Hacker News Reader

Comment by redis_mlc | Hacker News Reader

Actually, no.

Virtually everything the leftist media has printed in the past 4 years has been shown to be false:

- WaPo admitted Trump's phone call conversation to an election official was faked (used in the second impeachment)

- Twitter has admitted they shouldn't have suppressed the Hunter Biden stories

- fact-checking by many social media sites has been outsourced to interested parties, often controlled by the Dem party or CCP

- there was no insurrection, since the 5 people who died were not killed by rioters, were mostly let into the Capitol by police, and didn't have guns.

I could go on, but it turns out the left/Dems are outright daily liars.

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27108755.

It is only going to take us to a Trump flamewar, and a Trump flamewar isn't going to take us anywhere new.

I would be interested in the sources of your claims.

I'm not. It's become my opinion that there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory. Back in the day we saw Nazis and fascists take these rhetorical angles, because even many many years ago people had worked out that you could seize power by negotiating for victory rather than in good faith. The techniques of this are really long established and not even the technology is really new: back in the day, it was the existence of radio that was the technological breakthrough, and now it's control of things like Twitter and Facebook that correspond to that situation.

The poster you're responding to doesn't appear to be operating in good faith, so the sources are irrelevant: they're purely vapor. You can just make stuff up and claim it, and if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative and legitimized the thing you made up. You can con yourself into believing it if you're a paranoid type, or you can be just out to manipulate. It does not matter whether you're sincere or not. It's the outcome you're after.

I'm not interested in their sources. They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position, and it really doesn't matter whether that is out of delusion or manipulation.

> there's a substantial political movement that will say or do anything for victory

Well, how can one verify if something is correct or not if there is no link to sources? Without sources, there is no way. With the sources, one can verify the sources, if needed in depth (recursively). (Except if one side controls all the sources, as done in the book 1984. But in the western society, we are not in this position yet, luckily.)

Neural networks have relatively stable connections (neurons know only neighbours, and assign thrust / weight to each other). That is a "gossip". But as a society, we want a faster way. But faster ways (radio, TV, Twitter, Facebook... this site here) are more dangerous, so we need the sources.

> if you can get someone to argue over the stuff, you've just become ONE SIDE of a both-sides narrative

And you steal other peoples times.

> They're giving enough 'tells' that they're operating from sort of a post-reality position

For you, yes. But for others, it might not be obvious. So calling out "where are the sources", and then seeing there are no reliable sources, might help those others.

I was also asking for sources so I can adjust my "weight" to those sources. You can guess in which direction the adjustment goes :-)

> - WaPo admitted Trump's phone call conversation to an election official was faked (used in the second impeachment)

False:

"""However, Trump has used the correction to claim in a statement that “the original story was a Hoax, right from the very beginning,” which is untrue. The original story that got so much attention was Trump’s call with Raffensperger, for which we had the full and accurate transcript all along. It has not been corrected. Furthermore, it remains the case that Trump did in fact call Watson to insist he won the state and that she should turn up evidence revealing fraud. “The country is counting on it,” he said.

Overall, the Post’s correction changes what we know about the exact words Trump said to Watson, but it doesn’t fundamentally change our understanding of what Trump was saying and doing to Georgia state officials at the time."""

Reply on news.ycombinator.com