[mdhb]

I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely.

It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did?

You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.

[austin-cheney]

Its a form of cognitive conservatism. You asked question A, and I gave you answer B, but you expected answer C. You cannot reconcile the gap between answers B and C, a dysjunct syllogism. The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.

Apparently also either an inability or unwillingness to explain these alternate premises.

This comment hits the nail on the head: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45211312

You do not seem to be engaging in liberal discourse, but propaganda instead.

[yetihehe]

Another case of "Trying to play chess with a pidgeon".

"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").

[austin-cheney]

I have told you my opinion and you either are incapable of understanding it or choose to not understand it because diverging opinions aren't of interest to you. I am not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but agreement appears to be all you seek. I really don't care if you agree with me and I am not trying to convince you of anything. This seem lost on you.

[zahlman]

The comment you're linking to was rightfully flagged and killed. Your characterization of "propaganda" is completely uncalled for.

The premises were explained before the questioning even started:

> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.

The entire point was that the claim

> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.

has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.

Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.

The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.

Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.

[mdhb]

I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information. I don’t think in the way you intended to do so at all but I’m suddenly a lot less confused.

[zahlman]

> I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information.

GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.

[austin-cheney]

Too many big words trip you up? That's what I was going for.

[mdhb]

More a case of it’s very clear that you think you’re much more intelligent than everyone else around you thinks you are. Of course it’s a natural fit. You couldn’t have provided a clearer explanation with that response it genuinely made me laugh.

[austin-cheney]

I do. What’s weird though is that you find that offensive, as if this is somehow a competition. It’s not. There is no prize, no winning. I am not selling anything or asking for any vote. I owe you nothing.

[mdhb]

For the fifth or sixth time now, your lack of reading comprehension has lead to a situation where you responded to the post you wish was written rather than the one that was actually written.

I said I was laughing at you, not that you offended me. Those two things are worlds apart and the fact that you mixed them up once again is the precise reason why people are laughing at you here. The lack of self awareness is a spectacle at this point.