3 ms·
Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me. I've openly criticized the agency at hand, and faced
by mannanj 2mo ago
Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me.
I've openly criticized the agency at hand, and faced prior risk and harm and ridicule and embarrassingly the most closed minded to these messages of mine are "rational types" in forums like these. Though as I shared, I'm unsure whether to judge them as legitimate accounts or propaganda/astroturf/deepstate actors.
I'd have been open to sharing some more info rather than being vague, though I think I'm needing a break from being gaslit and receiving hostility from my very own people for pointing things out even if what I shared was vague.
How do you think someone would really go about finding specificity of accounts here being deep state, any experience or advice on that matter? What would you think I could find on this, when this orgs entire premise would be going un-detected and having plausible deniability. Doesn't that mean I can not really provide you what you are asking. I don't have the journalistic experience or OSINT know how to validate these things. Maybe someone else does. Though you and I are entitled to our likes and dislikes and resorting to name calling when we are feeling uncomfortable or annoyed with a topic.
I've already shared my experience in these forums and have nothing to prove to you. For these kinds of matters, you can't even approach the topic without being vague or generic. Have you ever even seen a single thread anywhere where someone specifically shared concerns and wasn't ridiculed, attacked, ad hominemed, dismissed, marked as a crazy person or xyz? Please enlighten me. Help me understand how someone could "prove" to you what you are looking for.
Then again we accept the evidence that conforms to our beliefs. Are you being open minded? I think If you'd be open to hearing it or finding evidence for it, would you have found evidence for it already?
But please treat me with good faith and friendliness, you don't know me so you can't make these claims about me. Unless you looked through my comment history, in which case you'd see I have spine enough. Maybe someone motivated can go through my history, look at specific posts which are very obviously discussing this topic and my experience around it, have the AI go go and vibe code and do the investigation and make some dossiers.
And I'm incredibly vulnerable here. I don't even hide my real identity, I have risked a lot.
- john_strinlai 2mo ago>Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me. none of what i said is an "attack", nor ad hominem, nor questions your credibility. im not asking you to prove anything either. just don't post vague, non-actionable, generic, "be careful of the deepstate" style comments. that's it. there's many other places for you to do that. hn is not it.
- mannanj 2mo agoI can see now there's a rule around accusing someone of that. I can follow that, sorry I missed that rule. Though let's not lie and gaslight please. When you make commons about "spine" and then look at what you had stated as your personal opinion (that you stated as though it were fact) they are commentary on reputation not substance.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago>Sounds like you are resorting to attacking credibility and Ad Hominem attack when you don't even know me. And you sound like another sea lion engaging in bad faith and wasting everybody’s time. We all know what’s going on here, just drop the act and move on.
- mannanj 2mo agoyou responded to my observation about ad hominem with an ad hominem.
- Forgeties79 2mo ago> Though let's not lie and gaslight please. Calling someone a liar and accusing them of gaslighting isn’t ad hominem though? I’d say I’m just “observing” the tenor of your comments personally. Have a good one mate.
- mannanj 2mo agoWell then an ad hominem responding to an ad hominem responding to an ad hominem, does that make the original one ok? I can do better though not to engage in the first place when someone opens with hostility. It doesn't make my own ad hominem ok, though let's not try to use that as an excuse to justify the original offender. and good day to you too mate.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]