FBI on Nunes Memo: Grave concerns on omissions of fact that fundamentally impact accuracy of memo - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53099638]because it goes without saying that a misrepresented truth still contain some form of the truth. it's a distinction without value or purpose beyond splitting hairs to make nunes look better, and giving yourself an angle where you can defend this while still pretending to stand up for the "truth"[/QUOTE] But I'm not looking to defend Nunes or this action. I merely made a statement that it looks like it's going to be things that are true, but I would like to see what the real context is when the Dem memo gets approved or unilaterally released. You're assuming a motive based on your own preconceived notions. [QUOTE=Alice3173;53099639]You're stating a clearly biased fact that's only true on a technical level, as people have repeatedly pointed out to you. The same bullshit those who actually defend these idiots do constantly. That combined with the fact you're a known conservative on the site makes it easy to interpret you as being the same.[/QUOTE] I'm a pretty shitty conservative if I am one, beings I don't agree with them on a LOT of the social side of things like gay rights and abortion, and I vote for other parties all of the time. But instead of trying to interpret what I'm saying in the way you want to, how about asking me for a clarification rather than making a mountain out of a molehill?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53099666]I'm a pretty shitty conservative if I am one, beings I don't agree with them on a LOT of the social side of things like gay rights and abortion, and I vote for other parties all of the time.[/QUOTE] You're notably conservative compared to the average FPer, that's not to say you're explicitly a conservative so take my use of "conservative" a bit loosely in this context. [QUOTE]But instead of trying to interpret what I'm saying in the way you want to, how about asking me for a clarification rather than making a mountain out of a molehill?[/QUOTE] Considering this happens frequently I'd say the responsibility would really lie with you to be mroe clear about what you mean.

The right wing's politicalization of the truth, of basic facts and honesty, is absolutely sickening, and the semantics-driven technicalities of their defense of it even more so. Does a statement, accepted at value, give you an accurate and complete enough understanding of a situation that additional information would be unlikely to dramatically change the implication of that statement? If not, then it isn't an honest statement. Quit trying to sell us bullshit, Silence.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53099666]But I'm not looking to defend Nunes or this action. I merely made a statement that it looks like it's going to be things that are true, but I would like to see what the real context is when the Dem memo gets approved or unilaterally released. You're assuming a motive based on your own preconceived notions.[/QUOTE] *leaves engine running in a closed space* well there's still SOME breathable air in there! i mean... yes? sure? good job, you got some points for being technically correct, i guess, but for what purpose? [I]i don't care if you're doing it due to bias[/I], or because you're fond of playing the devil's advocate, or if this was just an offhand comment that unwittingly defends nunes, the argument you offer here still serves only to downplay the misrepresentation that undoubtedly plagues the memo and is pure, worthless pedantry

Donald Trump says in an interview, "The Fake News Liberal Media says, 'I colluded with Russia to win the election!' SAD!" Huffpost reports, "BREAKING NEWS: Trump Admits, "I colluded with Russia to win the election!" He did technically say that though so it's not dishonest!

Update [media]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/959076703661383680[/media]

Oh course they are. It helps their cause of telling their conservative cult what they want to hear.

[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;53099854]Update [media]https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/959076703661383680[/media][/QUOTE] In other news, Orangeman disregards building inspector's warning that increasing acoustics in echo chamber will cause (more) permanent brain damage.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53098566]I'm not trying to spin it as just a little biased. I'm saying it's most likely going to be downright misrepresentation of the truth, but still true nonetheless. I mean, I guess we have different qualifiers for what is true and what isn't. Oh, and I'm not loyal to any party. I don't agree with some things on either side. I vote for who I think is the best. My last ballot had votes for republicans, democrats, libertarians, AND an independent, because in my opinion, each of those people were the best person for the job. To reduce my positions to some nonexistent party loyalty is just absurd.[/QUOTE] just FYI misrepresentation is the legal term of art for what is commonly known as "lying" - an intentionally misleading statement that is meant to induce a party to do something. Ommissions of [b]material[/b] facts that are meant to shift perspective are considered equivalent to misrepresentation, aka lying.

my brain is still trying to parse the sentence "downright misrepresentation of the truth but still true" doing an entire BA in philosophy didn't prepare me to handle statements like that what does it even mean to have a "different qualifier for what is true" when your qualifier for truth includes "misrepresentations"

I think all Silence was trying to say was that all of the [i]individual claims[/i] in the memo are probably true, but they're compiled in a specific sequence (and omitting key facts) that provides a massively skewed view of the entire picture. Which is probably a fair thing to say.

[QUOTE=geel9;53100137]I think all Silence was trying to say was that all of the [i]individual claims[/i] in the memo are probably true, but they're compiled in a specific sequence (and omitting key facts) that provides a massively skewed view of the entire picture. Which is probably a fair thing to say.[/QUOTE] This is probably pretty close, actually. The memo is likely a sequence of events that happened but they are compiled in such a way and omitting key details to create a skewed image. I.E, it's a half-truth. A half-truth is the most powerful propaganda weapon you can have.

[QUOTE=geel9;53100137]I think all Silence was trying to say was that all of the [i]individual claims[/i] in the memo are probably true, but they're compiled in a specific sequence (and omitting key facts) that provides a massively skewed view of the entire picture. Which is probably a fair thing to say.[/QUOTE] Nah man, it isn't a fair thing to say AT ALL in here, because it doesn't contain enough hate and rhetoric. Let me try this again: This whole thing is going to be entirely lies with zero truth to any of it. Anyone helping this propaganda pass should be put on death row with no appeals. We should all riot and overthrow the corrupt whitehouse. We are doomed. Was that good enough for everyone here? Did I incorporate enough blind hatred and rhetoric? Let me know, because reasonable opinions clearly aren't welcome anywhere in here. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Advocating murder" - Mezzokoko))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100160]Nah man, it isn't a fair thing to say AT ALL in here, because it doesn't contain enough hate and rhetoric. Let me try this again: This whole thing is going to be entirely lies with zero truth to any of it. Anyone helping this propaganda pass should be put on death row with no appeals. We should all riot and overthrow the corrupt whitehouse. We are doomed. Was that good enough for everyone here? Did I incorporate enough blind hatred and rhetoric? Let me know, because reasonable opinions clearly aren't welcome anywhere in here.[/QUOTE] is that a misrepresentation of the arguments in the thread

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100160]Nah man, it isn't a fair thing to say AT ALL in here, because it doesn't contain enough hate and rhetoric. Let me try this again: This whole thing is going to be entirely lies with zero truth to any of it. Anyone helping this propaganda pass should be put on death row with no appeals. We should all riot and overthrow the corrupt whitehouse. We are doomed. Was that good enough for everyone here? Did I incorporate enough blind hatred and rhetoric? Let me know, because reasonable opinions clearly aren't welcome anywhere in here.[/QUOTE] No one is urging you to be spiteful. If the discussion seems too snide, I have no problem toning it down and leveling with you as long as you can return the favor. The point you brought up - that there might be true events described in a misrepresentative way - is fair, but pointless, because it's something everyone already knows, and, unless you're already familiar with the events in the memo, not worth ascribing much importance to, since you won't know what and where the truth is. Thus it has no real application and is only an aimless technicality that gives more credence to Nunes than he deserves.

i'll confess my tone is snide as fuck and i apologise for that years of arguing brexit with boilrig has made me cold and bitter

Well it’s already a clusterfuck. People I know are already convinced this is undeniable proof of a conspiracy against Trump because of news and radio. Fuck.

[QUOTE=geel9;53100137]I think all Silence was trying to say was that all of the [i]individual claims[/i] in the memo are probably true, but they're compiled in a specific sequence (and omitting key facts) that provides a massively skewed view of the entire picture. Which is probably a fair thing to say.[/QUOTE] Normal people call that a lie, though. If I told my boss "Sorry I was late, traffic is awful sometimes," on a day where I actually just overslept, I'm being dishonest by implying that traffic was the reason I was late. Even if my statement that "traffic is awful sometimes" is technically true - traffic is obviously bad sometimes - I'm using it to imply causation where none exists, which is a misrepresentation of the truth and an outright lie, despite not being technically factually incorrect. You're probably right that Nunes will do the same sort of thing, though. Like, he'll take an FBI text about "the secret cabal in the FBI" and omit all the previous texts that show context about them mocking Hannity or something. Misrepresenting factual information left and right by stripping them of context in order to make them look criminal, then collecting those misrepresented facts into an inaccurate timeline of events to portray it as a deep state criminal conspiracy. Sure, technically a "misrepresentation of truth," but in layman's terms we just call that lying.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100160]Nah man, it isn't a fair thing to say AT ALL in here, because it doesn't contain enough hate and rhetoric. Let me try this again: This whole thing is going to be entirely lies with zero truth to any of it. Anyone helping this propaganda pass should be put on death row with no appeals. We should all riot and overthrow the corrupt whitehouse. We are doomed. Was that good enough for everyone here? Did I incorporate enough blind hatred and rhetoric? Let me know, because reasonable opinions clearly aren't welcome anywhere in here.[/QUOTE] Dude, don't get pissy like a little kid when other people call you out on bullshit. It certainly doesn't make you look like a winner here.

I don't suppose it matters what normal people think. This memo changes nothing for the SCO investigation unless the executive decides to go after the FBI, in which case I think Mueller may have a hell of a bomb to drop. Why else has he given absolutely nothing away yet?

[QUOTE=.Isak.;53100216]Normal people call that a lie, though. If I told my boss "Sorry I was late, traffic is awful sometimes," on a day where I actually just overslept, I'm being dishonest by implying that traffic was the reason I was late. Even if my statement that "traffic is awful sometimes" is technically true - traffic is obviously bad sometimes - I'm using it to imply causation where none exists, which is a misrepresentation of the truth and an outright lie, despite not being technically factually incorrect. You're probably right that Nunes will do the same sort of thing, though. Like, he'll take an FBI text about "the secret cabal in the FBI" and omit all the previous texts that show context about them mocking Hannity or something. Misrepresenting factual information left and right by stripping them of context in order to make them look criminal, then collecting those misrepresented facts into an inaccurate timeline of events to portray it as a deep state criminal conspiracy. Sure, technically a "misrepresentation of truth," but in layman's terms we just call that lying.[/QUOTE] This post doesn't contradict mine in any way. In fact, you're saying what I'm saying.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53100191]No one is urging you to be spiteful. If the discussion seems too snide, I have no problem toning it down and leveling with you as long as you can return the favor. The point you brought up - that there might be true events described in a misrepresentative way - is fair, but pointless, because it's something everyone already knows, and, unless you're already familiar with the events in the memo, not worth ascribing much importance to, since you won't know what and where the truth is. Thus it has no real application and is only an aimless technicality that gives more credence to Nunes than he deserves.[/QUOTE] It's hard to be anything BUT spiteful when it's been made clear multiple times that we are all of the same opinion on the memo, yet this shitstorm is STILL going on, with people basically telling ME what MY motives and intentions are, even though I've said that it isn't. So yeah, I am going to be spiteful to people who are STILL saying this crap, because at this point, I can't interpret their intentions as anything else but pure malice.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100295]It's hard to be anything BUT spiteful when it's been made clear multiple times that we are all of the same opinion on the memo, yet this shitstorm is STILL going on, with people basically telling ME what MY motives and intentions are, even though I've said that it isn't. So yeah, I am going to be spiteful to people who are STILL saying this crap, because at this point, I can't interpret their intentions as anything else but pure malice.[/QUOTE] Maybe instead you should consider what people are saying about your choice of words? If what you are intending to say differs from what you are actually saying then obviously people are going to misinterpret what you mean. Obvious solution would be to work on your wording to get your point across better.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100295]It's hard to be anything BUT spiteful when it's been made clear multiple times that we are all of the same opinion on the memo, yet this shitstorm is STILL going on, with people basically telling ME what MY motives and intentions are, even though I've said that it isn't. So yeah, I am going to be spiteful to people who are STILL saying this crap, because at this point, I can't interpret their intentions as anything else but pure malice.[/QUOTE] Your motives don't matter, dude. What you said here matters. I'm taking the argument you posted and making no assumptions about why you posted it. Please, stop thinking I'm trying to personally attack you, I know you're not pulling some machievellian scheme here. I'm saying, as flatly as possible and with the utmost respect, that the fact there is truth behind misrepresented truth is simply not an useful point to make. It's a given, it has no real applications, and it serves - [I]even if unintentionally[/I] - to make the Nunes memo appear more believable. If you take this as condescension, I really don't know what to say.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53100410]Your motives don't matter, dude. What you said here matters. I'm taking the argument you posted and making no assumptions about why you posted it. Please, stop thinking I'm trying to personally attack you, I know you're not pulling some machievellian scheme here. I'm saying, as flatly as possible and with the utmost respect, that the fact there is truth behind misrepresented truth is simply not an useful point to make. It's a given, it has no real applications, and it serves - [I]even if unintentionally[/I] - to make the Nunes memo appear more believable. If you take this as condescension, I really don't know what to say.[/QUOTE] I appologize. It wasn't really aimed at you. If it appeared to make Nunes appear credible, then that was not my intention. I was simply making an observation about the article, then saying I was looking forward to the Democrat memo to see how bad he fucked it up. That was my entire point. That was clarified earlier in the thread. I didn't mean to lash out at you.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53100429]I appologize. It wasn't really aimed at you. If it appeared to make Nunes appear credible, then that was not my intention. I was simply making an observation about the article, then saying I was looking forward to the Democrat memo to see how bad he fucked it up. That was my entire point. That was clarified earlier in the thread. I didn't mean to lash out at you.[/QUOTE] I know it gets annoying these days, we end up feeling the need to put all sorts of 'disclaimers' in posts about how "I'm not saying this, and I'm certainly not saying that", and after a certain point you realize you're making a huge list of things you [I]don't[/I] believe in, instead of saying the thing you actually think, and it's dumb as hell. Sometimes it's just the topic is too contentious and polarizing and people become very quick to assume shit, but sometimes it makes me realize the point I was trying to make was on very shaky ground, and maybe required some more consideration, or, at the very least, some more solid wording.

He was literally just trying to share a thought he had. Fuck me