• Senator Feinstein's Office releases Fusion GPS interview transcript after GOP chair silence
    163 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039550]it is a bit of a hobby of mine to dive into the conspiracy theory community, mostly just to see what's up, and i am seeing a lot of similarity in language and defense tactics being employed itt. take that as you will.[/QUOTE] is it ok if i take it as a completely empty statement that says nothing?
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039555]OK. For the record the only communities I'm a part of presently are Facepunch and Reddit's /r/politics and /r/games. The only language and 'defense tactics' I'm using are my own. Most of the people itt who're attempting to tear down my arguments (really, most of the arguments) seem to be taking talking points from particular sources they're so uniform. Take that as you will.[/QUOTE] less about who you surround yourself with and more about similarities in construction of thought leading to similar ways of expressing said thoughts. as far as conspiracy theories go this is one of the more believable ones. even still, it is better to go slowly with these things. stepping back and considering why people might be saying that you're going into conspiracy theory territory beyond the possibility that they're just trying to suppress you is a decent first step.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039617]less about who you surround yourself with and more about similarities in construction of thought leading to similar ways of expressing said thoughts. as far as conspiracy theories go this is one of the more believable ones. even still, it is better to go slowly with these things. stepping back and considering why people might be saying that you're going into conspiracy theory territory beyond the possibility that they're just trying to suppress you is a decent first step.[/QUOTE] OK. Here's me stepping back. Now here's me looking at the evidence. Now here's me stepping forward to be right where I was. Also, nowhere did I think anyone 'was trying to suppress me' wtf. All I was thinking was 'and how did you come to that conclusion despite all this evidence?' Also 'similarities in construction of thought leading to similar ways of expressing said thoughts' ... what? There's a lot more than where I get my information that shapes my thoughts and how I express those thoughts. For instance: the media I and you consume. Also, stating that 'people that think similarly and come to the same conclusion are suspiciously conspiracy theorist' is ridiculous. Just because people can independently come to a conclusion doesn't mean 'that's suddenly spooky'.
I'm starting to feel that Trump's piss tape is the last thing to play on our screens before the credits roll and WWIII starts, or some shit.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039623]OK. Here's me stepping back. Now here's me looking at the evidence. Now here's me stepping forward to be right where I was. Also, nowhere did I think anyone 'was trying to suppress me' wtf. All I was thinking was 'and how did you come to that conclusion despite all this evidence?'[/QUOTE] suppress was bad wording on my part, discredit would have been better, my apologies
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039639]suppress was bad wording on my part, discredit would have been better, my apologies[/QUOTE] You can't discredit truthful* facts without telling lies. Again, failing to see what you're getting at. I didn't think anyone was trying to discredit me. I thought people were trying to rebut my arguments - even though they failed to do so but still insisted that they did so successfully. To wit "Calm down, conspiracy theorist" isn't a good response to "I watched an apple fall from a tree and therefore observed gravity".
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53039489]uhh, zukriuchen isn't the type of person to promote wacky conspiracy theories, this is more like gaslighting than people saying "slow your roll fam you're veering into conspiracy theory territory"[/QUOTE] It's getting hard to keep track of the facts available to us without sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist, unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53039645]It's getting hard to keep track of the facts available to us without sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] The defense of 'but those are conspiracy theories' falls a bit flat when there is an actual conspiracy and actual theories about that conspiracy from national institutions and intelligence agencies backed by congressional testimony and being pursued by a literal army of dream-team prosecutors. Some conspiracies are literal conspiracies - even despite how ridiculous they are (e.g. MK ULTRA). It isn't the fault of the observer that they would witness ridiculous, farcical, things that sound unbelievable despite having happened. If this were the 60s I think I'd understand the frustration some people felt at people saying 'but Nixon did nothing wrong, you whackjob conspiracy theorists, show me where he was convicted in court. See, you can't - therefore Nixon did nothing wrong'.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53038563]I'd say that his credentials as an attorney alone are enough. Everything he's saying is independently verifiable, just with some added legal insight. He's literally giving his comments on this publicly visible document. Why are you trying so hard to discredit him?[/QUOTE] as a law student I highly recommend that you do not consider anyone's credentials as a lawyer to be sufficient to believe without question any statements that they make. Lawyers ardently avoid lying, but they're also excellent at embellishing the truth. Further, your legal opinions are one of the few things that ethically you can lie about (to people other than your clients) to an extent. I cannot comment whatsoever on the veracity of his opinions, as I am not educated enough in law to do so. I do, however, strongly recommend caution against highly inflammatory statements made by any current or former lawyer. We're trained to represent the needs of our client (in his case, his political standpoint) to the ends of the Earth. Basically, don't trust him as a source if you're going to try to win an argument. He's heavily biased and such bias is extremely clear from the tweet threads that have been posted here on fp from him. He certainly has an interesting perspective, but you shouldn't put any particular weight into his statements. He's a public defender. No offense to public defenders (that would happen to be a career path I am considering!), but there's a massive difference between murder cases and large scale white collar investigations. Entirely different animals.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53039645]It's getting hard to keep track of the facts available to us without sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] Its really not. Dood in testimony states that someone was killed as a result of the dossier. Thats a fact. Spouting ideas about hookers being killed when theres nothing to back that up is conspiracy theories.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039663]Its really not. Dood in testimony states that someone was killed as a result of the dossier. Thats a fact. Spouting ideas about hookers being killed when theres nothing to back that up is conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE] [quote=Exactly one hour ago][quote=Cyke Lon bee]I give up dood. Ill drop it. Have a good evening.[/quote] See you next time when you'll 'undrop it'.[/quote] Man, you have a really short evening over there. Also, welcome to you immediately undropping the thing you said you dropped. From here on out, I'll just mentally adjust any time you say 'I give up/I'll drop it' to 'whatever, I don't care about your opinion but I'm still going to spout mine whenever I feel like it'. Also, thanks for proving that you didn't read anything I [or apparently anyone else] wrote.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039666]Man, you have a really short evening over there. Also, welcome to you immediately undropping the thing you said you dropped. From here on out, I'll just mentally adjust any time you say 'I give up/I'll drop it' to 'whatever, I don't care about your opinion but I'm still going to spout mine whenever I feel like it'. Also, thanks for proving that you didn't read anything I wrote.[/QUOTE] I dropped it with you because both of us are staunch in our opinions of the issue. I was doing the mature thing of dropping the issue with you and letting you have the last word. But thanks for being petty about it. So again, I've conceded with you. No need to be childish about this.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;53039685]I dropped it with you because both of us are staunch in our opinions of the issue. I was doing the mature thing of dropping the issue with you and letting you have the last word. But thanks for being petty about it. So again, I've conceded with you. No need to be childish about this.[/QUOTE] That's not what 'dropping it' means. The only childish thing that exists in debate is refusing to change your opinion because it's your opinion because it's your opinion. It isn't that you have a staunch opinion; it's that you refuse to accept any evidence as evidence because that would force you to change your position. What you're doing isn't 'conceding', what you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ear and going 'la la la, I don't care what you're writing because I was right and you are wrong'. That's far more childish and petty than I could ever act.
[QUOTE=JXZ;53039561]is it ok if i take it as a completely empty statement that says nothing?[/QUOTE] What he means is, for example, how conspiracy theorists always move towards impossible to disprove or easily agreeable statements, that don't necessarily prove anything. Here I made a point about BDA being presumptuous and instantly, the discussion was made into being about Russia's power to murder political dissidents. "They could do it, couldn't they? Look, they did it here!" Absolutely no one could possibly disagree with that, and it's the same shit 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers pull. Every fucking argument starts and ends with referring to the power of government and unseen actors, even when no one denies that power - I didn't deny it here, yet I got that thrown at me all the same. It's an easy way to make your opponent say yes by deflecting to something they never took issue with in the first place.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53039645]It's getting hard to keep track of the facts available to us without sounding like a bit of a conspiracy theorist, unfortunately.[/QUOTE] i agree on this completely. we're only getting small bits of a bigger picture, one we likely will never fully see. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039650]The defense of 'but those are conspiracy theories' falls a bit flat when there is an actual conspiracy and actual theories about that conspiracy from national institutions and intelligence agencies backed by congressional testimony and being pursued by a literal army of dream-team prosecutors. Some conspiracies are literal conspiracies - even despite how ridiculous they are (e.g. MK ULTRA). It isn't the fault of the observer that they would witness ridiculous, farcical, things that sound unbelievable despite having happened. If this were the 60s I think I'd understand the frustration some people felt at people saying 'but Nixon did nothing wrong, you whackjob conspiracy theorists, show me where he was convicted in court. See, you can't - therefore Nixon did nothing wrong'.[/QUOTE] i don't think all conspiracy theories and all conspiracy theorists are wrong by nature of them being conspiracy theories or theorists, i think that conspiracy theorist is a [i]very[/i] hard label to get rid of. though it may make perfect logical sense to you and all the facts seem to point to it being true, if people begin to call what you're saying a conspiracy theory doubling down is going to only dig a deeper hole. better to pull back a bit, let your ideas percolate, gather corroborating evidence, and, most importantly, [i]reapproach calmly.[/i] present as theory, not as fact, even if you know it is true.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53039469]So what you're saying is, in a legal sense.. is trump's not fucked yet. Which is the entire crux of this argument. You keep thinking that this is another nail in the coffin. It's not. It's nowhere near a nail in the coffin. It's the iron ore that makes the nail, for a coffin that's not made yet either. Until the investigation concludes, the only people who are fucked are the people who get charges against them, and right now that's not the president. Much to my disdain, the dorito remains a president.[/QUOTE] Nixon resigned before they brought charges and nothing is stopping congress from impeaching him at any point up to mueller wrapping his investigation up
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039700]What he means is, for example, how conspiracy theorists always move towards impossible to disprove or easily agreeable statements, that don't necessarily prove anything. Here I made a point about BDA being presumptuous and instantly, the discussion was made into being about Russia's power to murder political dissidents. "They could do it, couldn't they? Look, they did it here!" Absolutely no one could possibly disagree with that, and it's the same shit 9/11 truthers and anti-vaxxers pull. Every fucking argument starts and ends with referring to the power of government and unseen actors, even when no one denies that power - I didn't deny it here, yet I got that thrown at me all the same. It's an easy way to make your opponent say yes by deflecting to something they never took issue with in the first place.[/QUOTE] These are visible and seen actors who are known to do what they do. Are we to throw out arguments for people being murdered by the mob because the mob is a 'secret organization that murders rivals'? I ask because that's more or less a pretty spot-on description of the Russian government. [quote]better to pull back a bit, let your ideas percolate, gather corroborating evidence, and, most importantly, reapproach calmly. present as theory, not as fact, even if you know it is true.[/quote] OK, let's say I've already done that over a period of months. Let's say I've been questioning these various facts over a lengthy period of time and am only finding things that fit the theory of a conspiracy. Let's say that my same theory is the working theory that the FBI and NSA and MI6 were all working with. At what point is the theory more likely true than not? You're portraying me as some 'ADHD-fueled, single-minded, low-information, low-evidence' person who's presenting their theories as fact. I'm not. I've presented them consistently as theories - theories that are based on observable facts, as all good theories are.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039705]These are visible and seen actors who are known to do what they do. Are we to throw out arguments for people being murdered by the mob because the mob is a 'secret organization that murders rivals?[/QUOTE] What on earth do you even mean? How does this address the point I'm making in any way?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039713]What on earth do you even mean? How does this address the point I'm making in any way?[/QUOTE] Basically what you said earlier. Any conspiracy theory can be justified by saying its plausible reasoning because something similar had happened in the past. Even if theres no evidence to actually support the original claim.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039713]What on earth do you even mean? How does this address the point I'm making in any way?[/QUOTE] Your point of contention was 'Every fucking argument starts and ends with referring to the power of government and unseen actors, even when no one denies that power - I didn't deny it here, yet I got that thrown at me all the same. ' Which is fine. Except that this is literally about the power of government and 'unseen' actors. So you're denying it while saying you're not denying it because 'every argument is that'. This argument is that not because it 'has to be' but because it simply is how it is. I can't help that descriptions of experiments with gravity involve objects falling to earth any more than I can help a governmental conspiracy to influence and disrupt American politics occurred via a clandestine wing of the Russian government. [quote=Cyke Lon Bee]Any conspiracy theory can be justified by saying its plausible reasoning because something similar had happened in the past. Even if theres no evidence to actually support that claim.[/quote] Oh, no, in your case it's that there's evidence to support that claim that you refuse to accept as valid because you'd like it to be 'a conspiracy theory'.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53039724]Your point of contention was 'Every fucking argument starts and ends with referring to the power of government and unseen actors, even when no one denies that power - I didn't deny it here, yet I got that thrown at me all the same. ' Which is fine. Except that this is literally about the power of government and 'unseen' actors. So you're denying it while saying you're not denying it because 'every argument is that'. This argument is that not because it 'has to be' but because it simply is how it is. I can't help that descriptions of experiments with gravity involve objects falling to earth any more than I can help a governmental conspiracy to influence and disrupt American politics occurred via a clandestine wing of the Russian government.[/QUOTE] Ok, replace the "and" with "or". Is that fine now?
Don't know if it's been brought up in the past 3 pages but the [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/house-intelligence-asks-trump-bodyguard-about-moscow-prostitutes-allegation-2017-11"]Steele dossier claims[/URL] that witnesses involved in the supposed kompromat operations were bribed or coerced into silence, or simply disappeared. As others have noted, the claims made in the dossier have either been verified or remain unverified but nothing seems to have been conclusively proven falsified so without hard evidence it's impossible to back up BDA's claim [I]specifically [/I]that they were killed but in fairness he said "almost certainly". Seems more like speculation than pushing a conspiracy theory to me.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039760]Don't know if it's been brought up in the past 3 pages but the [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/house-intelligence-asks-trump-bodyguard-about-moscow-prostitutes-allegation-2017-11"]Steele dossier claims[/URL] that witnesses involved in the supposed kompromat operations were bribed or coerced into silence, or simply disappeared. As others have noted, the claims made in the dossier have either been verified or remain unverified but nothing seems to have been conclusively proven falsified so without hard evidence it's impossible to back up BDA's claim [I]specifically [/I]that they were killed but in fairness he said "almost certainly". Seems more like speculation than pushing a conspiracy theory to me.[/QUOTE] The whole point here has always been about dangerous speculation. I already acknowledged the "almost" when I first called it dangerous, and I only called it "borderline conspiracy theorist-tier" when I expanded the point to include statements elsewhere
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039793]The whole point here has always been about dangerous speculation. I already acknowledged the "almost" when I first called it dangerous, and I only called it "borderline conspiracy theorist-tier" when I expanded the point to include statements elsewhere[/QUOTE] I just don't see how it's dangerous, or why you have to call it "borderline conspiracy theorist tier". The former seems hyperbolic and the latter seems weasely, like you are trying to make BDA sound delusional. Just keep it at speculation.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039799]I just don't see how it's dangerous, or why you have to call it "borderline conspiracy theorist tier". The former seems hyperbolic and the latter seems weasely, like you are trying to make BDA sound delusional. Just keep it at speculation.[/QUOTE] I think "almost certainly" is hyperbolic. I don't think it's borderline conspiracy theorist-tier because, like I just said in the very post you quoted, I only used that after I expanded my point to refer to statements in other threads
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039811]I think "almost certainly" is hyperbolic. I don't think it's borderline conspiracy theorist-tier because, like I just said in the very post you quoted, I only used that after I expanded my point to refer to statements in other threads[/QUOTE] And I think "hyperbolic" is more apt in this case than "dangerous". Without going too far offtopic I wouldn't necessarily disagree that BDA can be over the top sometimes but this doesn't seem like one of those times.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039824]And I think "hyperbolic" is more apt in this case than "dangerous". Without going too far offtopic I wouldn't necessarily disagree that BDA can be over the top sometimes but this doesn't seem like one of those times.[/QUOTE] I think the audience is big enough, and the hyperbole is bad enough that it becomes dangerous. Trump's collusion hasn't been absolutely proven, but it's very reasonable to assume it happened. Many of the murders ordered by Russian oligarchs haven't been absolutely proven, but it's also very reasonable to assume some things there, too. The pee tape is the part pretty much everyone is least convinced might be true, but still, yet again, there's deduction and rationalization behind believing it exists. To come out and address all of these possibilities within possibilities with a "poor girls, almost certainly murdered", and none of the information necessary to make it clear where your speculation comes from, let alone how far it goes, is dangerous, or at the very least questionable.
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039891]I think the audience is big enough, and the hyperbole is bad enough that it becomes dangerous. Trump's collusion hasn't been absolutely proven, but it's very reasonable to assume it happened. Many of the murders ordered by Russian oligarchs haven't been absolutely proven, but it's also very reasonable to assume some things there, too. The pee tape is the part pretty much everyone is least convinced might be true, but still, yet again, there's deduction and rationalization behind believing it exists. To come out and address all of these possibilities within possibilities with a "poor girls, almost certainly murdered", and none of the information necessary to make it clear where your speculation comes from, let alone how far it goes, is dangerous, or at the very least questionable.[/QUOTE] Hyperbole and questionable are fine terms but what does audience size have to do with it being considered dangerous? What is the danger in BDA's speculation? That the average FPer will assume that Russian state assets are ruthless in their attempts to conceal espionage operations?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53039891]I think the audience is big enough, and the hyperbole is bad enough that it becomes dangerous. Trump's collusion hasn't been absolutely proven, but it's very reasonable to assume it happened. Many of the murders ordered by Russian oligarchs haven't been absolutely proven, but it's also very reasonable to assume some things there, too. The pee tape is the part pretty much everyone is least convinced might be true, but still, yet again, there's deduction and rationalization behind believing it exists. To come out and address all of these possibilities within possibilities with a "poor girls, almost certainly murdered", and none of the information necessary to make it clear where your speculation comes from, let alone how far it goes, is dangerous, or at the very least questionable.[/QUOTE] I can see where you are coming from and while I personally don't believe the girls were murdered and I'm still on the fence about the video being real, it's really not that much of stretch of the imagination to think that two nobody prostitutes were tracked and threatened/roughed up/kidnapped, or worse, when the Kremlin has a long history of assassination and obstruction and meddling to protect their interests, especially under the implication that the tape is real (and by most accounts, almost everything in the dossier is verifiable true)
[video=youtube;BvPoJu5Cn64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvPoJu5Cn64[/video] Blumenthal brings out the fun tonnage, lambasting Republican distraction efforts over the dossier, calling for bipartisan support of the Trump-Russia investigation, and announcing he will be introducing bipartisan legislation to protect Mueller and the FBI from interference. He also expects there to be further indictments and convictions by Mueller's team, and he had previously predicted these to come in early 2018. [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/950929252135985152[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/950930020448587776[/media] [media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/950930976510791681[/media] Shit snowballed real quick today :wow: If there's any justice left in the crazy screwed up world of these United States of America, this is the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we presently know it. The Simpson testimony reveals that the FBI was aware of Trump-Russia concerns back in the first half of 2016 from a whistleblower in the campaign, and Congressional Republicans were aware of, and have been suppressing that information since no later than August 2017. Let that sink in. The FBI was aware of active collaboration between the Trump campaign and Putin's agents before the election. This was not disclosed when Comey was blackmailed by pro-Trump FBI insiders into informing Congress that the Hillary investigation was being reopened right before the election, and Congress leaking the Comey letter is credited by 538 as swinging the election to Trump. The GOP has known this for more than four months and select members of the GOP actively worked to keep this information, via the unclassified Simpson testimony transcript, from the public. What did they do? Try and discredit Steele and FusionGPS, claim Democrats funded the entire dossier (Republicans funded it for nine months before Trump became the Republican candidate and the dossier was now useless/a liability), and [I]refer Steele to the FBI for potential criminal investigation[/I]. And, of course, there's a scandalously long list of people who knew all along. Mueller's already bagged two of them and is working on two more, and only he knows how many more rounds he's got ready to chamber.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.