9 ms·

This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. Sometimes life doesn't provid

by _dczq 7y ago

This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself. One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying? Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test. ==I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen.== Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.

mistermann 7y ago
> This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. By thought process I assume you're referring to listening to the various claims and rumors, and attempting to compare them versus factually confirmable evidence, keeping one's eyes open for misleading weasel language that may be intended to cause readers to form incorrect conclusions? If so, then yes, but I'm curious why you've chosen to associate it with 3 well known "conspiracy theories" that didn't do a very good job of this, rather than the far more plentiful and boring examples where it is used successfully in every day life across a wide variety of activities. Any additional clarity you can provide is appreciated as it may help me to better understand the truth. > Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself. I agree, you do indeed have to work with what life provides. What you don't have to do though, is believe everything you're told without question (especially when we have examples where we have been lied to, in some cases resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people), or form conclusions without concrete supporting evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, I feel perfectly comfortable with a stance of "I don't know". > One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying? This is an excellent question, and I have no answer to it. That behavior, if proven and described in a completely factual matter (as opposed to a casual, "story-telling" manner that might result in those who are less vigilant about the truth forming a factually incorrect conclusion - again, see the Iraq WMD story), should be in some way attached to the overall stance of "inconclusive", as it provides additional information that could be used to kind of swing the "what seems more likely based on what we know" needle to one side or the other. > Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test. I have absolutely no idea. Do you believe this proves guilt of the overall story? > Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? I have not. > They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. Is this what we are being asked to do here, except not in a court room but more so something of a "trial by social media" type of situation (something that's quite common recently)? If so, I believe that should be stated explicitly. I kind of get the feeling a narrative is being spun, and I personally don't care for that sort of behavior from public officials and the media, but this is just a personal preference, it seems to be very popular with a lot of people. > One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself. Oh ok, well this makes more sense then. I have repeatedly read in the media (and told, explicitly or implicitly, in forum discussions) that specific evidence has been provided that demonstrates specific guilt. Maybe, for the sake of efficiency and clarity of communication (because there seems to be an awful lot of disagreement on what's true), could you restate, in explicit words, whether or not specific, concrete and conclusive evidence has been released on this matter? And whether this is only an opinion, or if it is based on the reading of an official and explicit statement (again, in a "non-story-telling" manner) that this is the current, official state of the publicly released evidence, so that I could read the actual text and judge for myself? And just so my sentiments are clear, I'd like to explicitly state that I appreciate your taking serious interest in this story. Too many people take democracy for granted these days.
adamiscool8 7y ago
>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting? >Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts. It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.
- _dczq 7y ago
  ==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.== And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs. ==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?== Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign. ==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.== And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning? You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. ==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. == Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?

by _dczq 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. By thought process I assume you're referring to listening to the various claims and rumors, and attempting to compare them versus factually confirmable evidence, keeping one's eyes open for misleading weasel language that may be intended to cause readers to form incorrect conclusions? If so, then yes, but I'm curious why you've chosen to associate it with 3 well known "conspiracy theories" that didn't do a very good job of this, rather than the far more plentiful and boring examples where it is used successfully in every day life across a wide variety of activities. Any additional clarity you can provide is appreciated as it may help me to better understand the truth. > Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself. I agree, you do indeed have to work with what life provides. What you don't have to do though, is believe everything you're told without question (especially when we have examples where we have been lied to, in some cases resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people), or form conclusions without concrete supporting evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, I feel perfectly comfortable with a stance of "I don't know". > One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying? This is an excellent question, and I have no answer to it. That behavior, if proven and described in a completely factual matter (as opposed to a casual, "story-telling" manner that might result in those who are less vigilant about the truth forming a factually incorrect conclusion - again, see the Iraq WMD story), should be in some way attached to the overall stance of "inconclusive", as it provides additional information that could be used to kind of swing the "what seems more likely based on what we know" needle to one side or the other. > Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test. I have absolutely no idea. Do you believe this proves guilt of the overall story? > Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? I have not. > They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. Is this what we are being asked to do here, except not in a court room but more so something of a "trial by social media" type of situation (something that's quite common recently)? If so, I believe that should be stated explicitly. I kind of get the feeling a narrative is being spun, and I personally don't care for that sort of behavior from public officials and the media, but this is just a personal preference, it seems to be very popular with a lot of people. > One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself. Oh ok, well this makes more sense then. I have repeatedly read in the media (and told, explicitly or implicitly, in forum discussions) that specific evidence has been provided that demonstrates specific guilt. Maybe, for the sake of efficiency and clarity of communication (because there seems to be an awful lot of disagreement on what's true), could you restate, in explicit words, whether or not specific, concrete and conclusive evidence has been released on this matter? And whether this is only an opinion, or if it is based on the reading of an official and explicit statement (again, in a "non-story-telling" manner) that this is the current, official state of the publicly released evidence, so that I could read the actual text and judge for myself? And just so my sentiments are clear, I'd like to explicitly state that I appreciate your taking serious interest in this story. Too many people take democracy for granted these days.

adamiscool8 7y ago

>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting? >Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts. It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.

_dczq 7y ago
==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.== And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs. ==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?== Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign. ==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.== And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning? You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. ==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. == Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable. Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?