5 ms·

> Their honest transparent, and vocal opinions How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opi

by kbrkbr 1y ago

> Their honest transparent, and vocal opinions How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opinion is transparent?

austin-cheney 1y ago
I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
- dleary 1y ago
  But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite. His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.” And "I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-trump-2024/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-... He was sending these texts while publicly repeating the standard Fox News lines about how great Trump is, etc. How can you ever consider him honest, after this?
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    This isn’t that. To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
    - mdhb 1y ago
      Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here. What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
      - austin-cheney 1y ago
        Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence. Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
        mdhb 1y ago
        Not trying to be rude but that answer is in no way related to the questions I was asking.
        austin-cheney 1y ago
        I objectively answered your question to the best of my actual personal opinion. I just didn’t provide the subjectively baited answer you were hoping for.
        mdhb 1y ago
        I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely. It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did? You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.
    - kbrkbr 1y ago
      So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?" Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"
      - austin-cheney 1y ago
        By honest I mean their opinions more closely align to the multitude of evidence available. Other opinions upon that same evidence are welcome.
        kbrkbr 1y ago
        So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can. But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like. That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
      - motorest 1y ago
        > So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?" I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda". The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- kbrkbr 1y ago
  I am skeptical of any numbers from a war zone with a public relations war going on at the same time. This appears to be generally admitted, as witnessed by quotes as the long standing and cross cultural "the first casualty of war is truth." [1] So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are? [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    Sure, so get foreign journalists in there so that we can all know for sure. Until such time I will retain the personal opinion that Israel is lying about everything.
    - kbrkbr 1y ago
      But Hamas is not?
      - austin-cheney 1y ago
        Its hard to tell since Israel keeps killing the few journalists there.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  > I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts. In 2018, MTG suggested that the CA fires were a result of The Rothchilds sending laser beams to earth and missing their intended target.
  - austin-cheney 1y ago
    Political theater.

by kbrkbr 1y ago

> Their honest transparent, and vocal opinions How do you know the opinions are honest? That strikes me as not easily assessable. What does it mean that an opinion is transparent?

austin-cheney 1y ago

I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.

dleary 1y ago
But we know, with absolute certainty, from the Dominion lawsuit subpoenas, that Tucker Carlson was privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite. His private texts include, "We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights. I truly can't wait.” And "I hate him passionately. ... I can't handle much more of this”. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-trump-2024/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tucker-carlson-endorses-donald-... He was sending these texts while publicly repeating the standard Fox News lines about how great Trump is, etc. How can you ever consider him honest, after this?
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  This isn’t that. To consider his, or anyone else’s, honesty I compare what they say to the evidence they present and contrast that against competing claims from other sources.
  - mdhb 1y ago
    Is there something special about you that has you convinced you’re not being tricked? Like do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector? I’m genuinely curious about the mentality here. What lead you to believe you can take two people like Tucker Carlson and MTG who are PRIMARILY known for spouting bullshit and you can somehow magically decipher the signal from the noise? Is it just the topic of Israel that you agree with them on? What are you actually comparing them against? I’d love to know more about what you’re describing looks like in practice because it sounds very handwavy at the moment and maybe it would be a better discussion with concrete details.
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      Because in this case most politicians are performing double speak and failing to directly answer questions about recent Israel conduct. Many of these politicians claiming in private what most of us are seeing in the news. It is refreshing to have at least some politicians step up to the plate and directly speak to the numbers and multitude of evidence. Likewise consider the opposite. Until recently I really respected Buttigieg, but when asked about Israel he cannot answer the question. He hopelessly looks for a moderate safe way out and it looks really incompetent.
      - mdhb 1y ago
        Not trying to be rude but that answer is in no way related to the questions I was asking.
        austin-cheney 1y ago
        I objectively answered your question to the best of my actual personal opinion. I just didn’t provide the subjectively baited answer you were hoping for.
        mdhb 1y ago
        I don’t understand in what universe you think you objectively answered it to the best of your ability when you literally didn’t respond to a single point in the question and just talked about another topic entirely. It’s not a trick question… I really want to understand what lead you to think that you can take known bullshitters and somehow seperate the fact from fiction. It’s just really confusing I think to me and others in this thread how on earth you arrived at the positions you did? You seem to be quite focused on the idea that Israel is committing genocide which isn’t a controversial statement for a lot of people but I don’t understand why you hold up Tucker Carlson over the ICC who have much more credibility on the topic and came to the same conclusion. Why MTG and not AOC for example if you mean outspoken politicians specifically? The thinking patterns just seem incredibly strange and I wanted to know what you’re actually thinking here.
  - kbrkbr 1y ago
    So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?" Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      By honest I mean their opinions more closely align to the multitude of evidence available. Other opinions upon that same evidence are welcome.
      - kbrkbr 1y ago
        So you are doing the same as all of us: checking the quality of evidence best we can and then weighing it best we can. But then somehow you feel the need to make your opinion and the opinion of the people that somehow align with you (or vice versa) somehow more objective or ethically better by calling it "honest", or best aligned with the evidence (as if people could not disagree on the quality of evidence, or take into account other things) or the like. That's the part I wholeheartedly disagree with you. We're all blind men touching an elephant.
    - motorest 1y ago
      > So what you mean by "honest" is "they believe the same things as facts like I do, and draw the same conclusions?" I think it means "I am a sucker with no critical thinking skills and fell for their propaganda". The attempts to whitewash and normalize Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson also give pause. It's hard to believe someone can be this gullible, specially after being presented with facts and still doubling down on whitewashing the character.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
kbrkbr 1y ago
I am skeptical of any numbers from a war zone with a public relations war going on at the same time. This appears to be generally admitted, as witnessed by quotes as the long standing and cross cultural "the first casualty of war is truth." [1] So I'm curious. How do you know the numbers are factual and they eye witnesses are what they say they are? [1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/04/11/casualty/
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  Sure, so get foreign journalists in there so that we can all know for sure. Until such time I will retain the personal opinion that Israel is lying about everything.
  - kbrkbr 1y ago
    But Hamas is not?
    - austin-cheney 1y ago
      Its hard to tell since Israel keeps killing the few journalists there.
myvoiceismypass 1y ago
> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts. In 2018, MTG suggested that the CA fires were a result of The Rothchilds sending laser beams to earth and missing their intended target.
- austin-cheney 1y ago
  Political theater.