Pizzagate & the American Right Wing

[Syne]

Fake news:
Intentionally misconstruing semi-auto for automatic to scare audience.

Lies about news media being the only ones who can legally read illegally obtained but widely disseminated info.

Blatant partisan bias.

"It's not even clear that it's her on the audio tape."

Black man with rifle cropped to forward white hate-group narrative.

 

[Capracus]

Fake news:

It's only fake if ain't true.

Intentionally misconstruing semi-auto for automatic to scare audience.

The mischaracterization was resolved in the video. Lemon’s intent was to highlight the danger posed by rapid fire, high capacity rifles, which in the wrong hands can truly be scary. True enough.

Lies about news media being the only ones who can legally read illegally obtained but widely disseminated info.

Technically some of the material released by Wikileaks was illegal to disseminate. Cuomo obviously erred in his reasoning on First Amendment privileges though. More ignorance than lie, rate this as half true.

Blatant partisan bias.

Many prominent Republicans publically condemned Trump as well at that time. Is Cuomo supposed to pretend that the character of the two candidates was equal? To acknowledge that would have been a gross distortion of facts. Give him an A for Honesty.

"It's not even clear that it's her on the audio tape."

Lemon was correct that Hillary wasn’t laughing at the rape victim as Trump had proclaimed, and to hear the tape, it isn’t clear that it’s actually her voice, even though it is. Lemon eventually acknowledges in the video that Clinton had laughed, but not at the victim as was alleged. Basically true.

Black man with rifle cropped to forward white hate-group narrative.

They never claimed the man in the video was white, they only claimed that he was one of dozen at the event carrying a firearm. The overwhelming majority of open carry practitioners in the US are white males, who also happen to be the social group most hostile to our Black President. Truest video of the lot.

 

[Syne]

It's only fake if ain't true.


The mischaracterization was resolved in the video. Lemon’s intent was to highlight the danger posed by rapid fire, high capacity rifles, which in the wrong hands can truly be scary. True enough.


Technically some of the material released by Wikileaks was illegal to disseminate. Cuomo obviously erred in his reasoning on First Amendment privileges though. More ignorance than lie, rate this as half true.

Many prominent Republicans publically condemned Trump as well at that time. Is Cuomo supposed to pretend that the character of the two candidates was equal? To acknowledge that would have been a gross distortion of facts. Give him an A for Honesty.


Lemon was correct that Hillary wasn’t laughing at the rape victim as Trump had proclaimed, and to hear the tape, it isn’t clear that it’s actually her voice, even though it is. Lemon eventually acknowledges in the video that Clinton had laughed, but not at the victim as was alleged. Basically true.


They never claimed the man in the video was white, they only claimed that he was one of dozen at the event carrying a firearm. The overwhelming majority of open carry practitioners in the US are white males, who also happen to be the social group most hostile to our Black President. Truest video of the lot.

The mischaracterization was intentional to, as you say, "highlight the danger posed" and scare his audience into irrational reaction.
Wikileaks had already publicly released the info, making it perfectly legal to further disseminate. Intentionally trying play gatekeeper.
Cuomo said the media was doing everything they could to help Hillary. That's an admission to partisan bias.
Everyone knew it was her on the tape. Lemon obviously went beyond journalistic integrity trying to defend Hillary.
Apparently you didn't watch past 3:07, "white people showing up with guns".

 

[Tiassa]

Syne, to the one, journalists are human. To the other, as you seek to indict other news outlets, we might recall that your standard would crucify FOX News. Beyond that, it seems enough that you can't tell the difference between the everyday fuckuppery of a news media subject to money bias and other commercial concerns, and, say, #Pizzagate.

Please understand, this outcome presents you as irrational, conspiracist, and sold like just another little tool so anxious to do the bidding of a master whose hands are not so invisible as you might otherwise pretend. Watching someone beg to be manipulated for the sake of common cause and identity is something of a tragic witness.

 

[Syne]

Syne, to the one, journalists are human. To the other, as you seek to indict other news outlets, we might recall that your standard would crucify FOX News. Beyond that, it seems enough that you can't tell the difference between the everyday fuckuppery of a news media subject to money bias and other commercial concerns, and, say, #Pizzagate.

Please understand, this outcome presents you as irrational, conspiracist, and sold like just another little tool so anxious to do the bidding of a master whose hands are not so invisible as you might otherwise pretend. Watching someone beg to be manipulated for the sake of common cause and identity is something of a tragic witness.

Who ever said Pizzagate was the same? Obviously stories fabricated from whole cloth differ from those dishonestly reported. And if you were the least bit objective, you'd agree that there's enough consistent "fuckuppery" to cast serious doubt on intent. Not only are you creating strawmen of my arguments, including inferring that I have any special affinity for Fox News, but you are also committing the guilt by association fallacy. Pointing out problematic mainstream news is not irrational nor conspiratorial. Saying fake news lost Hillary the election is conspiratorial. Recognizing disingenuous news is one of the uses for rationality. But you seem far too insecure to face my valid criticism of your favorite news sources without this defensive emotional identification of any criticism with culpable gullibility.

 

[Syne]

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?

 

[Tiassa]

Who ever said Pizzagate was the same?

What have your eighteen posts been about, then? That is to say, what is their relevance to #Pizzagate?

Stop trolling.

No, really, do conservatives ever stop to think about the implications of lines like that?

I mean, maybe it sounds like an exaggeration, but I have known disparate―otherwise unconnected―people over the years to occasionally make weird arguments that boil down to the idea that if I've never caught them saying, "I hate niggers," there is no way anyone could ever think they are racist.

So, what does Lena Dunham↱ have to do with #Pizzagate, other than your personal priorities? You were called out↱ and tried that same I never said↱ garbage, and t he whole point is that this is just "the impression [you] get", even though your entire argument is circular.

So, if you're not arguing equivalence, why the hell are you wasting everybody's time with this off-topic bullshit?

You can't support the impression you get. That's why you just keep trying to con everybody↱.

Where did you say Morning Joe is left-leaning? Then what―

It's sad I have to explain it. Mika said she tried to expose the challenge Hillary was facing, only to have her job threatened. The left-leaning media is just more fond of lies of omission. But I don't really expect you to see that.

(Syne, #70↑)​

―was the point of introducing Morning Joe as part of your complaint about left-leaning media?

Sorry, Syne, you're not credible. You spend too much time saying things and then trying to run from your own words.

You need to quit wasting people's time and show some good faith for once, Syne.

 

[Syne]

Who ever said Pizzagate was the same?

What have your eighteen posts been about, then? That is to say, what is their relevance to #Pizzagate?

Stop trolling.

I've been addressing the gross generalization of one incident used to paint half a country. The title of this thread isn't just "Pizzagate". But the name-calling tells me you have no argument. Thanks.

No, really, do conservatives ever stop to think about the implications of lines like that?

I mean, maybe it sounds like an exaggeration, but I have known disparate―otherwise unconnected―people over the years to occasionally make weird arguments that boil down to the idea that if I've never caught them saying, "I hate niggers," there is no way anyone could ever think they are racist.

Unless you are intending ad hominem, there should be positive evidence for such accusations. And more than you simply inferring motive.

So, what does Lena Dunham↱ have to do with #Pizzagate, other than your personal priorities? You were called out↱ and tried that same I never said↱ garbage, and t he whole point is that this is just "the impression [you] get", even though your entire argument is circular.

So, if you're not arguing equivalence, why the hell are you wasting everybody's time with this off-topic bullshit?

Your unsupported, vitriolic accusations aside...does everything have to be equivalent to be relevant?

Either you hold a serious grudge, or you're just so ideophobic that you can't manage to restrain your obvious vitriol. Have fun with that, mate.


Any thoughts on this:

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?

 

[Tiassa]

Any thoughts on this:

I'm disappointed that after all that indignant moralizing you still can't take the discussion seriously.

Support your presupposition. Don't just go around randomly making shit up.

 

[Syne]

And what, pray tell, do you imagine my presupposition to be, dear Tiassa? Or is this just arm-waving to avoid my inconvenient question?

 

[iceaura]

Who ever said Pizzagate was the same? Obviously stories fabricated from whole cloth differ from those dishonestly reported. And if you were the least bit objective, you'd agree that there's enough consistent "fuckuppery" to cast serious doubt on intent. - - -

You're trying to build a bothsides bonfire out of smoke and a few matches.

Even if every single one of your supposed examples was as you claim - that's nowhere near the case, but let's stipulate - you still don't have an argument. The fake and bad news from the Koch/Fox axis of evil is so much larger and more significant - in volume, quantity, repetition, exposure, ubiquity, level of dishonesty, and observable influence - that attempting to compare them empties your trivialities of whatever meaning they ever had.

Not only are you creating strawmen of my arguments, including inferring that I have any special affinity for Fox News, but you are also committing the guilt by association fallacy.

Classification by major feature is not guilt by association.

- Saying fake news lost Hillary the election is conspiratorial. -

Fake and bad, you mean.

That's silly. It's an obvious possibility anyone can see for themselves - just track Clinton's poll numbers relative to the big fake and bad news pushes. It doesn't matter how or whether the fake and bad news was a conspiracy, organized - though we know a lot of it was (we have the memos, admissions, etc, on file and on record).

 

[Tiassa]

And what, pray tell, do you imagine my presupposition to be, dear Tiassa? Or is this just arm-waving to avoid my inconvenient question?

Well―

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?

―you haven't provided any rational thesis supporting your inquiry.

If not? That seems fallacious, an open-ended demand to prove a negative. If so, how different? That presumes some manner of sameness or similarity as a point of contrast. Do enlighten us on that sameness or similarity.

Because, quite frankly, if you want to take that snide tone―

Any thoughts on this:

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?

―it would probably behoove you to actually have a point. Any thoughts on that? Yeah: Why are you wasting anyone's time with that lazy appeal to absurdity?

It's purely made-up question that isn't automatically valid simply because you wrote it down.

Can you write out your proposition in coherent language?

 

[Syne]

Bad news? As in true but unfavorable? When did it become bad to report the truth?

Which major right-wing sources disseminated Pizzagate as true? Have any evidence? Where are these memos and admissions? What other stories are you talking about?

Where is the evidence that Fox or Breitbart (criticizing the audience) edited the Sherrod clip, which always included her talking about her change of heart?

"The Sherrod saga began on the morning of July 19 when the conservative website Big Government posted an excerpt of a speech that appeared to show the African-American woman admitting to an NACCP audience she did not do her best to help a white farmer in trouble. The broader backdrop was that the NAACP had recently issued a statement asking the tea party to repudiate the racists in its midst. The proprietor of Big Government, Andrew Breitbart, publicized a video that he said showed that the NAACP itself was racist." - http://www.journalism.org/2010/07/26/shirley-sherrod-page/​

Some ACORN workers were convicted.

"ACORN workers have been convicted of submitting false voter registration forms in Colorado Springs in 2005, Kansas City, Mo., in 2006 and King County, Wash., in 2007." - http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/​

Or are these sources "fake" or "bad" too? Do you have anything but your own and other leftist proclamations? Don't hold back. Let's see it.

 

[Syne]

Well―

―you haven't provided any rational thesis supporting your inquiry.

So media, pushing all kinds of unproven accusations, has nothing to do with a guy killing who he thinks is Trump, but other media is to blame for a guy firing a gun in a pizza shop, killing no one? Are you claiming those accusations had zero to do with the motives for the former? Quite aside from the fact that I've yet to see evidence that any main right-wing media propagated the latter. If you have some, please, do show. Or is this just you avoiding an inconvenient question?

If not? That seems fallacious, an open-ended demand to prove a negative. If so, how different? That presumes some manner of sameness or similarity as a point of contrast. Do enlighten us on that sameness or similarity.

I probably can't even imagine all the things that may "seem fallacious" to you. I did not ask for proof of anything. It was a simple question...that you seem too defensive to answer.

The similarity is spelled out above, but I'm fairly certain you'll just deny it outright, without any supporting argument whatsoever. After all, you're safe if you never have to address any details or evidence.

Because, quite frankly, if you want to take that snide tone―

―it would probably behoove you to actually have a point. Any thoughts on that? Yeah: Why are you wasting anyone's time with that lazy appeal to absurdity?

It's purely made-up question that isn't automatically valid simply because you wrote it down.

Can you write out your proposition in coherent language?

Wow, that's a lot of arm-waving. Must be fanning the smoke. Nothing to see here, right?

 

[iceaura]

Bad news? As in true but unfavorable? When did it become bad to report the truth?

When it is twisted into support for a false equivalence or denial of reality, by bullshitting propagandists.

Why do you ask?

Look at this incredible bullshit, for example, so typical of one of those ugly little crackpot propagandists who have come to dominate the public political arena in the US:

Where is the evidence that Fox or Breitbart (criticizing the audience) edited the Sherrod clip

Does that stinking piece of last year's rot need any explication these days?

OK - it starts, as always, by remembering something (the entire propaganda barrage depends on corrupting memory, rewriting and denying history):

In this case, it's simple - remember the accusation: it was not that Fox, or Breitbart, officially edited the clip. They are not accused of a bad edit job (this time). The accusation was that they knew it was almost certainly a deception, its contents deliberately misleading, and presented this misleading content as news anyway - as a legitimate issue. They called around for "reactions", interviewed people they had punked by playing the clip as legitimate, etc. They played their role in the presentation of bad and fake news. They took willing part in a deception. They took willing part in a deception that was part of an organized campaign of lies and slanders and deceptions, over months and even years, involving them as key agents.

That was the accusation. So where did that question come from?

Fox presented known deception, known falsehood, and known lying, as news - as a legitimate issue. So did - and does - Breitbart. Famous for it - weekly, in season daily, examples.

And so the guy asking such questions is doing what? - obviously not discussing an issue in good faith, that's not possible, but what then?

 

[Tiassa]

So media, pushing all kinds of unproven accusations, has nothing to do with a guy killing who he thinks is Trump, but other media is to blame for a guy firing a gun in a pizza shop, killing no one?

Can you provide an arguable thesis regarding the first? That is to say, if I claim the overwhelming presence of blue made someone lose their mind, ought I not explain just how that works?

To the one, we have an insupportable, unexplained proposition purporting to explain a result, a crazy man delusionally killing someone who isn't who he thinks he's killing. To the other we have a guy who explained that fake reports like those from Alex Jones moved him to action.

So, look now at the one, please. What, other than thin air and your not quite arbitrary say-so, is the basis of your implicit thesis? It's an open-ended demand for proof of a negative. A choice between fallacy, to the one, and fiction, to the other, is what it is, but useful is not one of the words I would use to describe such options.

Are you claiming those accusations had zero to do with the motives for the former?

What accusations?

Quite aside from the fact that I've yet to see evidence that any main right-wing media propagated the latter. If you have some, please, do show. Or is this just you avoiding an inconvenient question?

Establish how that isn't non sequitur.

I probably can't even imagine all the things that may "seem fallacious" to you. I did not ask for proof of anything. It was a simple question...that you seem too defensive to answer.

An open-ended, undefined demand for proof of negative is fallacious. Your trollish attempt at pedantry―"I did not ask for proof of anything. It was a simple question...that you seem too defensive to answer."―is exactly dishonest. You offered an unsupported proposition and asked, "If not, how?" That is an inherent demand for proof. Without that demand for proof―"how?"―it's a pretty straightforward answer: Did this and this contribute to this? No.

And since it's too much to ask you to explain what you're on about, there's nothing left to answer.

The similarity is spelled out above ...

Where? Show me where. Show me your explanation.

... but I'm fairly certain you'll just deny it outright, without any supporting argument whatsoever. After all, you're safe if you never have to address any details or evidence.

It's interesting, Syne: You can't even be bothered↑ to formulate anything approaching a functional thesis↑. You just offer general, fact-free argument. You have no affirmative support, merely demands that can only be fulfilled if other people read your mind and then agree that you're completely correct anyway and how could anybody ever doubt the random bullshit you make up out of thin air.

So start with this: Does what and what what-what what?

Wow, that's a lot of arm-waving. Must be fanning the smoke. Nothing to see here, right?

Can you write your proposition in coherent language?

You've had multiple opportunities and refused. Or is it simply that you're not capable?

Can you write your proposition in coherent language? "Did things like this and this contribute to this?" You have anything better than nonsensical, petulant vagary?

It's one thing to huff and demand, but you're not actually asking anything.

 

[iceaura]

Another example of this fake and bad news operation in action:

Some ACORN workers were convicted.
"ACORN workers have been convicted of submitting false voter registration forms in Colorado Springs in 2005, Kansas City, Mo., in 2006 and King County, Wash., in 2007." - http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/acorn-accusations/
Or are these sources "fake" or "bad" too?

Again we see the propagandist's technique, the deception being deployed.
Again, the remedy is memory - propaganda depends on revision and denial of historical fact.

What to remember? The subject was the national fake and bad news incident in which Fox et al presented, discussed, and "analyzed" a James O'Keefe video of ACORN employees as news and information - one of the more important of the hundreds we might have selected.

The link has nothing to do with that. So why does it appear in this thread?

In addition, the link further supports the by now simply factual thesis that Fox et al has been engaged in a coordinated propaganda operation employing fake and bad news for years. That's if you remember the fake and bad news item the link actually addresses, which was the accusation of massive voter fraud at ACORN. This was also presented by Fox et al as "news", and as the link makes clear this presentation was fraudulent.

Two separate deceptions, by our little propagandist here, wrapped into one little link and a bullshit question.

 

[Kittamaru]

Two separate deceptions, by our little propagandist here, wrapped into one little link and a bullshit question.

Syne with an agenda... who'd have thunk it? To then go on and be unable to mount even a token defense of said agenda is rather irritating... at least make it fun for others to dismantle the bullshit...
Yeah... I'm grumpy right now >_>

 

[iceaura]

And yet another:

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?

Here we see the rhetorical question technique with a different slant - the propagandist sells the false equivalence by including it as the frame of a question.

This technique is most common when the direct factual assertion would be too obviously idiotic - in this case presenting two examples of legitimate analytical opinion not involved in a murder as equivalent to a coordinated false and bad news campaign directly involved in a near tragedy, an accusation of public policy influencing racism and misogyny well supported by evidence as equivalent to an accusation of private depravity coordinated child murder and sexual abuse supported by lies and inventions, and so forth.

While we're at it, a window into the trenches, the mud level of this massive propaganda operation: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-accidentally-stings-himself

 

[Tiassa]

And yet another:

Here we see the rhetorical question technique with a different slant - the propagandist sells the false equivalence by including it as the frame of a question.

Presently we are on a hunt for a post in which the equivalence ("similarity") is spelled out:

Syne: Any thoughts on this:

Did things like this and this contribute to this? If not, how? And if so, how does that differ from Pizzagate, aside from this ending in death while Pizzagate didn't?​

Tiassa: Support your presupposition. Don't just go around randomly making shit up.

Syne: And what, pray tell, do you imagine my presupposition to be, dear Tiassa? Or is this just arm-waving to avoid my inconvenient question?

Tiassa: If not? That seems fallacious, an open-ended demand to prove a negative. If so, how different? That presumes some manner of sameness or similarity as a point of contrast. Do enlighten us on that sameness or similarity.

Syne: The similarity is spelled out above, but I'm fairly certain you'll just deny it outright, without any supporting argument whatsoever.

Tiassa: Where? Show me where. Show me your explanation.​

Or, as I put it: Does what and what what-what what?

I guess it's probably not the most helpful explanation, is it? Thus, for our neighbor's benefit: Did [variable] and [variable] [variable] [variable]?

The problem I have answering his question―well, beyond the obvious―is all those variables:

Did this [unspecified subjective definition of circumstance] and this [unspecified subjective definition of circumstance] contribute to [unspecified subjective definition] this [unspecified subjective definition of circumstance]?​

As you're aware, it's a common and superficial political tactic, and while pretty much any side can do it, you and I, at least, are among those wont to suggest that one general range constituting a side does it more, and to some degree can even be witnessed relying on it as their vessel through a given course. It seems a particularly lazy method in which one awaits your or my response, and then styles their retort accordingly; it's up to us to do all the homework and up to the other to do pretty much nothing at all. We've seen it how many times over the years?

Thus, if I look at "this", "this", and "this", and see exactly what Syne sees, then his question will start to make sense.

Until then, I find it significant that he either cannot or simply will not tell us what he sees.