Reply With Quote
Pretty good article, RG. Thanks.
FWIW:
The science of a political forum, writ large.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...olitics-debate
Generally why I tend to give TSA's posts a bit more weight than I am naturally inclined to.
Sometimes mildly relevant, but almost always part of what can only be described as a propaganda campaign designed to be deliberately misleading.
Pretty good article, RG. Thanks.
tsa is owning your ass.
its a narrative, random
TSA is duped by Russian trolls and Russian-polluted 4chan
what this article ignores is that even if one were to allow oneself to engage in "discourse" with someone diametrically opposed to their own political beliefs that discourse would have to fall within the parameters of what defines a reasonable argument. too often today, most of the exchange fails to filter out a myriad of fallacies, the most common of which are "might makes right", arguments of abuse, begging the question and the appeal to authority route. in this context, discourse is impossible. i would say, social media (ST included) is littered with such cognitive debris. it is, as ortega y gasset once stated of europe in pre-fascist Spain, a "revolt of the masses".
How so?
Really haven't had a lot of time get to a lot of it, tbh. There is far more there than he wants to admit.
yeahp, now do you get it?
"This is a key point that many people miss when discussing the “fake news” or “filter bubble” problem in our online media ecosystems. Avoiding facts inconvenient to our worldview isn’t just some passive, unconscious habit we engage in. We do it because we find these facts to be genuinely unpleasant. And as long as this experience remains unpleasant, and easy to avoid, we’re just going to drift further and further apart."
This is what you've been doing when presented with numerous facts concerning Russian attribution.
It is something to take seriously. I didn't avoid anything, I just evaluated the evidence you presented as not meeting a burden of proof I find sufficient to accept your conclusions.
My critical thinking alarm bells start going off because of many of your "facts" turn out to be, on a balanced evaluation, not what your sources claim them to be, and not nearly as strong as you seem to think them.
Quite frankly, going down the rabbit hole of your links smells an awful lot like going down the twoofer rabbit hole.
I have seen little evidence that you have ever evaluated the weaknesses in the cases you have presented here. When I point out those weaknesses, you simply move on to the next talking point.
That you, when asked direct questions, dissemble and deflect on first impulse, is pretty much exactly what the posted article would predict from someone experiencing cognitive dissonance.
I didn't dissemble and deflect on first impulse, I just evaluated the evidence you presented as not meeting a burden of proof I find sufficient to accept your conclusions.
Convince me Dmitri Alperovitch was correct in naming APT 28 as the source of the breach
Mass hypnosis is ruining political discourse. Have you seen these autistic screechers try to have a debate in the streets? They are so overcome with emotion that they have no idea what they are talking about.Triggered is not just a buzz word; we're talking CIA psyops, Operation Paperclip, Project Monarch, Project Bluebeam. If the people won't stand for something they will fall for anything.
I can point out more than one instance of you doing exactly that to direct questions.
Do you think you aren't evasive?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
