OF THE CARLSON INTERVIEW.
    That response was to another post. For those who'd like to see the past play by play, the response Tai's regurgitating was made in post #50, which in turn was a response to my post #47. He might have considered making a different response to the post he was responding to here (post #52), but alas he chose to just regurgitate what he'd already said in another post for the most part. There was a little extra after the blue, a "bottom line" something or other, but his starting with what he'd already said elsewhere just turned me off from paying attention to the postscript. In regards to all this blue text of his that was first posted in #50, I responded to that post in post #69 and he's responded in turn in post #72. I haven't gotten to #72 yet, but based on what I've seen of it, I'm already disappointed in it. Ah well, that's life.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  6. #81 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Excerpt from another response: The regurgitation of Mother Russia's original territory and who belonged to it is old hat. And guess what? THINGS CHANGE! SHIT HAPPENS!

    A country that went from monarchy to fascist dictatorship to communist to a brief spat of democracy to whatever-the-hell you want to call it now (oh, don't forget revolution, Japan-Russo War, WWII, the Cold War, the Yalta meeting) doesn't get to claim historical rights when masses of people threw that concept out the window. It's like this: the Maltese don't consider themselves mainland Italians, the Okinawans don't consider themselves main island Japanese. Same goes for a good portion of the Ukrainians.

    Now we can debate the Ukranian machinations dealing with neo-nazi types going after pro-Russian folk while officials looked the other way, but as I said before NOTHING EARTH SHATTERING CAME OUT OF THE CARLSON INTERVIEW.


    Bottom line: Carlson is nothing more than a bigoted, fascist leaning trust fund kid who craves praise, attention and some sense of power. Hell, even Putin called him an idiot after the interview.

    And for someone claiming NOT to be of the MAGA mindset, you sure do emulate it in your responses here.
    U R such a liar....I might ask how U manage to live with yourself but me being educated I know what a waste of time that would be.
    I generally only considered someone to be a liar if I've seen evidence that they don't believe what they're saying. I've never seen any evidence that Tai doesn't believe what he's saying. I think his main problem is he can be averse to really looking at information that conflicts with his worldview, which can make it difficult for him to see the untruths in it.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  7. #82 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Where did you get that statistic? Here's some numbers I've found:

    **
    Feb 9, 2024

    In less than 24 hours, Tucker Carlson's controversial interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin has gotten millions of views. But how many people actually watched the 2 hour-long video on X, where Carlson has a partnership for his program, is actually not public information.

    That's because in May of 2023, the platform removed video views from public view. Instead, all posts on the platform contain "views" which are actually just impressions, meaning how many times the post itself was seen by a user. It is not indicative of whether the user clicked on the post or watched the video associated with it. It also provides no indication as to how much of the two-hour video users engaged with.

    As of this writing, the post on X with the video has over 125 million impressions on the platform.

    While Carlson has a partnership with Elon Musk's social media platform, he also posts his videos on YouTube. His exclusive interview had more than 6 million views in the first 24 hours after it was posted. Views on YouTube are counted if viewers watch at minimum of 30 seconds of the video.

    **

    Full article:
    Is Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin the most watched video of all-time on Elon Musk's X? | Austin American Statesman

    As of right now, views of the interview on Youtube have gone up to 17 million, and impressions/views of the post containing the interview on X has come up to a bit over 200 million, but even if we were to add both the impressions and the youtube views , that still doesn't even get to a quarter of a billion. I'm not saying they're low numbers, far from it, just not as high as you're saying.

    X certainly seems to have done well because of it:

    X, formerly Twitter, becomes No. 1 app on US App Store after news of Tucker Carlson-Putin interview emerges | techcrunch.com
    I posted the number seconds after I heard it because not many videos get over 1 billion views. It was a 90 minute or 2-hour video so I didn't post it. There are a few dozen different video viewers worldwide other than X and Youtube. China, India, Africa, and South America all know about the US being the world bully, so I'm sure they wanted to hear what Putin had to say. I wouldn't post it if it wasn't from a reliable source.
    Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  8. #83 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    No, that's just the answer to your implied question. What I'm trying to get you to realize is that just because Carlson didn't get Putin to reveal any "earth shattering information" as far as I could see doesn't mean that the interview wasn't highly illuminating in regards to Russia's history and things like the Russian government's decision to start a military operation in Ukraine.

    I personally wasn't familiar with the fact that Kyev used to be part of Russia. Were you?

    Certainly. However, knowing how things were can frequently go a long way to explaining why things are the way they are today. I think it's worth noting that Putin didn't stop talking about Russia's history 1000 years ago, but continued right up until the Russian government's decision to start its military operation in Ukraine. One part I found to be particularly interesting is where the word Ukraine came from. Putin actually elaborated on this as Celia Farber points out:

    **
    The next empire the Galicia-Volhynia region would be subjected to (now split off from Russia) was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Again, in President Putin’s interview with Carlson, he is referring to the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia as part of Russia, “the southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev” and he views this lost of sovereignty as a loss of sovereignty of a section of Russia that was taken over by the Mongol Empire, followed by the Lithuanian Empire which would later become the Polish-Lithuanian Empire. In other words, these Russian people were cut off from the rest of Russia due to the Mongol Empire and later the Polish-Lithuanian Empire.

    It was during this rule by the Polish in particular and their attempt at “Polonization” of these subjected Russian people that many cruel abuses and injustices occurred. This is also why there was so much hatred towards the Polish people by Ukrainians who had decided to side with the Nazis during WWII and to which pogroms were conducted by the Ukrainian population against the Jewish and non-Jewish Polish population (for more on this refer here).

    President Putin states: “During decades, the Poles were engaged in the ‘Polonization’ of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were ‘Ukrainians.’ Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

    So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw [in Poland] demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned here, including to Kiev…”

    It is very interesting what President Putin does next. He hands Tucker Carlson the documents from the archives, copies of letters from Bogdan Khmelnytsky to Warsaw, Poland demanding their rights be upheld.

    Bogdan Khmelnytsky (1595-1657) was the military commander of the Cossacks and founder of the Cossack Hetmanate, also known as the Zaporozhian Host or the Army of Zaporozhia, the region that is now largely called Ukraine.

    President Putin states: “Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in this part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.

    Russia would not agree to admit them straight away, assuming this would trigger a war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

    As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded. In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it is said. And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.”
    **

    Source:
    On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Celia Farber

    Notice anything similar in what happened in 1654? Part of what is now Ukraine asking for more rights from its central government, not getting them and turning to Russia to get them? Just in case you don't, I'm referring to the Donbass Republics doing the same with its central government in Kyev after the Euromaidan coup, not getting them and then turning to Russia, which, just as in 1654, took several years to finally grant them their request and starting its war with Poland.



    I'm not sure what you mean by "historical rights". Perhaps you are suggesting that Putin is trying to say that since Ukraine used to be part of Russia, it should all be part of Russia again? If so, I was never making that claim. I believe that Putin was simply trying to point out that the Ukrainian nation is a relatively recent invention and that its roots are strongly Russian. Putin also elaborates on when Ukraine became a Republic for the first time- it was a creation of the U.S.S.R.:

    **
    In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

    …For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.”
    **

    Source:
    On President Putin's Interview with Tucker Carlson... | Celia Farber

    Putin is referring to Crimea with that last bit there, though it would seem that he got mixed up as to who actually transferred Crimea to Ukraine. He mentions Lenin, but from what I have read, it was actually Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev who did the transfer. An NPR article called "Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point" gets into the details. While one can search and find a summary of the article on NPR, when one clicks on the link, it says that the page isn't working. Fortunately, the article has been mirrored well on another site. Quoting from it:
    **
    In 1954, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave Ukraine a gift: Crimea. At the time, it seemed like a routine move, but six decades later, that gift is having consequences for both countries.

    The transfer merited only a paragraph in Pravda, the official Soviet newspaper, on Feb. 27, 1954. The story was one long sentence and dense with detail. Here's what it said:

    "Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic, taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic ties between Crimea Province and the Ukraine Republic, and approving the joint presentation of the Presidium of the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet and the Presidium of the Ukraine Republic Supreme Soviet on the transfer of Crimea Province from the Russian Republic to the Ukraine Republic."

    And with that, a region that had been part of Russia for centuries was "gifted" to Ukraine.

    "Gifted" because Khrushchev's transfer was ostensibly to mark the 300th anniversary of Ukraine's merger with the Russian empire. And he probably didn't think the Soviet Union would be gone less than 40 years later.

    **

    Source:
    Crimea: A Gift To Ukraine Becomes A Political Flash Point | North Country Public Radio

    I completely agree. However, I'm sure you're also aware that a civil war started in Ukraine soon after the Euromaidan coup. Why do you think that happened?



    I'm rather mystified as to why you're so interested in whether or not Putin said anything "earth shattering" in his interview with Carlson. A lot of very important information can be exchanged even said information isn't "earth shattering".



    As an aside, I'm actually a pretty big fan of Marvel comics, as well as Wolverine, though the Marvel movies/tv series have been failing my expectations recently (I still really liked the second season of Loki though). I even have a year long subscription to Marvel's online comics.
    Oh Lord! Whenever you go into "gas bag" mode, it's just a wasted effort by you to avoid being wrong on even the most minute point. To start with, I didn't "imply" a question. Anyone who follows the chronology of the posts knows EXACTLY what I stated and asked for in no uncertain terms.
    Sigh. There was no question mark, thus I felt the question was implied.

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    You already conceded that Carlson's interview DID NOT REVEAL ANYTHING KNEW OR EARTH SHATTERING FROM PUTIN.
    No, I stated that I -personally- didn't find any "earth shattering information" coming from Putin. Someone else might. It may well depend on the person's degree of familiarity with what Putin has said in the past. Having studied past speeches he's made in regards to the war on Ukraine, I personally didn't find that what he said this time deviated that much from said speeches, although I did find his history of the ties between Russia and Ukraine to be quite illuminating.

    I also stated that I didn't see why this should be so important to begin with. I certainly believe that Putin said a lot of very -important- information, information that if properly applied could perhaps end the war in Ukraine. Isn't that worth carefully examining what he said in his interview?
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  9. #84 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    11,737
    Thanks
    2,316
    Thanked 2,326 Times in 1,986 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 184 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?
    The population of China, India, Africa, and South America is my reliable source. More than a billion views on the Putin/Carlson interview makes perfect sense. I was a little surprised on how quickly it happened.

  10. #85 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    I posted the number seconds after I heard it because not many videos get over 1 billion views. It was a 90 minute or 2-hour video so I didn't post it. There are a few dozen different video viewers worldwide other than X and Youtube. China, India, Africa, and South America all know about the US being the world bully, so I'm sure they wanted to hear what Putin had to say. I wouldn't post it if it wasn't from a reliable source.
    Alright, I'll take your word on it for now, but could you link to this reliable source?
    The population of China, India, Africa, and South America is my reliable source. More than a billion views on the Putin/Carlson interview makes perfect sense. I was a little surprised on how quickly it happened.
    I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

    The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  11. #86 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    11,737
    Thanks
    2,316
    Thanked 2,326 Times in 1,986 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 184 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

    The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.
    Jared Diamond is a bird watcher who wrote a book titled "The Third Chimpanzee" about evolution and the advancement of human socioeconomics. The problem is that Jared is a racist trying to impress his grad students on how smart he is. Jared wrote from his white European eyes with no consideration for the negative effects imperialism had on the population of Chinese, Indian, and African cultures. He had zero evidence yet he was happy to pull shit out of his ass.

    I like Jared and I like his books but he's not a reliable source. I spent my life weeding out the bullshit. The only thing I have is my credibility, so when I post something, the odds are I did my homework on reality. I can find a link to make anything into a fact. You're the one using Wikipedia as a source. That's the lazy way of doing things on the net. It's foolish to think that Putin/Carlson got anything below 1 billion views.

  12. #87 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I'm sorry goat, but that's not a source for your claim, those are population numbers. Now, if you'd said that you -think- that Tucker's interview of Putin had a billion views worldwide, that would have been one thing, but you stated it as a fact. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a stickler when it comes to evidence. This reminds me of a story- I was once a bird watcher, and I read a book talking about bird watchers once- there was a story of one bird watcher (let's call her Jane) that was a stickler for evidence when someone claimed that x or y rare bird was seen. A lot of people considered the person to be a spoilsport, but there was -1- case where it became an asset. One bird watcher (let's call him Joe) hadn't come to an event where this stickler -did- come to the conclusion that a rare bird citing was legitimate. When Joe came to the next one and everyone told him they'd seen a rare bird, he said that perhaps it wasn't true. Whereupon all of them claimed excitedly that even -Jane- agreed that the rare bird had appeared.

    The moral of the story is that I may seem like a spoilsport even to those on my own "team" at times, but when I claim things are true, one can be reasonably sure that I have solid evidence to back it up, regardless of what side I'm on in a particular debate.
    Jared Diamond is a bird watcher who wrote a book titled "The Third Chimpanzee" about evolution and the advancement of human socioeconomics. The problem is that Jared is a racist trying to impress his grad students on how smart he is. Jared wrote from his white European eyes with no consideration for the negative effects imperialism had on the population of Chinese, Indian, and African cultures. He had zero evidence yet he was happy to pull shit out of his ass.

    I like Jared and I like his books but he's not a reliable source.
    I've never read anything from Jared, so I went to Wikipedia to get an introduction to the man. The entry on the most recent book of his that they cover, Upheaval (2019) supports your assertion that he's skimpy on evidence:
    **
    Anand Giridharadas, reviewing for The New York Times, claimed the book contained many factual inaccuracies.[38] Daniel Immerwahr, reviewing for The New Republic, reports that Diamond has "jettisoned statistical analysis" and the associated rigour, even by the standards of his earlier books, which have themselves sometimes been challenged on this basis.[39]
    **

    Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    I spent my life weeding out the bullshit.
    Sounds like a laudible endeavour.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    The only thing I have is my credibility, so when I post something, the odds are I did my homework on reality.
    That sounds good too.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    I can find a link to make anything into a fact.
    I'd like to see you try it, especially on something I disagree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    You're the one using Wikipedia as a source.
    I certainly do, yes, but let's remember that the one thing Wikipedia -always- has are sources of its own. This is why I frequently use it when I'm not too knowledgeable on a subject, and would like to start learning and/or teaching others who also aren't too knowledgeable on a subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with its conclusions. However, the fact that their articles always have sources has meant that on at least one occassion, I've found that their source material contradicts their article. Now, you could say that this proves that it's not a good source. I would say that it proves the importance of having sources for things that one writes. For while a person (or group of people) may draw a false conclusion from a given dataset, if you follow the evidence long enough, you tend to find the truth. It's for this reason that I really like Andre Gide's line of trusting those who seek the truth and doubting those who find it. For while it's easy to claim that just about anything is true, it's frequently much, much harder to provide compelling evidence that this is the case. Seeking the truth is a wise endeavour, while being too eager to claim to know what the truth is its opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    [Using Wikipedia is] the lazy way of doing things on the net.
    No, the lazy way is just making a claim without providing any source at all. Now, this isn't to say that I don't do just that sometimes. One doesn't know what people will find issues with and there is certainly such a thing as providing more information than an audience is interested in going through. But if challenged in a respectful way, I tend to almost always either provide evidence for my claim or concede that I couldn't find any.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    It's foolish to think that Putin/Carlson got anything below 1 billion views.
    One can say that "It's foolish to think" and then follow with any statement one likes. It can certainly be useful if one's goal is to intimidate others into thinking that one's claims are true, or at least into having them not voice their doubts. But it's not evidence for one's point of view.
    Last edited by Phoenyx; 02-17-2024 at 02:35 PM.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  13. #88 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2021
    Posts
    11,737
    Thanks
    2,316
    Thanked 2,326 Times in 1,986 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 184 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I've never read anything from Jared, so I went to Wikipedia to get an introduction to the man. The entry on the most recent book of his that they cover, Upheaval (2019) supports your assertion that he's skimpy on evidence:
    **
    Anand Giridharadas, reviewing for The New York Times, claimed the book contained many factual inaccuracies.[38] Daniel Immerwahr, reviewing for The New Republic, reports that Diamond has "jettisoned statistical analysis" and the associated rigour, even by the standards of his earlier books, which have themselves sometimes been challenged on this basis.[39]
    **

    Source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond



    Sounds like a laudible endeavour.



    That sounds good too.



    I'd like to see you try it, especially on something I disagree with.



    I certainly do, yes, but let's remember that the one thing Wikipedia -always- has are sources of its own. This is why I frequently use it when I'm not too knowledgeable on a subject, and would like to start learning and/or teaching others who also aren't too knowledgeable on a subject. This doesn't mean that I always agree with its conclusions. However, the fact that their articles always have sources has meant that on at least one occassion, I've found that their source material contradicts their article. Now, you could say that this proves that it's not a good source. I would say that it proves the importance of having sources for things that one writes. For while a person (or group of people) may draw a false conclusion from a given dataset, if you follow the evidence long enough, you tend to find the truth. It's for this reason that I really like Andre Gide's line of trusting those who seek the truth and doubting those who find it. For while it's easy to claim that just about anything is true, it's frequently much, much harder to provide compelling evidence that this is the case. Seeking the truth is a wise endeavour, while being too eager to claim to know what the truth is its opposite.



    No, the lazy way is just making a claim without providing any source at all. Now, this isn't to say that I don't do just that sometimes. One doesn't know what people will find issues with and there is certainly such a thing as providing more information than an audience is interested in going through. But if challenged in a respectful way, I tend to almost always either provide evidence for my claim or concede that I couldn't find any.



    One can say that "It's foolish to think" and then follow with any statement one likes. It can certainly be useful if one's goal is to intimidate others into thinking that one's claims are true, or at least into having them not voice their doubts. But it's not evidence for one's point of view.
    After watching the entire Putin/Carlson interview, I started a thread titled "Putin pimp slaps Carlson, but then I realized Putin was talking to the world instead of the US, so Carlson did a good job making sure the interview was seen worldwide. There is someone tracking how many views it got so I was surprised on how fast it passed 1 billion views. I know the count is accurate because it makes sense.

  14. #89 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Posts
    2,876
    Thanks
    751
    Thanked 332 Times in 296 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 24 Times in 23 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    After watching the entire Putin/Carlson interview, I started a thread titled "Putin pimp slaps Carlson, but then I realized Putin was talking to the world instead of the US, so Carlson did a good job making sure the interview was seen worldwide. There is someone tracking how many views it got so I was surprised on how fast it passed 1 billion views.
    Does this someone have a web page with the number? I ask in the hopes that perhaps this someone explains how they calculated this number.

    Quote Originally Posted by goat View Post
    I know the count is accurate because it makes sense.
    I certainly be surprised if it's true, but that doesn't mean it is by default.
    "Trust those who seek the truth, doubt those who find it" - Andre Gide

  15. #90 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,928
    Thanks
    5,153
    Thanked 5,717 Times in 4,154 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,364 Times in 1,289 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenyx View Post
    I generally only considered someone to be a liar if I've seen evidence that they don't believe what they're saying. I've never seen any evidence that Tai doesn't believe what he's saying. I think his main problem is he can be averse to really looking at information that conflicts with his worldview, which can make it difficult for him to see the untruths in it.
    I've had Hawkeye on permanent "ignore" for some time now and have told him so (although I keep forgetting to ban him on my created threads). He's a crank who has some core conspiracy issues he periodically injects into my discussions and threads.

    P.S.: your last sentence is pure projection. Add on your incessant need to have the last, repetitive word. Just saying.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-12-2024, 08:16 AM
  2. Tucker Carlson confirms Vladimir Putin interview
    By ziggy in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 02-10-2024, 07:41 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-25-2023, 01:45 PM
  4. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 10-24-2022, 05:47 PM
  5. Tucker Carlson Blows Up at Rutger Bregman in Unaired Fox News Interview
    By StoneByStone in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2019, 06:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •