That's always an unconvincing argument. If you can't show him what he would have found had he 'looked into it properly' then no-one, apart from people who already agree with you, is going to believe anything other than you don't have anything to show. You need to think what you're trying to do in the discussion. If you're trying to convince people who don't already agree with you, then you won't do it the way you're arguing, because all you're doing is saying that they're wrong and when they don't meekly accept that, saying it louder. Of course, you might just be trying to signal to other people that already agree with you that you can be tough on the other side, then fine, you're probably achieving that, but it doesn't make any difference to anyone's opinion.
-
FFS, Bob! Too lazy to "do your own research" and reach the same conclusion as the person telling you to look into it more closely?! Tell-tale mark of a lib right there! 😂
-
i used to date the top swim ware designer at speedo in the 90s 😎 a mate of mine kept making jokes to her she should call them "hung wells" 🤣
-
I would add that the other poster's tenuous and unproven position - that people on his side are lacking an adequate supply of outlets providing echo chambers that reinforce their beliefs and shield them from challenging information - is a very strange one to adopt even if it could be proven. The implication is that the supply of such things needs to be increased, when in fact they are among the main causes of our regrettable situation.
-
This is interesting phenomenon. Fortunately not widespread in this forum, but there are special kind of people, who always cry "do your own research" and if it so happens and I don't find same "truth", then the same people accuse me being brainwashed. Well, they also always claim that they are "open minded", whatever this should mean in their vocabulary :)
One brain-reseacher (from our university) asked AI (ChatGPT): "What is truth?" AI responded something along the line "Truth is subjective understanding of things".
-
True,,, but it goes beyond that.
-
Possibly, but the real reason is that because I have researched it intensely for many years and know better than to be drawn down a rabbit hole that requires me to produce an essay about a subject I don't need to prove to others. I'm too lazy for that just as the other person is too lazy to get an accurate assessment.
-
Sorry Bob, I believe you know exactly what I'm referring to, but you want to play coy. Where were you when Musk revealed election interference and media content censorship during Twittergate. Are you denying that there was no twittergate? Or does that have all the 'hallmarks of Russian disinformation'?
The lawfare and weaponization of the FBI, CIA, DOJ against political opponents is acceptable to you? Putin took out his main opponent in old KGB Stalinist fashion whilst Biden is doing the same thing with Trump [rhetorically speaking] but in a less murderous fashion.
If you are wearing blinders, or a staunchly entrenched Democrat that pretends to deny any of this is occurring, then you should probably be a spin artist propagandist for the left. I think you know better. -
It's a topic that takes too much time to explain. A rabbit hole I'm too lazy to get into to be honest. I don't expect you really want to investigate it further because it is very time consuming to look up and peel away the bullshit from the truth. But who knows, maybe the bullshit is what you are truly after...just to support a weak point of argument.
-
LMAO...are you kidding me? It isn't an ageist thingy. It is a capability assessment and Biden is NOT capable. Furthermore, he is a fool and a buffoon. He is the laughing stock around the world! Peeps with ostrich DNA in the DNC only believe [forced allegiance of course] he is capable of being a third term POTUS for Obama.
-
Don't be a VP:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vgtBHpA1I -
I'm sorry that you even hypothesize such things about me. What I want to see is everyone pulling back from extremist positions and the prospect of 'nuclear' political war in my country that can lead to mutual destruction. Really, your words in this thread only emphasize how hardened you are in your beliefs and how much you will refuse to move toward the middle, the zone of compromise. Your fondness for pejorative terms ('bullshit from the truth', 'woketards', 'mediatards', 'ostrich DNA', etc.) is very telling. So much so that there is no need for you to say more in order for others to understand what your position is: Contrary to sounding like you have any depth of knowledge, you only bring shame on yourself that way. Positions like that are a big part of the problem here.
-
I have a bridge to sell if anyone's interested, no? 'Spose it's back to photography then...
That's the trouble with photography, it never transcends that barrier and exists purely as an abstract or a memory/wish in the viewers eye. A press photo is an actual event and has a reality attached and that more often than not clashes with our romantic viewpoint. So what do you do? To ban the photo would in effect be saying that we want it to reflect our perception of the human condition not the truth of it.
James Baldwin has said much the same about US politics, you've been voting for your perception of how you want to be for so long you've lost sight of just how far you've strayed from the truth.
It's about time the world woke up and saw the truth in the photo, understood how it differs from what our perception of what we want it to be. Then perhaps we could work on a world with an honest casual embrace instead of just creating the perception it exists.
Just a thought...
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
So it is the bullshit you are really after, because your statement reveals how so far left you are...that you can't even see how the Democrats are weaponizing the DOJ, FBI and CIA and using the corrupt media to cover for them. Why don't YOU meet in the center to soothe your anxiety about nuclear whatever?
-
Ai will just skew that even more...
