I used to think of Tucker Carlson, Marjory Taylor Green, and Bernie Sanders as extreme political theater. Their honest transparent, and vocal opinions about Israel have really led me to rethink them and listen to them lately.
motorest•4mo ago
Are you talking about the same Tucker Carlson which is paid off by the Russian regime to spread Russian propaganda?
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•4mo ago
I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
dleary•4mo 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”.
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•4mo 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•4mo 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•4mo 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•4mo ago
Not trying to be rude but that answer is in no way related to the questions I was asking.
austin-cheney•4mo 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•4mo 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.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
Its a form of cognitive conservatism. You asked question A, and I gave you answer B, but you expected answer C. You cannot reconcile the gap between answers B and C, a dysjunct syllogism. The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF•4mo ago
> The problem stems from one interpretation of a premise comprising multiple terms and an inability to consider alternate valid premises.
Apparently also either an inability or unwillingness to explain these alternate premises.
You do not seem to be engaging in liberal discourse, but propaganda instead.
yetihehe•4mo ago
Another case of "Trying to play chess with a pidgeon".
"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").
austin-cheney•4mo ago
I have told you my opinion and you either are incapable of understanding it or choose to not understand it because diverging opinions aren't of interest to you. I am not trying to persuade you one way or the other, but agreement appears to be all you seek. I really don't care if you agree with me and I am not trying to convince you of anything. This seem lost on you.
zahlman•4mo ago
The comment you're linking to was rightfully flagged and killed. Your characterization of "propaganda" is completely uncalled for.
The premises were explained before the questioning even started:
> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
The entire point was that the claim
> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.
Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.
The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.
Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.
mdhb•4mo ago
I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information. I don’t think in the way you intended to do so at all but I’m suddenly a lot less confused.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
Too many big words trip you up? That's what I was going for.
mdhb•4mo ago
More a case of it’s very clear that you think you’re much more intelligent than everyone else around you thinks you are. Of course it’s a natural fit. You couldn’t have provided a clearer explanation with that response it genuinely made me laugh.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
I do. What’s weird though is that you find that offensive, as if this is somehow a competition. It’s not. There is no prize, no winning. I am not selling anything or asking for any vote. I owe you nothing.
mdhb•4mo ago
For the fifth or sixth time now, your lack of reading comprehension has lead to a situation where you responded to the post you wish was written rather than the one that was actually written.
I said I was laughing at you, not that you offended me. Those two things are worlds apart and the fact that you mixed them up once again is the precise reason why people are laughing at you here. The lack of self awareness is a spectacle at this point.
While you are laughing I continue to think you don’t know what this conversation was ever about. Laughing at your own invented strawman is a form of self soothing masturbation. Again, this isn’t a competition, except possibly only in your own mind.
zahlman•4mo ago
> I guess to be fair you’ve actually provided an incredibly clear insight into how and why you end up thinking someone like Tucker is a reliable source of information.
GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.
zahlman•4mo ago
> Not trying to be rude
> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?
> you can somehow magically decipher
It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You were originally responding to:
> 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.
Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.
motorest•4mo 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.
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
So is he lying about his opinions on Israel? I don’t know. If you are actually interested in finding out then go do that.
motorest•4mo ago
> So is he lying about his opinions on Israel?
You should cut the act. Playing dumb doesn't help your case.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
Seriously, if you are as interested in this as you claim then you should do your own research.
mdhb•4mo ago
The problem here is that you are very clearly incapable of being able to do that and there’s a group of people very politely and patiently trying to point out to you the flaws in your own logic and your only response is to continue sniffing your own farts like you’re smarter than everyone else around you. It’s kind of embarrassing to watch.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
I do think I am smarter than you. I don’t feel sorry if that offends you.
I am only stating my opinion. It’s not a competition. I don’t owe you anything. It’s okay to disagree.
kbrkbr•4mo 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•4mo 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•4mo 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•4mo 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.
kbrkbr•4mo 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?
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•4mo ago
But Hamas is not?
austin-cheney•4mo ago
Its hard to tell since Israel keeps killing the few journalists there.
myvoiceismypass•4mo 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•4mo ago
Political theater.
simianwords•4mo ago
Bernard Sanders is against Israel despite being Jewish. It is surprising because he seems to be one of the few people who is not corruptible despite technically having religious and cultural links to Israel.
It comes down to the fact that he is a normie. He sees people dying and he instinctively speaks against it. It is similar with economical and other political talking points.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
Bernie Sanders is Jewish but does not claim to have any such links to Israel.
simianwords•4mo ago
He has religious and cultural links to Israel. He can become a citizen of Israel anytime he wishes. He probably has family there as well.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
He has stated that he has no such links and no association to Israel, whether religious or cultural or familial.
bn-l•4mo ago
Are you being sarcastic? Genuinely asking
catlifeonmars•4mo ago
Bernie Sanders is an extremist (politically)? That’s kind of a hot take IMO.
whatwrongwyou•4mo ago
Don't go to any public speaking events
beng-nl•4mo ago
I watched the interview and I was honestly shocked at how callous Carlson discussed the suicide case. Imagine being Altman, your friend killed himself, and someone casually brings up the idea that you might have ordered his murder, and then dances around the issue saying it’s not an accusation but still maintains it’s “worth looking into.”
austin-cheney•4mo ago
motorest•4mo ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrlv7jdnq8o
austin-cheney•4mo ago
kbrkbr•4mo ago
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•4mo ago
dleary•4mo ago
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-...
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•4mo ago
mdhb•4mo ago
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•4mo ago
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•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
mdhb•4mo ago
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.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF•4mo ago
Apparently also either an inability or unwillingness to explain these alternate premises.
This comment hits the nail on the head: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45211312
You do not seem to be engaging in liberal discourse, but propaganda instead.
yetihehe•4mo ago
"You can't play chess with a pidgeon. It will overturn all the pieces, shit on board and will be happy that he won". Scary thing is that a lot of people will root for that pidgeon ("Yeah, that pidgeon showed the master who's the boss!").
austin-cheney•4mo ago
zahlman•4mo ago
The premises were explained before the questioning even started:
> I believe they are honest because they are pushing factual numbers and speaking in reference to eye witness accounts.
The entire point was that the claim
> privately telling people that Trump was awful, while publicly saying the opposite.
has no bearing on the assessment of honesty. It does not matter what Carlson's private beliefs or public opinions are. Facts are facts no matter who believes, disbelieves, claims to believe or claims to disbelieve them.
Whether numbers are factual can be objectively assessed. The truth of the numbers does not depend on who cites them. The eyewitness accounts cited objectively exist. What eyewitnesses claim to have happened is a matter of record, and it doesn't matter who cites those claims. That Carlson was "speaking in reference to" those accounts is objectively verifiable by cross-referencing what he says with what the eyewitness said.
The bit about Carlson's private tweets is irrelevant, and a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy.
Determining whether a claim is true does not depend on who made the claim. It takes no additional skill to make this determination if the source is generally unreliable, except in the case where the claimant is being used as an authority (so as to determine the legitimacy of that authority in context). But this isn't such a case. That's the point.
mdhb•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
mdhb•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
mdhb•4mo ago
I said I was laughing at you, not that you offended me. Those two things are worlds apart and the fact that you mixed them up once again is the precise reason why people are laughing at you here. The lack of self awareness is a spectacle at this point.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
While you are laughing I continue to think you don’t know what this conversation was ever about. Laughing at your own invented strawman is a form of self soothing masturbation. Again, this isn’t a competition, except possibly only in your own mind.
zahlman•4mo ago
GP objectively did not make any such claim, and nothing about GP's words indicates such a belief. You are clearly not discussing in good faith; throughout the above thread you have repeatedly ignored very clear arguments, presented wrong understandings of very clear ideas, and wrongly attributed beliefs to the other party; all apparently in the service of judging what "side" others are on rather than engaging with their actual claims.
zahlman•4mo ago
> do you think you have some exceptionally good bullshit detector?
> you can somehow magically decipher
It is abundantly clear that you are, in fact, trying to be rude.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky.
> Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
You were originally responding to:
> 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.
Nothing about this requires extraordinary skill or "magic". Determining whether what Tucker Carlson said is true, works exactly the same way as determining whether what anyone else said is true.
motorest•4mo ago
Wait a minute, you were already faced with the fact that the likes of Tucker Carlson defend positions in public that they personally criticize and attack in less public settings.
And yet, even after being faced with that information, you still opt to ignore it and whitewash Russian assets such as Tucker Carlson as being this paragon of objectivity?
I'm starting to wonder what you are trying to do with this thread.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
motorest•4mo ago
You should cut the act. Playing dumb doesn't help your case.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
mdhb•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
I am only stating my opinion. It’s not a competition. I don’t owe you anything. It’s okay to disagree.
kbrkbr•4mo ago
Or put differently: "they have the same world view as I have?"
austin-cheney•4mo ago
kbrkbr•4mo ago
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•4mo ago
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.
kbrkbr•4mo ago
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/
austin-cheney•4mo ago
kbrkbr•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
myvoiceismypass•4mo ago
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•4mo ago
simianwords•4mo ago
It comes down to the fact that he is a normie. He sees people dying and he instinctively speaks against it. It is similar with economical and other political talking points.
austin-cheney•4mo ago
simianwords•4mo ago
austin-cheney•4mo ago
bn-l•4mo ago
catlifeonmars•4mo ago