3 ms·

> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here ar

> No, I disagree with all 4 points, in point of fact Perhaps I'm confused here, what do you believe the facts are? I don't want to misrepresent you, so here are my questions, numbered for easy reference: 1. Was the IP address in the crowdstrike report you cited ever affiliated with the Russian government? 2. Who or what developed the X-Agent software? 3. Do you believe the X-agent software was used in the DNC attack? If not, how do you believe the DNC hacked? 4. Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? (keep in mind that the Democratic party has recently been far more anti-Russia than the Republican Party, so the evidence I have suggests that Democratic foreign policy would be more aggressive towards Russia than Republican. Obama, Trump, and Biden's actual foreign policy actions, e.g. in Syria, support this hypothesis) 5. Do you believe the account in [0] is reliable? If not, what is your explanation of what occurred, and what evidence do you use to reach your conclusion? 6. Do you believe that this[1] highly redacted senate report is evidence? That is, do you put believe that anything can be inferred from the fact that US intelligence services believe that this attack was undertaken by Russia, and have presented that conclusion (and, presumably, some evidence supporting this conclusion) to the Senate Intelligence Committee? Related does it hold any value to you that no one on the SIC has denied that this hack was Russian-originated (and in fact a number of Repulbican members have agreed that he hack was done by Russian state actors)? Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions, you must have some belief that is most likely, even if none is held with much confidence, please provide that belief. > An extraordinary claim should have unambiguous, clear, unassailable proof. My claim is that based on the evidence we have, the most likely explanation is that the attack was undertaken by Russia. What about this is "extraordinary"? If you mean the broader claim, "Russia did a successful cyberattack against the US", I again don't see what is extraordinary about that claim. > A flood of circumstantial evidence of dubious provenance, no matter how earnestly believed by the politically motivated, should not be enough to destabilize the Office of US Presidency (no matter how much one finds the holder of the office distasteful) nor make dangerous accusations of foreign nations. I'm confused, I'm not making any claim about the any president. I'm making claims about a cyberattack. I'm unclear what about "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" is a dangerous claim. I'd make the same claim, in general, about the US. I'm quite confident that the US undertakes cyber-espionage against Russia too. I just don't have any particular examples at hand, but if you cited one, I wouldn't consider it "dangerous". > The proof of all of which, if it exists at all, is buried under a warren of circular self-references, and journalists who breathlessly report them as known. I'm confused, I'm referencing an[0] indictment by Robert Muller against the named GRU agents accused of carrying out the attack in question. There's no journalists involved at all. [0]: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download [1]: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

rendall 5y ago
> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. "Who wrote X-Agent?" "It was definitely Russians" is not a valid answer, either. An indictment is not evidence. It's an accusation. Show the evidence, let it be examined, cross-examined, etc. No, spooks' testimony is not credible by itself, not after they repeatedly lied under oath, to both congress and the public. > "Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? " "geopolitically" not to nitpick, but you probably mean plain "politically" Not necessarily. Clinton was already cosy with the Russians as State Secretary. Trump was an unknown quantity. Asserting anything else is a retcon. > "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. Ok, I think it's clear that there's no more fruitful exchange to happen on this topic. I tried to demonstrate that the evidence must be extraordinary and that it does not rise to that level. You disagree. You tried to demonstrate to me that the evidence is extraordinary. I disagree. Know that I'll read your reply, and absorb it, and think on it, but likely won't answer. Let us amicably agree to disagree on this.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  > Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. You're absolutely correct, but based on the weight of the evidence we have, we can find a most likely explanation. You've previously stated that all explanations bare equally likely, but that's not true. Bayesian reasoning allows us to look at various pieces of evidence and priors and weigh them, even when all are individually of dubious use. It's clear you don't want to answer any of those questions. They're simpler questions, my assumption here, again based on the weight of the evidence is that you're avoiding answering them because they demonstrate that Russia being responsible is the most likely answer. As another user mentions, you're showing lots of examples of motivated reasoning, and that's unfortunate. Even more so that you're then projecting these accusations upon me. Hopefully your inability to engage with the substance of what I've presented will demonstrate that to any other readers. > You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. Yes and, this is a valid rhetorical act when, for example suggesting the abstract idea one is discussing. > The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. That's not an accusation I made. Nor did any one else in this thread. And I'd agree that it is less likely than what I'm actually suggesting, which is that there wasn't collusion per say, but simply mutually beneficial actions. This is what is supported by the weight of the evidence and claimed in government reports, for example. That Russia hacked and leaked DNC data, to the benefit of the trump campaign and Russia itself, obviously. I'm unclear why you feel it necessary to inflate the accusations made to something less likely. This feels very motte-and-bailey, although I can't tell if it was intentional or a subconscious way to protect your preconception.

rendall 5y ago

> Please note "I don't know" isn't a valid answer to any of these questions Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. "Who wrote X-Agent?" "It was definitely Russians" is not a valid answer, either. An indictment is not evidence. It's an accusation. Show the evidence, let it be examined, cross-examined, etc. No, spooks' testimony is not credible by itself, not after they repeatedly lied under oath, to both congress and the public. > "Do you believe the data stolen in the DNC hack and later leaked was geopolitically useful to the Russian government? " "geopolitically" not to nitpick, but you probably mean plain "politically" Not necessarily. Clinton was already cosy with the Russians as State Secretary. Trump was an unknown quantity. Asserting anything else is a retcon. > "The Russian government undertook cyber-espionage against the US" You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. Ok, I think it's clear that there's no more fruitful exchange to happen on this topic. I tried to demonstrate that the evidence must be extraordinary and that it does not rise to that level. You disagree. You tried to demonstrate to me that the evidence is extraordinary. I disagree. Know that I'll read your reply, and absorb it, and think on it, but likely won't answer. Let us amicably agree to disagree on this.

joshuamorton 5y ago
> Wait, what? I don't know most of these answers. Neither do you. You're absolutely correct, but based on the weight of the evidence we have, we can find a most likely explanation. You've previously stated that all explanations bare equally likely, but that's not true. Bayesian reasoning allows us to look at various pieces of evidence and priors and weigh them, even when all are individually of dubious use. It's clear you don't want to answer any of those questions. They're simpler questions, my assumption here, again based on the weight of the evidence is that you're avoiding answering them because they demonstrate that Russia being responsible is the most likely answer. As another user mentions, you're showing lots of examples of motivated reasoning, and that's unfortunate. Even more so that you're then projecting these accusations upon me. Hopefully your inability to engage with the substance of what I've presented will demonstrate that to any other readers. > You're literally putting quotes around something I did not write. Yes and, this is a valid rhetorical act when, for example suggesting the abstract idea one is discussing. > The accusation was far stronger than that. The accusation was that the Russians, WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign colluded to get Trump elected in exchange for preferential treatment. The DNC hack was a small part of it. But no, there's no evidence of that small part, either. That's not an accusation I made. Nor did any one else in this thread. And I'd agree that it is less likely than what I'm actually suggesting, which is that there wasn't collusion per say, but simply mutually beneficial actions. This is what is supported by the weight of the evidence and claimed in government reports, for example. That Russia hacked and leaked DNC data, to the benefit of the trump campaign and Russia itself, obviously. I'm unclear why you feel it necessary to inflate the accusations made to something less likely. This feels very motte-and-bailey, although I can't tell if it was intentional or a subconscious way to protect your preconception.