4 ms·

> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the vi

by harry8 2y ago

> refusing the FBI and then suffering no consequences The whole thing was clearly just a partisan smear job in your eyes. Precisely the same reaction as the views of current maga types about the current first am disasters. It's worth revisiting /precisely/ in relation to fighting the current assault. It's worth noting who publicly opposed /both/.

aweiland 2y ago
The twitter files were well curated by Musk and team to tell a certain story. Is that not the definition of a partisan smear job?
- harry8 2y ago
  That is false.
TOMDM 2y ago
No, comparing the two at this point is an attempt to pretend this insanity is the other side of the same coin. They're simply not. Look at the spectrum. 1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above) 2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails 3. Someone threatens a harm against someone. 4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of harm if they were to be refused. (This is the worst you can reasonably claim the Twitter files as evidence for) That is how far apart these two instances are. If you disagree please be specific because this claim that both sides are equivalent is absurd, especially when people refuse to ground out the example when confronted.
- harry8 2y ago
  You don’t stand on principle don’t expect the principle to stand. No it’s them it’s always them…
  - TOMDM 2y ago
    My democracy for an example
    - harry8 2y ago
      The government successfully threatens a private company to make then censor. Is that ok? Not for them.
      - TOMDM 2y ago
        But that's not what happened in the Twitter files. Requests were made, no threats. Some were complied with when Twitter agreed, some were denied. There were no consequences for the refusals. Please, cite a specific threat. A lawsuit, a link, a source, a quote, anything. And if you link the Twitter files themselves, let's make sure we actually run their sources to ground, because what they present them as and what they actually say are two different things.
        harry8 2y ago
        One example of plenty. https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-intelligence https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-inte... From no. 20 but you should really read all of it. The cynic in me expects the goalposts to move and more smear. 20. “Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB… they could not have built a more effective disinformation platform,” Johns Hopkins Professor (and Intel Committee “expert”) Thomas Rid told Politico. "Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB," the Russian intelligence agency involved in the 2016 campaign to meddle in the US election Rid Said, "They could not have built a more effective disinformation platform." 21. As congress threatened costly legislation, and Twitter began was subject to more bad press fueled by the committees, the company changed its tune about the smallness of its Russia problem. Republican partisan's probably see it as treason. Democrats partisans pretend it's a "nothingburger." Everyone else who notices is getting despondent which is probably just as bad. FIRE, Greenwald, Taibbi have stood and continue to stand on principle not partisan and will get relentlessly smeared with insane lies because of it. edit: sidenote. For me the google search "twitter files taibbi" without quotes returned Tabbi's publication racket on page 4. From there I could get the twitter files separate publication. That seems like a very bad search fail. I wonder why it is like that.

by harry8 2y ago

aweiland 2y ago

The twitter files were well curated by Musk and team to tell a certain story. Is that not the definition of a partisan smear job?

harry8 2y ago
That is false.

TOMDM 2y ago

No, comparing the two at this point is an attempt to pretend this insanity is the other side of the same coin. They're simply not. Look at the spectrum. 1. Someone commits a harm (pick any one of the harms I listed from Trump above) 2. Someone attempts a harm and either hasn't succeeded yet or fails 3. Someone threatens a harm against someone. 4. Someone makes a request that implies they could escalate to a threat of harm if they were to be refused. (This is the worst you can reasonably claim the Twitter files as evidence for) That is how far apart these two instances are. If you disagree please be specific because this claim that both sides are equivalent is absurd, especially when people refuse to ground out the example when confronted.

harry8 2y ago
You don’t stand on principle don’t expect the principle to stand. No it’s them it’s always them…
- TOMDM 2y ago
  My democracy for an example
  - harry8 2y ago
    The government successfully threatens a private company to make then censor. Is that ok? Not for them.
    - TOMDM 2y ago
      But that's not what happened in the Twitter files. Requests were made, no threats. Some were complied with when Twitter agreed, some were denied. There were no consequences for the refusals. Please, cite a specific threat. A lawsuit, a link, a source, a quote, anything. And if you link the Twitter files themselves, let's make sure we actually run their sources to ground, because what they present them as and what they actually say are two different things.
      - harry8 2y ago
        One example of plenty. https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-intelligence https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/how-twitter-let-the-inte... From no. 20 but you should really read all of it. The cynic in me expects the goalposts to move and more smear. 20. “Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB… they could not have built a more effective disinformation platform,” Johns Hopkins Professor (and Intel Committee “expert”) Thomas Rid told Politico. "Were Twitter a contractor for the FSB," the Russian intelligence agency involved in the 2016 campaign to meddle in the US election Rid Said, "They could not have built a more effective disinformation platform." 21. As congress threatened costly legislation, and Twitter began was subject to more bad press fueled by the committees, the company changed its tune about the smallness of its Russia problem. Republican partisan's probably see it as treason. Democrats partisans pretend it's a "nothingburger." Everyone else who notices is getting despondent which is probably just as bad. FIRE, Greenwald, Taibbi have stood and continue to stand on principle not partisan and will get relentlessly smeared with insane lies because of it. edit: sidenote. For me the google search "twitter files taibbi" without quotes returned Tabbi's publication racket on page 4. From there I could get the twitter files separate publication. That seems like a very bad search fail. I wonder why it is like that.