New video of pipe bomb suspect released.

[onlinebiker]

I mock those that jump on board the bandwagon  because they find a version of a story that fits what they already believe.

Beliefs are not facts.

They deserve mocking .

Beliefs only deserve mocking when they go against the known facts.  And, at the moment, nothing known goes against the hypotheses that a Trump supporter planting the bombs A) to do some legitimate harm, even if their limitations prevent them from doing much harm, B) as a diversionary tactic to draw police away from the Capitol, or C) just to scare the DNC and RNC. Indeed, it looks like the FBI thinks these are likely hypotheses.

And, while Trump's supporters have far more to lose from a bomb attack, frankly, that hasn't stopped them before and if they're dedicated enough to baseless conspiracy theories about how Trump won the election in spite of literally all the evidence pointing to that to the point where they're willing to storm the capital and overthrow the government, forgive me for not assuming that their moral calculus is going to work the same way yours did.

If they catch the guy and it turns out it was actually, I dunno, some weird sort of ad campaign for their TV series and the timing was an unfortunate coincidence, or that it was actually a false flag committed by the left to make the opposition look worse, then arguing that it was a Trump-supporter's plot would deserve mocking. Until then (or some other information comes out), these hypotheses are valid.

They are not fucking "hypotheses". They are allegations or accusations.

[Rev. Rye]

Hypothesis and Allegation aren't mutually exclusive.

Definitions (all provided by the Oxford English Dictionary):

• Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
  
• Allegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
  
• Accusation: A charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
  

The idea that whoever placed the pipe bombs at the RNC was a particularly deranged Trump supporter is an accusation and an allegation (though a non-specific one since I can't say which of the 74 million plus people who voted for Trump in the last election or if they're affiliated with any of the thousands of people who went to see the Trump rally the next day.) But it's also a hypothesis consistent with all the (admittedly limited for obvious reasons) evidence available to me, and, as I've mentioned before, it's not just a hypothesis that the left-wing hivemind or the mainstream media are pushing for whatever reason (because it's not like the Capitol Riot provided them so little ammunition that they just had to create a far-right threat where none existed), it's one that the people that are investigating the case are pursuing and, until more information comes out, that's a pretty good basis for believing it.*

---

*Note on that last bit: Before you dismiss it as an Argument from Authority, bear in mind, there's a fallacious and a non-fallacious version of the Argument from Authority:

Fallacious version:
P1: Experts on X are usually correct about X. (In which case, read Experts as "the police or whatever you think we're getting our info from" and X as "the pipe bombs being placed")
P2: Those experts say P is correct. (For P, read: "the claim that a Trump supporter planted the bombs at the RNC and DNC".)
C: Therefore P is definitely correct.

Non-Fallacious Version:
P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.
P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct. (For Experts, read "the people who are investigating the subject and have spoken to the press about it, and keep P the same as the previous example.)
C: P is probably correct.

I (and presumably most of us here) are arguing the non-fallacious version, with a caveat that the consensus in P2 only relates to what the public can figure out. If you can't tell the difference, maybe shut your face.

[The Architect Of Fate]

They are not fucking "hypotheses". They are allegations or accusations.

Not according to the definition of the word hypotheses. Do you think your the one who gets to decide what words mean? Oh, wait your the guy who thinks any consideration of race is racism.

---

Hypothesis and Allegation aren't mutually exclusive.

Definitions (all provided by the Oxford English Dictionary):

• Hypothesis: A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
  
• Allegation: A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.
  
• Accusation: A charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.
  

The idea that whoever placed the pipe bombs at the RNC was a particularly deranged Trump supporter is an accusation and an allegation (though a non-specific one since I can't say which of the 74 million plus people who voted for Trump in the last election or if they're affiliated with any of the thousands of people who went to see the Trump rally the next day.) But it's also a hypothesis consistent with all the (admittedly limited for obvious reasons) evidence available to me, and, as I've mentioned before, it's not just a hypothesis that the left-wing hivemind or the mainstream media are pushing for whatever reason (because it's not like the Capitol Riot provided them so little ammunition that they just had to create a far-right threat where none existed), it's one that the people that are investigating the case are pursuing and, until more information comes out, that's a pretty good basis for believing it.*

---

*Note on that last bit: Before you dismiss it as an Argument from Authority, bear in mind, there's a fallacious and a non-fallacious version of the Argument from Authority:

Fallacious version:
   P1: Experts on X are usually correct about X. (In which case, read Experts as "the police or whatever you think we're getting our info from" and X as "the pipe bombs being placed")
   P2: Those experts say P is correct. (For P, read: "the claim that a Trump supporter planted the bombs at the RNC and DNC".)
   C: Therefore P is definitely correct.

Non-Fallacious Version:
   P1: Experts on a subject are usually correct.
   P2: Experts on the subject have a consensus that P is correct. (For Experts, read "the people who are investigating the subject and have spoken to the press about it, and keep P the same as the previous example.)
   C: P is probably correct.

I (and presumably most of us here) are arguing the non-fallacious version, with a caveat that the consensus in P2 only relates to what the public can figure out. If you can't tell the difference, maybe shut your face.

 This ^^^