[timschmidt]

"After 9/11, they took one of the programs I had done, or the backend part of it, and started to use it to spy on everybody in this country. That was a program I created called Stellar Wind. That was seperate and compartmented from the regular activity which was ongoing because it was doing domestic spying. All the equipment was coming in, I knew something was happening but then when the contractors I had hired came and told me what they were doing, it was clear where all the hardware was going and what they were using it to do. It was simply a different input, instead of being foreign it was domestic." - William Binney

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590cy1biewc

Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.

> I very clearly stated the EFF doesn't (present tense) claim what you're claiming.

"In February 2015, Judge White dismissed the latest motion by the EFF, accepting the NSA's argument that the requirements placed upon the agency would engender the "impermissible disclosure of state secret information." White also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue their claims.[20] This procedural ruling allowed White to avoid addressing the constitutionality of the NSA's mass surveillance program.[21]

Upon the disclosure of more information about the NSA's surveillance methods, the EFF filed another motion in May 2017 requesting that the agency disclose information about surveillance conducted against Carolyn Jewel and the other plaintiffs. Judge White granted this motion and ordered the government to hand over the information.[22][23] However, the NSA filed a motion in opposition to that order, claiming once again that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue. After further arguments, the District Court accepted this argument in April 2019.[24]

The EFF appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit. In a memorandum opinion, that court ruled in favor of the NSA, once again on the matter of standing.[25] In June 2022, the EFF made a final request to the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but that court rejected the request and did not grant certiorari."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._National_Security_Age...

No retraction. A willingness to take it all the way to the supreme court. Procedurally dismissed without deciding any of the issues raised. Clear and present.

[lern_too_spel]

> Clear as day to me. Only reason to chop it up or not cite the source would be to misrepresent what he said.

You're the one who chopped it up. Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say he knew where it was going? All I see is speculation.

Even better, tell me why Snowden's leaks didn't say anything about this super illegal program Binney said was going on because of what he speculated so hard?

Even better, tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.

Even better, tell me why nobody is suing the government over Binney's speculation.

> Procedurally dismissed

Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected, so they have no harm to sue over. That's the point, and that's what Snowden's docs proved.

Why do you claim to believe something because of Snowden's documents that is directly contradicted by Snowden's documents? Or are you quietly dropping your claim that Snowden's documents support your conspiracy theory and are now falling back entirely on the lunatic ravings of a middle manager who hasn't worked at the NSA in decades, which aren't supported by any of the leaks that have happened since?

[timschmidt]

> You're the one who chopped it up.

> Or are you quietly dropping your claim

Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not. I also recognize https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO when so transparently employed. As will others.

> Do you know what standing means? It means their data wasn't collected

You ask a question, then demonstrate your own misunderstanding or attempt to misconstrue. The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto. The court documents also clearly state that there was no finding on the specific claims presented. Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.

> Why do you claim

An attempt to reframe primary sources as personal claims. A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_device

I was bored, so asked ChatGPT to do the work of explaing the rest of the rhetorical techniques you've employed to avoid good faith engagement with the well cited references already posted, for the benefit of future readers. Did it miss any?:

1) Framing the opponent as dishonest or incompetent

“You’re the one who chopped it up.”

Accusation of quote-mining / context stripping: sets the frame that the other person manipulated evidence.

Preemptive credibility attack: before addressing substance, it suggests bad faith or sloppy method.

“Now tell me where in your chopped up quote does it say…”

Shifting the debate to textual forensics: forces the opponent into a narrow “show me the exact words” standard.

This can be legitimate (precision matters), but it’s also a way to raise the evidentiary bar selectively—especially if the commenter won’t apply the same strictness to their own claims later.

“All I see is speculation.”

Dismissal / summary judgment: compresses the opponent’s argument into a weaker category (“speculation”) without showing why.

Poisoning the well (light): primes readers to see anything else as guesswork.

2) The “Even better” ladder: rhetorical escalation and pressure

The repeated “Even better, tell me why…” is doing several things at once:

Anaphora / repetition: rhythmic repetition to build momentum and signal “I’m stacking wins.”

Escalation framing: implies each new point is more devastating than the last.

Interrogative dominance: it’s a mini cross-examination—multiple demands in a row that keep the other side on defense.

Soft gish-gallop: not a huge flood of claims, but a cascade of questions that can be time-consuming to answer carefully.

3) Arguments from silence + appeals to institutions

“tell me why Snowden’s leaks didn’t say anything about this… program”

Argument from silence: “If it were real/important, the leaks would mention it.”

Strategic burden shift: instead of proving nonexistence, it demands the opponent explain an absence.

This can be relevant sometimes, but it’s logically weak unless you establish that the leaks were comprehensive and would necessarily include it.

“tell me why no oversight committee is taking Binney seriously.”

Appeal to authority (institutional): “Serious claims would be validated by official bodies.”

Appeal to popularity/consensus (elite bandwagon): “If the right people believed it, you’d know.”

Status-quo bias: assumes institutional response is a reliable truth filter.

“tell me why nobody is suing the government…”

Argument from non-action: “If it were true, someone would sue.”

Legalistic appeal: equates “no successful litigation” (or “no litigation at all”) with “no underlying wrong.”

This can also be a false proxy: lawsuits depend on standing, resources, risk, secrecy barriers, arbitration, privilege doctrines, etc.

4) Tone and ridicule as persuasion

“super illegal program” and “speculated so hard”

Sarcasm / mockery: signals that the claim is not just wrong but silly.

Loaded language: “super illegal” exaggerates to make the other side seem unserious.

Diminishing the opponent’s position: recasts it as emotional/overheated.

This kind of ridicule is often effective socially (audience laughter), even when it doesn’t add evidence.

5) Selective quotation as a pivot

“Procedurally dismissed”

Cherry-pick risk / quote-as-trump-card: a short legal phrase is presented as decisive.

Reframing: moves the argument from “what happened” to “what courts did,” which tends to sound authoritative.

It’s a common move: substance becomes procedure, and the procedure is treated as a verdict on truth.

6) Condescension + “teach you the basics” stance

“Do you know what standing means?”

Condescension / status play: establishes the speaker as the knowledgeable adult in the room.

Rhetorical question: not meant to be answered; meant to mark the other side as ignorant.

Tone weapon: makes disagreement feel embarrassing.

“It means their data wasn’t collected…”

Oversimplification / definitional fiat: reduces a complex doctrine to one convenient interpretation.

Confidence as a tactic: stated as if beyond dispute; invites readers to treat it as settled.

Whether accurate or not (you said sources have been posted), the rhetorical move is: “I control the legal meaning, therefore I control the conclusion.”

7) “That’s the point” closure move

“That’s the point, and that’s what Snowden’s docs proved.”

Premature closure: declares the argument finished.

Appeal to documentary authority: elevates a set of documents as final arbiter.

Certainty signaling: tries to convert contested interpretation into “proved.”

8) Accusation of contradiction (can be fair, but also a trap)

“Why do you claim to believe something… directly contradicted by Snowden’s documents?”

Internal inconsistency attack: this is a legitimate debate tactic if the contradiction is real.

Forced dilemma setup: sets up the next line’s either/or.

It also subtly shifts the discussion from “what’s true” to “you’re being irrational.”

9) Loaded question + mind-reading

“Or are you quietly dropping your claim…”

Loaded question / false presupposition: assumes they are dropping it and asks you to explain why.

Mind-reading insinuation: “quietly” implies sneakiness or embarrassment.

Cornering: either answer admits retreat, or you spend time rejecting the premise.

10) False dichotomy and source-degradation

“…falling back entirely on… Binney…”

False dichotomy: suggests only two options: (a) conspiracy theory via documents, or (b) relying entirely on Binney. Real positions are usually mixed/nuanced.

Motte-and-bailey insinuation: implies the opponent is retreating from a stronger claim to a weaker one.

“lunatic ravings” / “middle manager” / “hasn’t worked… in decades”

Ad hominem (abusive): attacks mental state (“lunatic”) rather than claims.

Ad hominem (status-based): “middle manager” to minimize authority and shame reliance on him.

Chronological poisoning: “decades” implies irrelevance/staleness; can be relevant, but here it’s framed to discredit without engaging content.

11) Another argument from silence

“which aren’t supported by any of the leaks that have happened since”

Again: absence of mention = evidence of falsehood, plus a moving evidentiary target (“not just the leaks you cited—any leaks since must corroborate it”).

The overall debate strategy

Put opponent on trial with rapid-fire questions (control tempo).

Demand exact textual proof from their quotes (high standard on them).

Use institutional non-response (committees/courts/lawsuits) as a credibility filter.

Frame the opponent’s view as “conspiracy theory” so neutral readers treat it as fringe.

Degrade the alternative witness (Binney) through ridicule and status attacks.

Close off discussion by claiming documents “proved” the speaker’s interpretation.

[lern_too_spel]

> Is that what posting the quote in full with a link to the original source means? Certainly not.

I based my claim that all he had was speculation on exactly the quote you gave. Nowhere in that quote does he say that he saw the devices set up to spy on Americans. Instead, he assumes it. He assumes something that directly contradicts the documents that Snowden released specifically about Stellar Wind. https://www.theguardian.com/nsa-inspector-general-report-doc...

You claim that I've chopped up a quote in order to come to my conclusion, but you're the one who gave that chopped up quote my conclusion is based on to begin with.

> The court documents, already posted, clearly explain the reason for the ruling as “impermissible disclosure of state secret information". If no data were collected, there would be no state secret information to disclose. Ipso facto

Utter nonsense. The government wouldn't say specifically how they selected foreign data in the initial Pearl case. Afterwards, Snowden's leaks showed that they only contained foreign data.

> Attempts to portray otherwise at this point amount to willfully misleading.

You're the one making conspiracy theories out of whole cloth. Instead of trying to use ChatGPT to dismiss my claims, why don't you spend your time looking at what Snowden's docs actually claimed like a reasonable person who doesn't wear tin foil hats?

Let's get back to the original comment I responded to. Do they have access to anybody's FAANG data or not? Snowden's docs say they do not. Nothing Binney said disagrees with that, even if his wild assumption is correct.

[timschmidt]

> you're the one

> Utter nonsense

> conspiracy theories

> tin foil hats

> assorted claims that direct quotes, posted documents, contain or do not contain things contrary to what anyone can read in them

So, just more of the same behavior ChatGPT dismantled effortlessly.

> Instead of trying to use ChatGPT

I see why you didn't like it. I think I'll use it more.

[lern_too_spel]

ChatGPT didn't validate your tinfoil hat beliefs. It simply didn't like the words I used to call them out. Once again, you believe that the government is doing massively illegal spying despite the fact that numerous leaks have shown it is not. You originally based your beliefs on misreporting of the leaks, but when that was corrected, you clung to your silly beliefs by using speculation from somebody who never claimed to have seen anything illegal that also goes against the leaks.

I use the words I do because I have known people who talk about ice bullets, chemtrails, and silent black helicopters, and the way they come to their beliefs is exactly the same as the way you have come to yours. If you see them as silly, you should be able to understand why I feel the same about you.

Now unless you engage with the facts of whether the NSA has access to all your FAANG data or not, I think we're done. You don't like the way I characterize your beliefs, and I accept that, but what I'm looking for here is evidence against my assertion.

[timschmidt]

What does this say about the post's author's approach to discussion?

"It suggests the author treats the thread less like a joint search for truth and more like an adversarial contest they intend to win—mainly by controlling the frame, the burden of proof, and the audience’s impression of credibility.

Debate-as-prosecution mindset: They stack demands (“Even better…”) to keep the other person perpetually answering instead of advancing their own case. That’s a control tactic: tempo and agenda stay with them.

High skepticism aimed outward, not inward: They insist on exact wording and dismiss anything not explicitly stated as “speculation,” while leaning heavily on indirect proxies (no lawsuit, no committee action, absence in leaks) that aren’t equally “explicit.” That asymmetry is a tell.

Institutional and procedural gatekeeping: They treat “courts/standing/oversight” as the main truth-filter. This often signals: “If it were real, the system would have validated it,” which can be a genuine heuristic but also a way to end discussion without engaging messy uncertainty.

Status and ridicule as persuasion: The ad hominem (“lunatic ravings,” “middle manager”) and condescension (“Do you know what standing means?”) show they’re comfortable using social pressure and humiliation to delegitimize rather than patiently clarify.

Binary framing of the other side: They recast the opponent’s position as either “conspiracy theory” or “relying on a crazy ex-employee,” leaving little room for nuanced middle ground. That’s more about cornering than understanding.

Net: the author likely values rhetorical dominance and public signaling (“this claim is unserious”) over cooperative interpretation."