O/T:- Trump Presidency 2.0 [hic sunt dracones]

[andy6025]

Andy... from what debate about the pipeline are we abstaining, exactly? Our "Debate" consistently runs like this:

Andy: The Americans did it.
Jampie: What evidence of that is there? And why would they do it? The pipeline was shut down
Andy: *3-6 months of silence*
Andy: The Americans did it.
*sequence repeats*

Regarding your BBC story: entirely plausible and believable to me. Sounds like a case of government interference in BBC's editorial "independence", such as it exists. Personally I don't get the 0% though. Should that knock it down a peg and make you skeptical of BBC articles whenever they contradict convenient UK government narratives? Sure. But by golly, it doesn't put them below random youtubers or the bloody Kremlin, does it? Yikes.

I just don't think you can conclude, based on a handful of instances where the BBC did some BS, that the entire factual edifice they present is fabricated. That doesn't even make sense.

The video I posted shows claims by many American politicians, including Joe Biden, saying they wanted to put an end to the pipeline. I will leave you to decipher for yourself the obvious motivations behind their own claims. Seymour Hersh also wrote an article detailing how it was done that I am sure you have read.

And I did not say everything the BBC say is fabricated. I said that I do not trust any of it at face value, with the exceptions I already noted. When someone is proven to be a contemptuous liar, as you have admitted you believe the media and politicians are, then even if you claim to trust them to tell the truth roughly 80% of the time, how can you know which of their claims fall under the 80% and which fall under the 20%? It is only logical to be sceptical of 100% of it. That does not mean that 100% is fabricated, it means that 100% is subject to possible doubt.

Or, like Swale, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. As Samuel Clemens famously said, it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled!

[SwalePie]

Or, like Swale, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. As Samuel Clemens famously said, it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled!

Or, like Andy, you can throw logic out of the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. Andy chooses to believe the Kremlin's version of reality. I prefer others. Don't forget that your Clemens quote regarding fooling people also works both ways Andy.

I don't believe everything any particular medium or source tells me, that would make me a fool. I do, however, carefully select which media are deemed most trustworthy by the most informed people on such matters. Interestingly, the BBC tends to feature at, or near, the top of those lists and research results, particularly on a global basis.

It's a very sensible idea to question sources' validity and verity. It isn't a good idea to automatically believe or disbelieve them. That applies to the BBC, The Grauniad, The Telegraph and, obviously, to The Kremlin and it's networks.

[andy6025]

Or, like Andy, you can throw logic out of the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. Andy chooses to believe the Kremlin's version of reality. I prefer others. Don't forget that your Clemens quote regarding fooling people also works both ways Andy.

Except that you have failed to show that I take the Kremlin version of reality at face value. I do not think I have ever posted a link to the Kremlin on this website. Can you show that I have?

It goes without saying that we are all susceptible to deception, and of course that includes me. But thank you nevertheless for arriving at that obvious conclusion.

I don't believe everything any particular medium or source tells me, that would make me a fool. I do, however, carefully select which media are deemed most trustworthy by the most informed people on such matters.

Who, pray tell, are these most informed people? Is it the supposed expert guests on news programs such as the ones assembled in the clip I posted above? As shown, they certainly are not adverse to telling either bald faced porkies or being so stupid that they cannot tell their absurd claims from reality. Are they the experts you trust? If not, then whom?

It's a very sensible idea to question sources' validity and verity. It isn't a good idea to automatically believe or disbelieve them. That applies to the BBC, The Grauniad, The Telegraph and, obviously, to The Kremlin and it's networks.

That is indeed a great principle to follow. But when have you ever read or watched a Kremlin source? I would bet my bottom dollar that you have not tuned into or read a single one in the past 6 months. And yet here you are automatically dismissing them in violation of your own claimed principle. It is as I said above - people tend to believe in abstract theory that they are fairly critical of sources, and yet they consistently violate their own principles. Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

[SwalePie]

Except that you have failed to show that I take the Kremlin version of reality at face value. I do not think I have ever posted a link to the Kremlin on this website. Can you show that I have?

It goes without saying that we are all susceptible to deception, and of course that includes me. But thank you nevertheless for arriving at that obvious conclusion.



Who, pray tell, are these most informed people? Is it the supposed expert guests on news programs such as the ones assembled in the clip I posted above? As shown, they certainly are not adverse to telling either bald faced porkies or being so stupid that they cannot tell their absurd claims from reality. Are they the experts you trust? If not, then whom?



That is indeed a great principle to follow. But when have you ever read or watched a Kremlin source? I would bet my bottom dollar that you have not tuned into or read a single one in the past 6 months. And yet here you are automatically dismissing them in violation of your own claimed principle. It is as I said above - people tend to believe in abstract theory that they are fairly critical of sources, and yet they consistently violate their own principles. Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

Then you'd be wrong on pretty much all counts. Assumption is rarely a smart strategy Andy.

ETA: I will freely admit that I made a mistake getting involved in this thread as I am by no means an expert on the topics being discussed, similar to many other posters on it I suspect. You clearly have a lot of time on your hands to go into long replies and so on. Unfortunately I don't have that time (nor the inclination) so I'll leave you in peace. Apologies, by the way, as my opinions seem to have offended you a little and put you on the 'offensive defensive'. That was not my intention.

[Jampie]

The video I posted shows claims by many American politicians, including Joe Biden, saying they wanted to put an end to the pipeline. I will leave you to decipher for yourself the obvious motivations behind their own claims. Seymour Hersh also wrote an article detailing how it was done that I am sure you have read.

Nope, haven't read the article by Freegore Slarsh or whoever. Is there evidence in it?

The pipeline was shut down. What would the US gain from destroying a shut down pipeline? You have never answered this rather fundamental question.

You want me to believe... politicians now? No, wait, down below you say I shouldn't... so only when they agree with the kremlin narrative?

These statements the pollies made about the pipeline, what was the context? Were they made before the war? Was it about worrying that germany was too reliant on Russian gas? Those concerns were borne out weren't they...

And I did not say everything the BBC say is fabricated. I said that I do not trust any of it at face value, with the exceptions I already noted. When someone is proven to be a contemptuous liar, as you have admitted you believe the media and politicians are, then even if you claim to trust them to tell the truth roughly 80% of the time, how can you know which of their claims fall under the 80% and which fall under the 20%? It is only logical to be sceptical of 100% of it. That does not mean that 100% is fabricated, it means that 100% is subject to possible doubt.

That's a relief, you sound marginally saner to me when you say that. A minute ago we were living in a matrix though. That was disconcerting.

To answer your question, like you (paragraph above you, not Neo-Andy), I read an article and compare it with my knowledge of the world, other sources, the context, and the possible motivations of the authors, editors etc. Like most adults I guess. An article, no matter who writes it, is just a datapoint to me. More datapoints means a clearer picture. But yeah, generally a BBC datapoint is a hell of a lot stronger than a murdoch press one or a corpo-owned news one or some random video by some random guy. But no source is infallible.

Or, like Swale, you can throw logic out the window and believe whatever narratives your masters tell you in full confidence that you could never be fooled. As Samuel Clemens famously said, it is easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled!

Who are my masters? What are you talking about? Are we back in the matrix now?