[AATW]

Your argument so far was that all people who do their own research reach the same conclusions, and that that's a bad thing (except when they don't reach the same conclusions, in which case that's a bad thing too).

Except none of that was my argument and I clarified it wasn't above. I was barely making an argument at all, it was at best a flippant comment which you are making a "thing" of.

However, your argument now is the other way around - that all people who reached the conclusions you dislike claim to have done their own research.

Again, it's pushing it to say I'm making any argument here. I'm just commenting on the fact that people who believe in various conspiracy theories always believe they're "independent thinkers" and are "doing their own research". Watching YouTube videos isn't "doing your own research". Falling down YouTube rabbit holes and believing people who confirm your worldview isn't being an "independent thinker". Just because something is mainstream that doesn't make it false and just because someone is independent, that doesn't make what they're saying true. Any idiot can set up a website (no offence) or start a YouTube channel and with a fair wind get a large following. Just because they're not affiliated with any mainstream source, that doesn't make what they're saying true.

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement.

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true. As always, David Mitchell shows us the way.



And I almost wish he wasn't talking about FE here because you're going to think I picked that clip just for that. And I really didn't, you could swap out FE for anti-vaxx or any other conspiracy theory out there. It's the attitude he rails against that I am also railing against here. Does the MSM lie? Of course they do. Do they lie about everything all the time? That's a stretch. What Trump did is say "you can't trust the mainstream media" - which is semi-true, you should certainly not accept everything they write at face value, although some sources are better than others. But the next step he took is to imply that he, not the media, was the source of truth. Except he wasn't, he routinely told demonstrable lies. But here's the issue, the people that buy into the idea that everything the MSM publishes is a lie therefore automatically declared the media's pointing out of his lies to be...well, lies. The mainstream view is that the earth is a globe, that vaccines work, that global warming is happening. None of these things are true because they're the mainstream views, but them being the mainstream views doesn't make them false either.

The underlying problem is it's increasingly hard to know what it true. We can take contrary positions on any subject and we could both sit here all day providing sources for our stance. Who is right, who is wrong? How do you know any more?

[Tom Bishop]

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".

The timeline says that multiple people alerted the guard at different points. I don't see why Trump couldn't have too, as he claimed.

If we read the testimony from the subsequent investigation, we can see that the National Guard leadership did not agree that it was enough of an emergency to deploy troops. They were concerned about optics. The optics of sending in troops outweighed the necessity of it. This contradicts your narrative that the initial stages of the riot was such an emergency and that everyone jumped to action except for Trump.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/541531-overnight-defense-dc-guard-chief-testifies-about-hampered-capitol/

“Immediately after the 1:49pm call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request. The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08pm — 3 hours and 19 minutes later,” Walker added.

Why the delay?: Walker testified that top Army officials were concerned about optics, backing up earlier testimony from Sund and D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee.

“The Army senior leaders did not think that it looked good, it would be a good optic. They further stated that it could incite the crowd,” Walker said.

Walker specifically recalled that director of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, a deputy chief of staff in the Army, expressed concern about optics.

So National Guard leadership disagreed that it was enough of an emergency in the early stages to send in the troops. Only later, around the same time Joe Biden made his call to end the insurrection, when multiple world leaders condemned it, and when Trump called to end it, did the National Guard think it was enough of an emergency to send in the troops.
                  

Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

We can see that you are ready with multiple excuses for Pence, Joe Biden, the National Guard, etc., for their delay in acting but think that Trump's delay makes him an insurrectionist. This is abhorrent reasoning. Clearly, there can be a reasonable explanation for so many people in the timing of their the response, and Trump is not exempt from that same reasoning.

[stack]

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".

The timeline says that multiple people alerted the guard at different points. I don't see why Trump couldn't have too, as he claimed.

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

If we read the testimony from the subsequent investigation, we can see that the National Guard leadership did not agree that it was enough of an emergency to deploy troops. They were concerned about optics. The optics of sending in troops outweighed the necessity of it. This contradicts your narrative that the initial stages of the riot was such an emergency and that everyone jumped to action except for Trump.

No, it doesn't contradict anything. I never said "everyone" jumped into action except Trump. Who is "everyone"?

No, the fact of the matter is that you said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. Then went on to claim Biden and Pence were just as negligent. Which is ludicrous. It was Trumps' rally, Trump's mob. You really think Biden could speak to the mob and have them stand down when the mob was expressly there to stop him from being the President. They were there to "stop the steal". It's ridiculous to think anyone could stop them other than DJT. Biden's message was a plea to the sitting President:

"I call on President Trump to go on national television now, to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege. This is not a protest — it is an insurrection," Biden says."

Minutes later, DJT posted his "stand down" video. Of course, praising the mob as patriots...

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/overnights/541531-overnight-defense-dc-guard-chief-testifies-about-hampered-capitol/

“Immediately after the 1:49pm call with Chief Sund, I alerted the Army Senior Leadership of the request. The approval for Chief Sund’s request would eventually come from the Acting Secretary of Defense and be relayed to me by Army Senior Leaders at 5:08pm — 3 hours and 19 minutes later,” Walker added.

Why the delay?: Walker testified that top Army officials were concerned about optics, backing up earlier testimony from Sund and D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee.

“The Army senior leaders did not think that it looked good, it would be a good optic. They further stated that it could incite the crowd,” Walker said.

Walker specifically recalled that director of the Army Staff Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt and Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, a deputy chief of staff in the Army, expressed concern about optics.

So National Guard leadership disagreed that it was enough of an emergency in the early stages to send in the troops. Only later, around the same time Joe Biden made his call to end the insurrection, when multiple world leaders condemned it, and when Trump called to end it, did the National Guard think it was enough of an emergency to send in the troops.

I have no idea what this all has to do with anything.

                  

Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

We can see that you are ready with multiple excuses for Pence, Joe Biden, the National Guard, etc., for their delay in acting but think that Trump's delay makes him an insurrectionist. This is abhorrent reasoning. Clearly, there can be a reasonable explanation for so many people in the timing of their the response, and Trump is not exempt from that same reasoning.

- Trump was President of the United States at the time. Pence, Biden, the Guard were all not President of the United States at the time.

- The Stop the Steal rally was a rally for the President of the United States at the time: Trump

- The mob that stormed the Capitol was there to stop the steal on behalf of the current President of the United States: Trump

- Does a President Elect even have the authority to call in the Guard? Me thinks not.

- Trump never called in the Guard. Others did.

- Trump was the only one who could stop his mob, instead, post-breach, he called into question Pence's "courage" with a tweet out to the mob.

- Why did Trump wait hours after the breach to actually even address his mob he was so eager to address during his rally. Even knowing some of the crowd were armed, he still wanted them in:

“I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,”

"They’re not here to hurt me...Let my people in". Pretty much says it all as to who was solely responsible for quelling the mob.

[Tom Bishop]

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

You have zero evidence that Trump didn't contact the National Guard as he claimed.

Trump had also claimed that in the days leading up to the event that he had wanted 10,000 National Guard Troops there at the Capitol, which liberal "fact checkers" claimed was false but was shown to be true.

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows

WASHINGTON (TND) — A Capitol Police timeline of the days and weeks surrounding Jan. 6 shows former President Donald Trump’s Department of Defense (DOD) offered the National Guard’s assistance in the days leading up to the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, validating claims from Trump administration officials that were said to be false by liberal fact-checkers.

"What we also know is that President Trump wanted to make sure that the people that came, that there was a safe environment for that kind of assembly,” former President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told Fox News’s Sean Hannity.

"And I’ve said that publicly before — the 10,000 National Guard troops that he wanted to make sure that everything was safe and secure," Meadows said. "Obviously having those National Guards available, actually the reason they were able to respond when they did, was because President Trump had actually put them on alert.

Liberal “fact-checkers” like The Washington Post and PolitiFact argued the claim about National Guard assistance coming from Meadows and other top Trump administration officials was false, but an official timeline of the events leading up to Jan. 6 apparently shows differently.

According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6.

The next morning, the timeline indicates, “Gallagher replies to DOD via text that a request for National Guard support not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP Sund.”

...

"The Capitol Police timeline shows what we have been saying for the last year — that DOD support via the National Guard was refused by the House and Senate sergeant at arms, who report to Pelosi,” said Patel. “Now we have it in their own writing, days before Jan. 6. And despite the FBI warning of potential for serious disturbance, no perimeter was established, no agents put on the street, and no fence put up."

So we have prior evidence that Trump wanted the National Guard there, while you provide zero evidence except for that a baseless claim that he is lying.

It was Trumps' rally, Trump's mob. You really think Biden could speak to the mob and have them stand down when the mob was expressly there to stop him from being the President. They were there to "stop the steal". It's ridiculous to think anyone could stop them other than DJT. Biden's message was a plea to the sitting President:

Claiming that the incoming Joe Biden had no responsibility to call for anything or do anything while the Capitol was being invaded because it wasn't his rally is pure lame excuse making. Biden had previously stated that he "was the Democratic Party" and that he represented the voice of the people, etc. The fact is that Biden did make a statement, at the time he thought appropriate. He made his call for it to end almost in sync when Trump called for it to end.

- Trump was President of the United States at the time. Pence, Biden, the Guard were all not President of the United States at the time.

Your claim that they were not responsible is contradicted by the fact that they did take action, at the time they thought was appropriate.

“I don’t f***ing care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the f***ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the f***ing mags away,”

"They’re not here to hurt me...Let my people in". Pretty much says it all as to who was solely responsible for quelling the mob.

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying. 

[Rama Set]

Claiming that the incoming Joe Biden had no responsibility to call for anything or do anything while the Capitol was being invaded because it wasn't his rally is pure lame excuse making.

Biden called on the sitting president to act before the president had done anything.  So did many people on the right for that matter.  You yourself were adamant that Biden had not clearly won the election, even after Jan 6th. Stop trying to shift blame to the president elect and away from the sitting president whose followers were engaging in violence.

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying. 

They haven't until they swear under oath.

[Tom Bishop]

Biden called on the sitting president to act before the president had done anything.  So did many people on the right for that matter.  You yourself were adamant that Biden had not clearly won the election, even after Jan 6th. Stop trying to shift blame to the president elect and away from the sitting president whose followers were engaging in violence.

Biden called for the event to end around the same time Trump did. Obviously Biden did so at the time he felt appropriate just like Trump and various world leaders made their statements at around the same time. The National Guard also felt that action was not necessary until later. The narrative that Trump was purposefully late is clearly incorrect.

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying. 

They haven't until they swear under oath.

Swearing under oath has nothing to do with the fact that the Secret Service contradicted her and implied that she was a liar. If the committee ends up not giving them a venue to testify for some reason, she is still being called a liar by the Secret Service.

[Rama Set]

Biden called for the event to end around the same time Trump did.

You mean before.  He called for an end before.  Without having live TV cameras in the room next to him.

Obviously Biden did so at the time he felt appropriate just like Trump and various world leaders made their statements at around the same time. The narrative that Trump was purposefully late is clearly wrong.

There were several personal calls made to his office by multiple members of the media and his team to condemn this and still he is reportedly reluctant to have done so, as you can see by him telling the insurrectionists how "special and loved" they were.  It's not at all clear. 

Swearing under oath has nothing to do with the fact that the Secret Service contradicted her and implied that she was a liar. If the committee ends up not allowing them to testify for some reason, she is still being called a liar by the Secret Service.

They can claim all sorts of things, but she has sworn testimony to back her up.  We saw during the election that people were willing to say all sorts of things that were evident lies and falsehoods to the media, but then would not do so under oath.  I am not ready to discredit her sworn testimony on the basis of PR communication.

[stack]

Now you're just making things up. I called in the Guard. Why couldn't I have done so, as I claim?

Seriously? Try ponying up some evidence for your inane statement.

You have zero evidence that Trump didn't contact the National Guard as he claimed.

I don't have evidence. But the Jan 6th commission does:

Cheney: Trump Never Called Military to Defend U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 – But Pence Did

Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.

She said Mr. Trump did not call his Secretary of Defense on Jan. 6, or speak to his Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security.

“Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day, and made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets,” Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

She quoted testimony from Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said he got multiple calls from Mr. Pence on Jan. 6.

“He was very animated, and he issued very explicit, very direct, unambiguous orders. There was no question about that. And I can get you the exact quotes,” Gen. Milley said. “But he was very animated, very direct, very firm to Sec. Miller. Get the military down here, get the guard down here. Put down this situation, et cetera.”

When Gen. Milley recalled his conversation with Mark Meadows, Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, on Jan. 6, he said Mr. Meadows told him: “'We have to kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions. We need to establish the narrative, you know, that the President is still in charge and that things are steady or stable.' … I immediately interpreted that as politics. Politics. Politics. Red flag for me, personally. No action. But I remember it distinctly. And I don’t do political narratives.”

So we have prior evidence that Trump wanted the National Guard there, while you provide zero evidence except for that a baseless claim that he is lying.

Yes, they do have evidence. See above.

Yeah, coming from the same lady who was discredited by the secret service for lying. 

Where did you find that the SS said she was "lying"? The SS hasn't said she was lying, one SS member did, Ornato. She made her claims under oath. He has not. So there's that.

For two, no one has been "discredited". Neither Hutchinson nor Ornato.

[Pete Svarrior]

I was barely making an argument at all

That explains a lot. Unfortunately, you presented it as one. Here's hoping you do better in the future.

I'm just commenting on the fact that people who believe in various conspiracy theories always believe they're "independent thinkers" and are "doing their own research".

Yes. That's your argument (although you just claimed you don't have one, so that's a bit difficult to discuss until you've figured out WTF it is you're saying). It also happens to be a completely incorrect argument, because it is not at all all conspiracy theorists who do that - and the ones who don't do that are the ones you complain about even louder, for fuck's sake. Sadly, when the flaws of your argument come to light, you just ramble about how you're not making an argument at all. You're just not interested in evaluating your beliefs, and it's immensely frustrating.

Watching YouTube videos isn't "doing your own research". Falling down YouTube rabbit holes and believing people who confirm your worldview isn't being an "independent thinker". Just because something is mainstream that doesn't make it false and just because someone is independent, that doesn't make what they're saying true. Any idiot can set up a website (no offence) or start a YouTube channel and with a fair wind get a large following. Just because they're not affiliated with any mainstream source, that doesn't make what they're saying true.

Correct, but also painfully unremarkable, unless you're about to declare that you will no longer fanboy over scimandan and "Professor" Dave Explains.

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either.

Of course it's correct. Indeed, that's why every time we've highlighted MSM lies, your best counter-argument was to claim that it doesn't matter that they lied. And, of course, this is also why you often highlight MSM lies yourself. The longer you defend the completely fucked-up media, the more you contribute to the very broken world you complain about. Will you continue to contribute to it?

Don't be a moron. Hold the press to account. If you have any doubt about the MSM, just buy the UK's most popular (most mainstream) newspaper and read it. Just once. See how you feel about how true its claims are.

The underlying problem is it's increasingly hard to know what it true. We can take contrary positions on any subject and we could both sit here all day providing sources for our stance. Who is right, who is wrong? How do you know any more?

Ohhhhh, you keep brushing against reality! If only you could make those final observations.

But the next step he took is to imply that he, not the media, was the source of truth. Except he wasn't, he routinely told demonstrable lies.

Congratulations. Now all you need to do is read and understand what I've said about this, and you'll be golden.

If you think it's Trump's fault for capitalising on it, you're barking up the wrong tree.

The people you're desperately defending are responsible for the erosion of what is and isn't true. They had society's implicit trust, reality TV stars (Trump) did not. The media are the ones who destroyed their trust, Trump happened to benefit. You are defending them. Stop doing that. It's dumb.

[Tom Bishop]

Cheney: Trump Never Called Military to Defend U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 – But Pence Did

Mr. Trump “placed no call to any element of the U.S. government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” Ms. Cheney said.

Liz Cheney is a prolific anti-trumper and a member of the House of Representatives from Wyoming. How would she know who the President contacted? Once again, you have presented no actual evidence.

In fact, Trump had already delegated deployment of the guard to the Defense Secretary in the days prior - 

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/ap-fact-check-trump-distorts-record-on-national-guard-in-dc/2441407/

National Guard troops had already been activated and deployed to checkpoints around the city that day, before the violence began. When the rioting started, Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who approved it.

The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

It wasn't actually Trump's responsibility to approve usage of the the National Guard. It was already given and delegated in days prior.

Ms. Cheney said. “But Mike Pence did each of those things.”

She is lying here. The Defense Secretary contradicts her and says that the Vice President is not in the chain of command and that he did not give direction to clear the capitol, and that the Vice President did not deploy the troops -

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg44570/html/CHRG-117hhrg44570.htm

    Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on
January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to
ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?

    Mr. Miller: No, I had all the authority I needed from the
President to fulfill my constitutional duties.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with President Trump at
all as the attack was unfolding?

    Mr. Miller: On January 6?

    Chairwoman Maloney: Yes.

    Mr. Miller: No, I did not. I didn't need to. I had all the
authority I needed and knew what had to--I knew what had to
happen.

    Chairwoman Maloney: Did you speak with Vice President Pence
during the attack, yes or no?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to a Defense Department
timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump,
who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure
and to give you the direction to ``clear the Capitol.'' What
specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?

    Mr. Miller: The Vice President is not in the chain of
command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed
very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based
on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him
that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was
being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local
and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.

    Chairwoman Maloney: According to the DOD timeline, the Vice
President's call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two
hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to
this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice
President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard
troops to deploy to the Capitol.

    Did you issue your order in response to the Vice
President's call?

    Mr. Miller: No. I issued the order to mobilize the District
of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to
civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3--I gave
approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.

So regardless of who Trump called, or who he checked in with on the mobilization process, Trump had already given pre-approval to use the guard and had delegated the decision to use them. The Defense Secretary says that Mike Pence did not deploy them. He indicated that Trump had already delegated and given approval to deploy them and this is where he derived his authority. Ergo, Trump deployed the guard.

If Trump at some point checked in with his staff on Jan 6th about mobilization, or if he was informed that they were being mobilized, he would also be right to say that he had deployed the guard. We are deploying the guard = Trump is deploying the guard. The authorization and delegation came from Trump in preparation for the event. Trump did not actually have to call anyone with that specific direction to be able to say that he deployed the National Guard.

The Defense Secretary also said:

    Chairwoman Maloney: And Mr. Miller, based on his actions
leading up to January 6 and on the day of the attack, do you
believe President Trump fulfilled his oath to faithfully
execute his duties as President and to preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution?

    Mr. Miller: Yes.

Yes, they do have evidence. See above.

You have actually presented no legitimate evidence. The Defense Secretary said that his authorization to use the National Guard was pre-approved by Trump and that the Vice President is not in the chain of command and did not deploy the troops. The Vice President did not give the order to clear the Capitol. In the call the Defense Secretary informed the Vice President that the troops were being deployed; the VP was not giving orders to do so.

Where did you find that the SS said she was "lying"? The SS hasn't said she was lying, one SS member did, Ornato. She made her claims under oath. He has not. So there's that.

For two, no one has been "discredited". Neither Hutchinson nor Ornato.

Wrong. If you say that the police said something and they later contradict you, that discredits you, not the police.

[honk]

Yes, it is. That is quite literally an anonymous claim.

Incorrect. If a newspaper says that "sources said" then it's anonymous. If they specify that their source in the Secret Service said it, then it's not totally anonymous. They are indicating that it's a source in the Secret Service. It's not a source which is "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability" according to that definition, since there is distinction and recognizability. Nor is is a source which is "not named or identified", since they are identified to a degree. They are indicating that the Secret Service said this and it's not left to the imagination that it might be from a random guy who works for Taco Bell.

Journalists.org says that an anonymous source is someone who the journalist doesn't know the identification of -

https://ethics.journalists.org/topics/confidential-sources/

Often among journalists and especially among our critics, the term for sources we don’t name is “anonymous sources,” or we explain in a story that the source requested “anonymity.” But this term can be misleading or even inaccurate in ways that undercut the news organization’s credibility. The truth is that few, if any, news stories ever actually use any information from truly anonymous sources: people whose identities are unknown to the journalists or the news organization.

Truly anonymous sources would be people who call us on the telephone with tips and refuse to give their names, anonymous commenters on our websites or someone contacting us through email or social media (or even in person) who refuse to identify themselves to us. Journalists get valuable tips in these ways but shouldn’t publish anything based on these sources. If you publish a story at all, you should use the tip as a starting point and find sources you trust — whether they will go on the record or not — on which to base a story.

They explain that it's called a confidential or "unnamed source" -

This may appear a matter of semantics, but anything involving unnamed sources affects the credibility of your stories. And every tiny step you can take to assure the reader or viewer that you have tried to use reliable sources is important. Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms.

Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well. If they are not sources you have used before, you should question them extensively about how they know what they are telling you and why they can’t go on the record. You might research their credentials to judge their veracity. Because of your pledge of confidentiality, you generally can’t vet sources by asking others about their credibility, but sometimes a confidential source can put you in touch with a trusted contact of yours who can vouch for her credibility.

So again, it's not an anonymous source.

Only an idiot would interpret the idea of an anonymous source in journalism to literally mean that the journalist themselves has no idea who the source is, rather than the public at large. Regardless of these semantic quibbles, the fact remains that the Secret Service as an entity have not officially declared Hutchinson's story to be untrue, and the agents involved have not themselves stepped forward to publicly declare the story to be untrue. It's been a week since Hutchinson testified with no official word from them, and I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't have put out an official statement within a couple of days maintaining that no physical altercation occurred if it were nothing more than a fabricated story, rather than stalling by talking about how they were blindsided by the testimony and will eventually have a response to make. Maybe I'm wrong and there really will be a response from them in a few days, but my guess is that the story is at least largely true, and the Secret Service simply doesn't want to put its agents in the awkward position of essentially testifying against a former president, someone they expect to trust them with their life.

[AATW]

I was barely making an argument at all

That explains a lot. Unfortunately, you presented it as one.

I literally posted a single sentence. Which was somewhat flippant.
The only word in that sentence you seem to be objecting to is the word "all". This is xasopesque pointless pedantry.
The Venn Diagram of conspiracy theorists and people who say they're "independent thinkers" or that they're "doing their own research" would be close to a circle.
That is admittedly an opinion rather than based on extensive research - I would have thought that is obvious. It's based on my observations of the way I see people acting on social media.
Anti-vaxxers are usually the ones who shout "do your own research!".

You're just not interested in evaluating your beliefs, and it's immensely frustrating.

That is demonstrable bullshit, I've changed my views on various things over time but when I do so it's based on new data, not your nit-picking.

unless you're about to declare that you will no longer fanboy over scimandan and "Professor" Dave Explains.

He does know a lot about the science stuff...
Got a bit bored with scimandan actually. His videos have got a bit lazy.

Of course it's correct. Indeed, that's why every time we've highlighted MSM lies, your best counter-argument was to claim that it doesn't matter that they lied.

Example?

And, of course, this is also why you often highlight MSM lies yourself.

Do I? Often? I'm not disputing they lie. It's the assertion that they "lie about everything, all the time". See that David Mitchell video. They don't lie about everything, much of what they print is true. But of course some sources are better than others and each has its own agenda which colours the way they write things. That's why it's important to look at a range of sources. And I'd agree that some of the most popular sources are the worst in this regard.

The people you're desperately defending

Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth. Those aren't the only two possibilities. How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absolute and then make such an absolute claim about the media yourself?

are responsible for the erosion of what is and isn't true. They had society's implicit trust, reality TV stars (Trump) did not. The media are the ones who destroyed their trust.

I wouldn't say they are solely responsible, but they are certainly complicit.
Two things happened - the growth of satellite/cable TV and the internet. When I were a lad we had 3 channels to watch, a new major newspapers and no internet. Now there are eleventy billion sources, TV channels everywhere, internet streams and so on. Back in the day people would pick the newspaper which they liked reading, a factor in that was obviously that paper's political leaning. People like reading stuff they agree with. But there were only so many to choose from. Now there are...so many to choose from. Now everyone can find a "news" source which confirms their worldview. The result is people are more polarised than ever and it's next to impossible to know what the truth is. The MSM didn't create that situation, but it's reasonable to say their lies have pushed people to other sources. It's suggest it's also reasonable to say that people's natural tendency to seek out sources they agree with is a factor. With ever more sources available everyone can find one which panders to their particular worldview. I don't think that's healthy any more than just having one or a handful of sources is healthy.

[Pete Svarrior]

Holy shit will you stop with this ridiculous hyperbole! All I've said is I disagree that they lie about everything all the time. That doesn't mean I think they are bastions of truth.

That's not all you've said, no. Perhaps that's all you meant, and I'm happy to accept that you're stepping down, but what you said was:

It's not a controversial statement but it's not a correct statement either. I mean, an increasing number of people think that - and that's what Trump has capitalised on and amplified.
Most of what the MSM write is basically true.

This, to me, is such an insane statement that I don't even know where to begin. I sincerely suspect it's been a while since you've engaged with mainstream media. Could I encourage you to do so and report your findings (or keep them to yourself - I don't really care if you admit you were wrong, as long as you realise it)? I'm even happy to cover your costs, not that they'll be high.

Go and buy a copy of the 3 most circulated newspapers in the UK: The Sun, Daily Mail, and Metro. Have a read through them and tell me whether what they print falls within your definition of "basically true". I suspect that you will either agree with me that you were wrong, or we will realise that our ideas of what counts as "basically true" are extremely incompatible. What the MSM write is not "basically true". More commonly, it falls into the bracket of "so unhinged and incoherent that the concepts of right or wrong barely even apply".

I also suspect that when you think "MSM", you might be thinking of something like The Guardian - whose circulation is 10% that of The Sun if we're being generous. As you said, it's possible to find media that agree with anyone (including ones relatively level-headed people). They just happen not to be mainstream by any definition of the term.

How can you rail against my somewhat flippant claim that "all" conspiracy theorists...because it's too absolute

That's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. Sure, you gave some half-arsed excuse about how you would be happy if people weren't aligned but you personally received updates on their attempts to align. I hope we can agree that it doesn't merit a serious response. You cannot be made happy, because you've already decided that you're going to disagree with those people, regardless of what they do. And that's dumb.

[AATW]

Go and buy a copy of the 3 most circulated newspapers in the UK: The Sun, Daily Mail, and Metro. Have a read through them and tell me whether what they print falls within your definition of "basically true". I suspect that you will either agree with me that you were wrong, or we will realise that our ideas of what counts as "basically true" are extremely incompatible.

I suspect it's the latter.

I happen to have a copy of The Metro from Monday.
The front page has an article about Boris Johnson and Gropegate (my term, not theirs). I mean...that's true, isn't it? That's happening.
It also has something about the F1 crash. Again, that happened didn't it?
Page 2 has something about the Euro losing value against the dollar. I cross checked and have found other sources corroborating that.
On Page 4 there's a scoop about a kitten being rescued from a motorway. I found this on the BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-62013191
So...
Look, a lot of The Metro is a load of fluff, but they're not just making stuff up. What other definition of "basically true" is there than they're reporting stuff which is factually accurate? It's not like the Daily Sport which literally do just make stuff up

That's not what I'm railing against at all. I'm simply pointing out that you cannot be made happy, because you want to complain about how dumb conspiracy theorists are. When people are aligned in their conclusions - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb. When people are not aligned - that's stupid, haha, conspiracy dumb.

Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times. And yet you keep repeating it. You are straw manning me.

[Pete Svarrior]

Why do you keep repeating this? I clarified multiple times.

As I said immediately after your quote ends, your "clarification" is an obvious attempt at copping out. If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine. Until then, you suffer the social consequences of your own actions, frustrating as you may find them.

I suspect it's the latter.

Evidently. Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true". As long as it says "something about" a thing that happened, it's "basically true". And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".

Moreover, you conveniently happen to have the least insane newspaper of the three, so you choose not to look at the other two. I don't know why I bother reasoning with you. You never evaluate, you just cling to whatever makes you feel right.

[AATW]

If you want to take what you said back and choose your words more carefully in the future, that's fine.

Well OK, if you want me to retract "all" and replace it with "many" then fine. A million internet points to you.

Apparently a dishonest take on something that happened satisfies your criteria for being "basically true".

I wouldn't go that far, but the Metro articles I'm looking at don't seem to be that. I picked The Metro because I happened to have one lying around, you're the one who listed them. The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream. And those people often then think "the truth" is to be found on some blog or "some bloke" on YouTube. As if those people don't have biases which affect their output.

And that, boys and girls, is how we got Trump - a man who usually says things that are "basically true".

Counterpoint, no he doesn't.
And while I agree the media aren't blameless, I think the other things I mentioned about the proliferation of "news" sources is a factor. Having only a few sources where you get "the news" from is probably a bad thing. But everyone being able to find a source which panders to and reinforces their worldview is worse.

[Pete Svarrior]

The Daily Mail...I'm not disputing they're a horrible rag and it's lamentable that they're the biggest selling paper over here. No argument about The Sun either. But I said before that some sources are better than others. My point is some people believe that all mainstream sources are full of lies simply because they're mainstream.

Of course not. There is nothing about them being mainstream that automatically makes them full of lies. There is no direct causation here. However, it just so happens that the mainstream-est of media are utterly full of lies. The media that haven't completely gone down the gutter are hardly mainstream. Some of them are notable, but that's where realising that the Guardian (not a perfect newspaper, but at least somewhat rooted in reality) has 10% of the circulation of any of the Big Bads comes into play.

Counterpoint, no he doesn't.

But he says something about things that actually happened, so he's basically telling the truth. 🤷‍♂️

[Rama Set]

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

[Pete Svarrior]

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

Granted, it's a notable exception that I only have occasional issues with.

[AATW]

Isn’t the BBC a fairly accurate and mainstream news source?

The BBC are one of my go-to sources. But you see, this is part of the point I'm making. I know people who claim that everything they the BBC says is lies. And it just isn't.
I don't know if you're following the utter shit-show that is UK politics right now (if you're not then holy shit, just...ugh). But earlier the BBC published some "fake news" about yet another minister resigning, which he hadn't. I later saw a correction from them and they admitted they'd made a mistake. That shows some integrity. They're not perfect by any means but they're a lot better than most.