5 ms·

She acts as if she has dissociative identity disorder and that the other person was not actually her. Looks more like she was just a good actor and still has th

She acts as if she has dissociative identity disorder and that the other person was not actually her. Looks more like she was just a good actor and still has the ability to fool people into thinking she is something else, like she did to the author.

tough 3y ago
If this bullshit passes over any judge/jury ffs what's wrong with murica
jimlongton 3y ago
The author is in on it - "it" being a cynical PR managed portrayal optimised to garner sympathy and disassociate her from her crimes. The tactics are so blatant - introducing her as a "mom", the homely photo, focusing on her children, her first quote about how is was all a "mistake" and portraying her as a victim of things she didn't understand. It's honestly offensive.
- carlmr 3y ago
  >the homely photo At first I wanted to alert you that homely means ugly, however then I googled the definition and found that it means ugly for AE and cozy and comfortable in BE, according to Oxford. Still maybe good to know that it has such diverging meanings.
  - BrandoElFollito 3y ago
    And then for me (French) I read it as "a photo depicting a home situation, a photo from home" :)
encryptluks2 3y ago
[dead]
eternalban 3y ago
> still has the ability to fool people into thinking she is something else I recommend you sit back and review how you arrived at this conclusion. I have personally never interacted with Elizabeth Holmes and everything I know about this person has come through the lens of first media, then courts, and then media again. It is the media, including the New York Times, that is creating this impression, is that not the case? So, correctly your sentence would read “still has the ability to fool the handful of people who interact with her directly and then share accounts with us”. So now, having established the actual state of affair in this ‘information graph’, the next question naturally is: “are these people really fooled or are they fooling me?” I.e. Do we have gullible people in positions that require inquisitive and thorough mindsets, or, even more “actors” pretending to being journalists, a sort of “dissociative [professional] identity disorder”.
- Krisjohn 3y ago
  Your position implies that there is no way to determine the difference between reputable media and disreputable media; that all stories must be considered with equal weight in the equation that is "the media". I can form an opinion of something without personal experience by considering the reputation of the source(s), and when reputable sources tend to agree and only the low-value sources dissent, I can have a confidence in my opinion that is better than just plotting all points on a graph with equal weight. Once I feel that I have a good view of an issue, using information weighted by reputation, I can make a statement like "This article appears inconsistent with the likely narrative, but consistent with someone who has been conned by a conman" without needing to justify my position directly, or abstracted away from the story. If you have a real alternative, you need to present it, but simply questioning someone's methodology is somewhere between irrelevant and disingenuous. At the very least, it adds little to the discussion of the issue at hand -- even more so in casual conversation where people are expressing a personal opinion of little or no real importance beyond this tiny little puddle. I mean, who is really going to respond to something like your comment with a couple of paragraphs to justify one sentence? ;)
  - knighthack 3y ago
    And your position is fallacious, since you presume that the reputation of a source correlates to a greater likelihood of truth. That's a classic fallacy: appeal to/argument from authority. It's especially problematic, since who/what one presumes to be 'reputable', other people may not agree with. Moreover the opinion of a majority of 'reputable' sources, agreeing to something, does not make it true. Reportage and stories are to be considered chiefly on the basis of what is reported and the likelihood of it being true, and should not be so staked on the reputation of the person/entity reporting it.

tough 3y ago

If this bullshit passes over any judge/jury ffs what's wrong with murica

jimlongton 3y ago

The author is in on it - "it" being a cynical PR managed portrayal optimised to garner sympathy and disassociate her from her crimes. The tactics are so blatant - introducing her as a "mom", the homely photo, focusing on her children, her first quote about how is was all a "mistake" and portraying her as a victim of things she didn't understand. It's honestly offensive.

carlmr 3y ago
>the homely photo At first I wanted to alert you that homely means ugly, however then I googled the definition and found that it means ugly for AE and cozy and comfortable in BE, according to Oxford. Still maybe good to know that it has such diverging meanings.
- BrandoElFollito 3y ago
  And then for me (French) I read it as "a photo depicting a home situation, a photo from home" :)

encryptluks2 3y ago

[dead]

eternalban 3y ago

> still has the ability to fool people into thinking she is something else I recommend you sit back and review how you arrived at this conclusion. I have personally never interacted with Elizabeth Holmes and everything I know about this person has come through the lens of first media, then courts, and then media again. It is the media, including the New York Times, that is creating this impression, is that not the case? So, correctly your sentence would read “still has the ability to fool the handful of people who interact with her directly and then share accounts with us”. So now, having established the actual state of affair in this ‘information graph’, the next question naturally is: “are these people really fooled or are they fooling me?” I.e. Do we have gullible people in positions that require inquisitive and thorough mindsets, or, even more “actors” pretending to being journalists, a sort of “dissociative [professional] identity disorder”.

Krisjohn 3y ago
Your position implies that there is no way to determine the difference between reputable media and disreputable media; that all stories must be considered with equal weight in the equation that is "the media". I can form an opinion of something without personal experience by considering the reputation of the source(s), and when reputable sources tend to agree and only the low-value sources dissent, I can have a confidence in my opinion that is better than just plotting all points on a graph with equal weight. Once I feel that I have a good view of an issue, using information weighted by reputation, I can make a statement like "This article appears inconsistent with the likely narrative, but consistent with someone who has been conned by a conman" without needing to justify my position directly, or abstracted away from the story. If you have a real alternative, you need to present it, but simply questioning someone's methodology is somewhere between irrelevant and disingenuous. At the very least, it adds little to the discussion of the issue at hand -- even more so in casual conversation where people are expressing a personal opinion of little or no real importance beyond this tiny little puddle. I mean, who is really going to respond to something like your comment with a couple of paragraphs to justify one sentence? ;)
- knighthack 3y ago
  And your position is fallacious, since you presume that the reputation of a source correlates to a greater likelihood of truth. That's a classic fallacy: appeal to/argument from authority. It's especially problematic, since who/what one presumes to be 'reputable', other people may not agree with. Moreover the opinion of a majority of 'reputable' sources, agreeing to something, does not make it true. Reportage and stories are to be considered chiefly on the basis of what is reported and the likelihood of it being true, and should not be so staked on the reputation of the person/entity reporting it.