(March 23, 2022 at 4:07 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Twitters official explanation was that they banned the Hunter story from being shared because it contained private information.

That's how it works. Just like sharing leaked nude pictures of Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence is not allowed because it's their private pictures and they have a right to sue whoever shares it without their consent. Remember what happened to those who shared Hulk Hogan's sex tape?

So if it turned out that it was indeed Hunter's laptop then they equally would not be allowed to share his photos.

The Pope's recent actions have sparked more conspiracy theories from Fátima secret extremists, some fearing Freemason influence and others suspecting the Pope is a Fátima true believer (someone who holds the Marian prophecies to be true and that they must be fulfilled with specific rituals to forestall an apocalypse) because although the Vatican said that it has been fulfilled, there are also some fringe Catholics who think that the Vatican is lying to them.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022...ories.html

(March 23, 2022 at 6:35 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(March 23, 2022 at 4:21 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: How do you decide who is serious and who isn’t? Their position on some claim? Or do you have some other method?

Track record and whether they appear to be a shill who has no principles. The people I named on the left (journalists and alt-media) are people that from years of watching and reading them, they appear to me to be principled, fairly consistent in those principles no matter which side of the aisle they are covering, and they genuinely appear to buy into what they are saying.

I noticed “evidence” wasn’t anywhere in your answer. Plenty of disingenuous people can and have successfully and convincingly faked being sincere about their beliefs. In fact, that’s one of the pinnacle qualities of an effective con-man. Therefore, the appearance of sincerity is not a consistently reliable method for assessing whether or not someone is telling the truth, or correct in what they’re claiming is true. You’re basically admitting you take people’s word for their claims, which is the same behavior you come here daily and deride us for. So, how come “evidence” isn’t part of your answer? I find that really peculiar.

(March 24, 2022 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 23, 2022 at 6:35 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: Track record and whether they appear to be a shill who has no principles. The people I named on the left (journalists and alt-media) are people that from years of watching and reading them, they appear to me to be principled, fairly consistent in those principles no matter which side of the aisle they are covering, and they genuinely appear to buy into what they are saying.

I noticed “evidence” wasn’t anywhere in your answer. Plenty of disingenuous people can and have successfully and convincingly faked being sincere about their beliefs. In fact, that’s one of the pinnacle qualities of an effective con-man. Therefore, the appearance of sincerity is not a consistently reliable method for assessing whether or not someone is telling the truth, or correct in what they’re claiming is true. You’re basically admitting you take people’s word for their claims, which is the same behavior you come here daily and deride us for. So, how come “evidence” isn’t part of your answer? I find that really peculiar.

Track record means that the people I named are better at parsing out the evidence/ information we have before us and coming to correct conclusions than mainstream media and the shills in online alternative left wing and right wing media (actually, most of these people know that they are merely spreading propaganda, but you get what I mean). I didn't claim that I believe people are making sense just because of their sincerity, but if I can tell someone is not just a complete cheerleader for their team and their main objective seems to be parsing out what is true rather than what narrative is going to help a certain political candidate, that is certainly a great starting point.

Still not starting your own company. Seems to me like you're advocating for censorship and force over the presses rather than building your own.

It's actually not that hard, btw......to make your own digital or physical press. Insanely difficult to make it profitable - but hey, you'll figure out twitter and youtubes dilemma when you get there, eh?

(March 24, 2022 at 4:53 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote:

(March 24, 2022 at 11:53 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I noticed “evidence” wasn’t anywhere in your answer. Plenty of disingenuous people can and have successfully and convincingly faked being sincere about their beliefs. In fact, that’s one of the pinnacle qualities of an effective con-man. Therefore, the appearance of sincerity is not a consistently reliable method for assessing whether or not someone is telling the truth, or correct in what they’re claiming is true. You’re basically admitting you take people’s word for their claims, which is the same behavior you come here daily and deride us for. So, how come “evidence” isn’t part of your answer? I find that really peculiar.

Track record means that the people I named are better at parsing out the evidence/ information we have before us and coming to correct conclusions than mainstream media and the shills in online alternative left wing and right wing media (actually, most of these people know that they are merely spreading propaganda, but you get what I mean).

This is an assertion that would, itself, need to be supported by argument and evidence.

Quote:I didn't claim that I believe people are making sense just because of their sincerity, but if I can tell someone is not just a complete cheerleader for their team and their main objective seems to be parsing out what is true rather than what narrative is going to help a certain political candidate, that is certainly a great starting point.

Bold mine.

As I already mentioned, humans are good at fooling and great at being fooled, so your intuitions of someone’s sincerity regarding a particular subject are fairly useless in the absence of any supporting evidence. You don’t seem to have a sound and consistently reliable method for parsing fact from falsehoods.

If you thought Russian propaganda was ever “sophisticated,” I hate to break it to you: it was always quite stupid. Still is. Here is their latest gem: Hunter Biden funded bio-labs in Ukraine. Handcrafted for Fox News.

Quote:The Russian government on Thursday accused Hunter Biden's investment fund of helping bankroll the Pentagon's alleged biolabs in Ukraine.

Igor Kirillov, the head of Russia's Radiation, Chemical and Biological Defence Troops, said the investment firm Biden is connected to, Rosemont Seneca, has been implicated in financing the biological program in Ukraine, Russian state-owned news agency Sputnik reported.

The U.S. Department of State said in its January report that the Kremlin uses the organization, along with the state-funded Russia Today outlet, to try and spread disinformation and propaganda to audiences outside of Russia in order to "influence the public opinion and foreign policy in favor of the Kremlin's political goals."

https://www.newsweek.com/hunder-biden-ru...ab-1691618

Will Smith Slapped Chris Rock and QAnon Is Starting Conspiracies About It

Conspiracy theorists immediately dismissed the smack as fake, designed to distract the world from the “real horrors” of Hollywood actors trafficking children and drinking their blood.

First out of the gate was Max Blumenthal, a journalist who has frequently defended Russia and recently claimed the Mariupol theater attack was actually a false-flag operation carried out by Ukraine’s Azov Battalion. 

they also pointed out that Smith had played Muhammed Ali in the past and if the slap had been real, Rock would not have been left standing.

Some believed the whole ceremony and the slap were just a way to communicate a secret message.

“They also use the live shows as comms,” a users of the QAnon message board Great Awakenings wrote. “It could have been a message to some operatives to go to Plan B.”

Others went even further, claiming that while the slap wasn’t fake, it wasn’t the real Will Smith.

“It’s not a fake incident but definitely clone cuz Will Smith is dead,” one member of a Telegram group linked to the JFK-QAnon cult in Dallas wrote. 

https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/g5qn...slap-qanon

They really need to pick a lane. Are we all okay with drinking the blood of children...or do we need a distraction to keep us from the awful truth?

"Darwin was hired by someone." Fox Nation host Lara Logan, a onetime CBS correspondent, says the Jewish Rothschilds paid Charles Darwin to develop evolution as a hoax intended as part of a world-domination plot.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/f...ar-AAVBqFH