Do conservatives not realize they look absolutely ridiculous with their conspiracy theories?

[dank69]

No. The shooter is dead, so we don’t know what motivated him. I am linking to a story where the mainstream media got access to his social media presence, and in their forensics, discovered that rhetoric spread over numerous left wing media channels set him in motion, determined by his Facebook messages that I assume for legal and other reasons they cannot release, even with redactions.

In their forensics, CNN felt it appropriate to name Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich as influences, and given their repeated calls for resistance and classifying the Trump Administration as a regime, I could see how someone might interpret that as a dog whistle call to arms.

You guys are stuck on this whole mainstream versus fringe thing. You want evidence that the left has raving mad talk radio personalities projecting fringe ideas into the mainstream.

I already conceded the point that they do not.

But, as evident by the shooter story, raving mad talk radio hosts are not the only delivery mechanism for fringe ideas to enter the mainstream.

You don't get it. Nobody here is asking for examples of people that may or may not have been influenced by mainstream or fringe media. We are asking you for some examples of the left wing media calling for action or resistance. That means you read the fucking article, and produce a fucking quote and say "here is an example of the left wing media calling for action and/or resistance." Or "here is an example of the left wing media pushing a conspiracy theory comparable to Hannity pushing the Seth Rich story or Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook didn't happen.' It has to be from an outlet comparable to Fox News, or at least Infowars, not some Youtube video from a fringe nut with a few thousand followers or some Facebook group that nobody has ever heard of.

 

[pmv]

Keep shifting the criteria of the discussion. I am not trying to establish equivalence. I provided examples to demonstrate the left is not immune, as evident by the valid examples I gave that you keep dismissing because of your irrational need to be right.

To be 'immune' would be to be somehow absolutely resistant in almost any circumstances, even in theory. I don't know anyone would say the left, by their essential definitional nature, are immune to irrational theories. One could imagine parts of the left somehow one day being fooled by such a theory, as some minority elements are and have been in other eras (and in other parts of the world it may not be a minority).

The question is surely whether adoption of nutty theories is anywhere near as widespread, and as mainstream, on the left as on the right, in reality, in the English-speaking developed world, right now. And it seems to me the answer is clearly no, not remotely.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You don't get it

I believe you don’t get it.

You are confusing two seperate discussions, which even you differentiated by using OR in your response.

The first disussion is around:

“here is an example of the left wing media pushing a conspiracy theory comparable to Hannity pushing the Seth Rich story or Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook didn't happen”

I have already said there is not, so that discussion is over and I do not understand why you all keep reverting to it

The second discussion, which branched from my exchange with @MajinCry, is around:

”here is an example of the left wing media calling for action and/or resistance.”

I’ve clearly demonstrated an example of this in the shooter scenario and with the forensics CNN did on what motivated him. If you disagree with CNN that they asserted Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich as influencing the shooter, take that up with them, not me.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To be 'immune' would be to be somehow absolutely resistant in almost any circumstances, even in theory. I don't know anyone would say the left, by their essential definitional nature, are immune to irrational theories. One could imagine parts of the left somehow one day being fooled by such a theory, as some minority elements are and have been in other eras (and in other parts of the world it may not be a minority).

The question is surely whether adoption of nutty theories is anywhere near as widespread, and as mainstream, on the left as on the right, in reality, in the English-speaking developed world, right now. And it seems to me the answer is clearly no, not remotely.

But you are conflating widespread and mainstream.

A chorus of small fringe voices dispersed over numerous outlets is as dangerous as the consolidation of the fringe into centralized strong voices.

At this moment in time, it is more prevelant on the right. The NYT article I linked suggests that the balance is now shifting.

 

[dank69]

I believe you don’t get it.

You are confusing two seperate discussions, which even you differentiated by using OR in your response.

The first disussion is around:

“here is an example of the left wing media pushing a conspiracy theory comparable to Hannity pushing the Seth Rich story or Alex Jones saying Sandy Hook didn't happen”

I have already said there is not, so that discussion is over and I do not understand why you all keep reverting to it

The second discussion, which branched from my exchange with @MajinCry, is around:

”here is an example of the left wing media calling for action and/or resistance.”

I’ve clearly demonstrated an example of this in the shooter scenario and with the forensics CNN did on what motivated him. If you disagree with CNN that they asserted Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich as influencing the shooter, take that up with them, not me.

The or was there to try to steer us back on topic, but regardless, you most certainly did not demonstrate the left wing media calling for action or resistance. You clearly still think you did, but you have not. You have provided an example of someone claiming the left wing media did, but they provided no proof to back those claims.

Just took the time to actually skim your link and it doesn't even claim those things influenced him. It just presents those facts as proof that he was anti-Trump.

 

[dank69]

But you are conflating widespread and mainstream.

A chorus of small fringe voices dispersed over numerous outlets is as dangerous as the consolidation of the fringe into centralized strong voices.

At this moment in time, it is more prevelant on the right. The NYT article I linked suggests that the balance is now shifting.

By moment in time, do you mean the last 40 years or what? When in the last 40 years has it been more prevalent on the left?

 

[Jhhnn]

But you are conflating widespread and mainstream.

A chorus of small fringe voices dispersed over numerous outlets is as dangerous as the consolidation of the fringe into centralized strong voices.

At this moment in time, it is more prevelant on the right. The NYT article I linked suggests that the balance is now shifting.

Utterly false. If there are a lot of fringe ideas spread out across the population that's not nearly as dangerous as Fox & a host of others putting millions of conspiracy theorists on the same page. The former is just generalized nuttiness while the latter is blatant movement propaganda. Do you really think Hannity believes a word of it? Hardly. He's just a scripted pitch man for the snake oil.

Your claim that the balance is shifting is just more bothsiderism. The survey in question was taken immediately after the election before the results were fully validated so of course there was a lot of conjecture. I haven't been able to chase down the study in question so we really have no idea of the methodology, either.

One of the most interesting things about it all is the persistence of erroneous belief among conservatives. Even after their leadership floats a big lie & ultimately retracts it a fair % of their devotees still believe in the big lie. There are numerous examples from Iraqi WMD's to the Nunes memo. Even when they say they don't believe it they still entertain the possibility that something completely w/o foundation might be true & are easily swayed. It's not just about particular ideas but about a whole way of thinking & believing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Your claim that the balance is shifting is just more bothsiderism.

Take it up with the NYT’s as they reported it. It is not my claim. It is a study I cited from a reputable source.

If there are a lot of fringe ideas spread out across the population that's not nearly as dangerous as Fox & a host of others putting millions of conspiracy theorists on the same page

There is nothing more dangerous than a person getting pushed to violence due to irresponsible partisan rhetoric.

 

[ivwshane]

Take it up with the NYT’s as they reported it. It is not my claim. It is a study I cited from a reputable source.


There is nothing more dangerous than a person getting pushed to violence due to irresponsible partisan rhetoric.

We are still waiting for that irresponsible rhetoric from the left you keep claiming they make. At best you've shown the left to say ignorant things, nothing of which would lead to irresponsible behavior.

 

[Starbuck1975]

We are still waiting for that irresponsible rhetoric from the left you keep claiming they make. At best you've shown the left to say ignorant things, nothing of which would lead to irresponsible behavior.

I already have, you lack the integrity to ackowledge it

 

[ivwshane]

I already have, you lack the integrity to ackowledge it

Yep its me that is the problem, oh and its the other people that are the problem not the guy who brings up "both sides" in pretty much every discussion.


Lol sure

 

[brycejones]

Yep its me that is the problem, oh and its the other people that are the problem not the guy who brings up "both sides" in pretty much every discussion.


Lol sure

In his world yes. Since you don't automatically both sides everything you must not be honest. All facts are equal. A liberal shop lifted a candy bar, a conservative murdered a child. Both are criminals and who are we to judge one as being worse than the other.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yep its me that is the problem, oh and its the other people that are the problem not the guy who brings up "both sides" in pretty much every discussion.


Lol sure

There are plenty of circle jerk threads if confirmation bias is what you seek. You are welcome to put me on ignore if my perspective is so problematic for you.

 

[Amused]

I already have, you lack the integrity to ackowledge it

No. You haven't. You have yet to show one valid example of the mainstream media intentionally and irresponsibly inciting people to violence or duping them with conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile you have admitted that bat shit is now mainstream on the right while fringe on the left. So why keep trying to prove something here?

It's so funny how this discussion happened as the Haab story was spinned as a conspiracy by the mainstream right alongside their claims of crisis actors and false flag stories which resulted in countless death threats against survivors and victim's families.

Right-wing media is now near total bat shit.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No. You haven't. You have yet to show one valid example of the mainstream media intentionally and irresponsibly inciting people to violence or duping them with conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile you have admitted that bat shit is now mainstream on the right while fringe on the left. So why keep trying to prove something here?

It's so funny how this discussion happened as the Haab story was spinned as a conspiracy by the mainstream right alongside their claims of crisis actors and false flag stories which resulted in countless death threats against survivors and victim's families.

Right-wing media is now near total bat shit.

We are clearly talking past each other. You are reverting to a point I’ve already acknowledged.

 

[dank69]

We are clearly talking past each other. You are reverting to a point I’ve already acknowledged.

Reverting all the way back to 4 posts ago.

 

[realibrad]

The "another point" is the original one. Early in the thread, he agreed with another user that the American left is as crazy as the right. I asked him to show me the crazed shit peddlers, he agreed that they don't exist, so now I'm getting him to concede the original point.

That's not moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts is making counter argument after counter argument, in order to drive the discussion away from the original. Which is the opposite of what I'm doing; I made one counter argument, and am returning to the original one.

But that is the crux of it right there. You believe the post he was responding to was him agreeing to both sides being equal. He, like me, did not see it as agreeing that both sides were equal. You keep asking him to back up a claim that he does not believe he ever made. Because of this, you keep trying to get him to admit to something he did not do. You may believe that he did, but he did not. He even stated that he does not believe they are equal.

Your issue is not dealing with that first issue. Solving that solves all of the confusion.

 

[Amused]

We are clearly talking past each other. You are reverting to a point I’ve already acknowledged.

I addressed your answer. You have proved no such example. Yet you claim you have.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But that is the crux of it right there. You believe the post he was responding to was him agreeing to both sides being equal. He, like me, did not see it as agreeing that both sides were equal. You keep asking him to back up a claim that he does not believe he ever made. Because of this, you keep trying to get him to admit to something he did not do. You may believe that he did, but he did not. He even stated that he does not believe they are equal.

Your issue is not dealing with that first issue. Solving that solves all of the confusion.

This is no longer about clarification, it is about ego.

 

[realibrad]

This is no longer about clarification, it is about ego.

Maybe. I think he just cannot see how that comment that you replied to could be anything other than it being "both are equally as bad". Because he cannot see that meaning anything else, he sees you as someone spreading misinformation. I don't think he is saying that he can't be wrong because he is superior, just that it is what it is.

But, even if he were correct, you did not see the comment as meaning that and have said as much. The only disagreement between you two at this point is the meaning of that original post.

 

[MajinCry]

But that is the crux of it right there. You believe the post he was responding to was him agreeing to both sides being equal. He, like me, did not see it as agreeing that both sides were equal. You keep asking him to back up a claim that he does not believe he ever made. Because of this, you keep trying to get him to admit to something he did not do. You may believe that he did, but he did not. He even stated that he does not believe they are equal.

Your issue is not dealing with that first issue. Solving that solves all of the confusion.

The first post was another user saying that both sides are susceptible to being prone to conspiracy theories. He then said "don't bring facts into this". So I asked him to give me an equal to the Republican's Alex Jones. He couldn't find one, so I asked him to state that both sides aren't equally susceptible to crazed lunatics.

I've repeatedly asked him to say that both sides aren't equal. He then runs away, throwing out a "moving the goalposts", a fallacy that he doesn't even understand. If he didn't think both sides were susceptible to the same levels of crazy, he'd just have to say "No disagreement here".

He didn't, he hemmed and hawed, and avoided answering it and kept saying I was dishonest.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just remember, the Birther in Chief is president. They'll fall for anything he says.

 

[realibrad]

The first post was another user saying that both sides are susceptible to being prone to conspiracy theories.

This is where the problem is. Susceptible does not inherently denote the level to which either side is prone, just that they both are. What started this was the idea, mistaken or otherwise, that the Left is seen as being immune to crazies. When the person said that the Left is susceptible too, I took it as meaning they also have some weakness to crazies. I did not take it to imply equality, but you apparently did. Nothing about what was said inherently means 50/50 so all you have to do is inquire.

That was done and it was clearly established that it was not 50/50. Everything that came after this is thus very strange. You believed something was inherent, and the other person did not. Even if you think it still is and he was mistaken in his understanding, it has been said over and over that he does not think they are equal. So, what is it that you are trying to get out of him? Its not an omission that they are not equal, as he has said it multiple times. So what is it?

He then said "don't bring facts into this". So I asked him to give me an equal to the Republican's Alex Jones. He couldn't find one, so I asked him to state that both sides aren't equally susceptible to crazed lunatics.

I've repeatedly asked him to say that both sides aren't equal. He then runs away, throwing out a "moving the goalposts", a fallacy that he doesn't even understand. If he didn't think both sides were susceptible to the same levels of crazy, he'd just have to say "No disagreement here".

He didn't, he hemmed and hawed, and avoided answering it and kept saying I was dishonest.

I see no reason to dig into this part, and to me everything resides with the first.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The first post was another user saying that both sides are susceptible to being prone to conspiracy theories. He then said "don't bring facts into this".

No I didn’t

So I asked him to give me an equal to the Republican's Alex Jones. He couldn't find one,

Which I acknowledged

so I asked him to state that both sides aren't equally susceptible to crazed lunatics.

A statement I do not support because everyone is equally susceptible to crazed lunacy.

He didn't, he hemmed and hawed, and avoided answering it and kept saying I was dishonest.

Because you are dishonest, as evident by your synopsis of the discussion

 

[MajinCry]

This is where the problem is. Susceptible does not inherently denote the level to which either side is prone, just that they both are. What started this was the idea, mistaken or otherwise, that the Left is seen as being immune to crazies. When the person said that the Left is susceptible too, I took it as meaning they also have some weakness to crazies. I did not take it to imply equality, but you apparently did. Nothing about what was said inherently means 50/50 so all you have to do is inquire.

That was done and it was clearly established that it was not 50/50. Everything that came after this is thus very strange. You believed something was inherent, and the other person did not. Even if you think it still is and he was mistaken in his understanding, it has been said over and over that he does not think they are equal. So, what is it that you are trying to get out of him? Its not an omission that they are not equal, as he has said it multiple times. So what is it?

I see no reason to dig into this part, and to me everything resides with the first.

He hasn't, he has kept trying to avoid admitting that entirely. See that post of his, where he tried to pin blame upon leftie media for that one murderous guy. When he was taking to task for it, he just melted and would not acknowledge that just because he watches Democracy Now, does not mean Democracy Now incited him to murder others.

If he genuinely believed that right wingers are more prone to adhering to lunatics, why does he do everything to avoid saying that? It would only take a sentence, and he refuses time and time again. Hell, in his post, he states that they are equal.

A statement I do not support because everyone is equally susceptible to crazed lunacy.

Because you are dishonest, as evident by your synopsis of the discussion

And we're back to the beginning. If the left were as susceptible as the right, there'd be mainstream crazed lunatics pandering to them. But only the Republicans have those Alex Jones types, who go all in on the crazy. Yet for Liberals, there aren't any. Hmmmm.