9 ms·

It looks like you're also assuming: 3) whoever posted to the wikileaks twitter account didn't first consider the more obvious hypotheses. Which seems like a ra

by dlss 10y ago

It looks like you're also assuming: 3) whoever posted to the wikileaks twitter account didn't first consider the more obvious hypotheses. Which seems like a rather large issue with your theory.

mikeash 10y ago
Not considering it, or considering it but not believing it. Edit: or considering it, believing it, and deliberately lying. I see no reason to trust their judgment here. As the kids might say these days, evidence or GTFO.
mejari 10y ago
Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.
- dlss 10y ago
  > Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it. Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikileaks_might_have_meant_by_that_anti_semitic_tweet.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of why it's anti-semitic starts off with "this might be a little hard to follow" -- not something you'd expect in an article throwing around serious accusations. Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. --reputation[Slate]; > and wild conspiracy theories Interesting, any you'd care to link? > You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility. I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...
  - mejari 10y ago
    >I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). It's using the clearly anti-Semitic (((echo))) format, and linking those people to a mysterious cabal working against them. That is an incredibly standard anti-Semitic view. In what way is that not prejudiced against Jews? >Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? I'm honestly asking what the simpler explanation is for them including that, and then going on to link (((those people))) to an international conspiracy, something people have accused Jews of for centuries. >Interesting, any you'd care to link? http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_... >I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor... Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning.
    - dlss 10y ago
      > What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? That they'd never heard of the key? (I hadn't, as the slate reporter seemed to anticipate with their "might be a little hard to follow" comment) > http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_... Offering a reward is not the same as "[posting] wild conspiracy theories," which is what you claimed they did. Posting a wild conspiracy theory in this case would be openly accusing a specific person or group of people of murder with no evidence. I would call this "wanting to fact check a conspiracy theory," which I view as a good thing generally, and especially good in the case of wikileaks. > Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning. They could, but this would require them to assume no one would figure out the actual cause -- aka a lot of cost with no benefit. Seems surprisingly stupid/pointless/shortsighted.

by dlss 10y ago

It looks like you're also assuming: 3) whoever posted to the wikileaks twitter account didn't first consider the more obvious hypotheses. Which seems like a rather large issue with your theory.

mikeash 10y ago

Not considering it, or considering it but not believing it. Edit: or considering it, believing it, and deliberately lying. I see no reason to trust their judgment here. As the kids might say these days, evidence or GTFO.

mejari 10y ago

Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets and wild conspiracy theories. You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility.

dlss 10y ago
> Whoever runs the Wikileaks twitter has posted anti-Semitic tweets I was surprised by your claim that wikileaks posted something antisemitic, so I googled for it. Is http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikileaks_might_have_meant_by_that_anti_semitic_tweet.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/25/what_wikil... what you're talking about? I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). Like, the article's explanation of why it's anti-semitic starts off with "this might be a little hard to follow" -- not something you'd expect in an article throwing around serious accusations. Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. --reputation[Slate]; > and wild conspiracy theories Interesting, any you'd care to link? > You're also assuming that whoever posts to the Wikileaks twitter account doesn't want people to believe the most sympathetic, conspiratorial possibility. I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor...
- mejari 10y ago
  >I don't agree that's antisemetic in any honest sense of that word (ie "hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews"). It's using the clearly anti-Semitic (((echo))) format, and linking those people to a mysterious cabal working against them. That is an incredibly standard anti-Semitic view. In what way is that not prejudiced against Jews? >Hanlon's razor is the obvious objection, and goes unaddressed. What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? I'm honestly asking what the simpler explanation is for them including that, and then going on to link (((those people))) to an international conspiracy, something people have accused Jews of for centuries. >Interesting, any you'd care to link? http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_... >I'm merely assuming they aren't going to be obviously incompetent? Like, maybe the phrasing will be self-serving... but look at GP... he's seriously suggesting that they may have mistaken a gardening accident for a state actor... Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning.
  - dlss 10y ago
    > What is Hanlon's razor for including an anti-Semitic key in their tweet? That they'd never heard of the key? (I hadn't, as the slate reporter seemed to anticipate with their "might be a little hard to follow" comment) > http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_is_fanning_a_conspiracy_theory_that_hillary_murdered_a_dnc_staffer.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/09/wikileaks_... Offering a reward is not the same as "[posting] wild conspiracy theories," which is what you claimed they did. Posting a wild conspiracy theory in this case would be openly accusing a specific person or group of people of murder with no evidence. I would call this "wanting to fact check a conspiracy theory," which I view as a good thing generally, and especially good in the case of wikileaks. > Intentionally misleading/lying isn't being incompetent. They could know or think that it was an accident, but intentionally spin it as foul play to reinforce the narrative they've been spinning. They could, but this would require them to assume no one would figure out the actual cause -- aka a lot of cost with no benefit. Seems surprisingly stupid/pointless/shortsighted.