Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 4

[Scallop Industry Thug]

I have to take a step back here, it's incredible what's going on here.

Rather than be genuinely shocked at what Mark's has just conveyed, instead those that find the views too confronting and against their agenda are using the need for "direct evidence" to strawman the content.

Perhaps it may not be "undeniable" but it provides more than sufficient confidence for a reasonable person to form their views on the matter.

absolutely wild!

He’s making a play for MAGA. Right down to him putting a UFC wife basher on the board.

He’s another slimy **** billionaire.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Gralin]

I always find it funny that the current status is based on left are censors and right are free speech advocates

Twitter Has Complied With Almost Every Government Request For Censorship Since Musk Took Over, Report Finds

The social media platform has not reported denying any government requests since Musk bought it, a change from its previous ownership.

www.forbes.com

Twitter has more censorship under Musk that previously



Of course what they really mean in they should be able to say what they want and punish those opposed

It's why mr free speech made cisgender a slur but let actual nazi accounts back on the site

Zuck is now supporting what the incoming US government wants and blaming the outgoing government for doing different prior

He'll blame Trump in the future if Dems get in again and he stops

It's really cool though how apparently Biden made meta stop people say being gay was a mental illness and now you can say it because "free speech"

 

[Gethelred]

This is not a court of law, this is an internet forum where a degree of trust will be required for a basic level of discourse.

... and Christopher Hitchens was not a lawyer.

.. In the context of Mark's standing and the platform which he makes these statements provides more than sufficient confidence to form a position on until there is some new information from a reputable source of equal standing to suggest otherwise.

Two things.

What does standing have to do with truthfulness? Do you think everyone who has achieved a level of wealth or owns something of sufficient size is honest all of the time or makes statements to do with their business that always contain all the facts? Because if you believe either of those things, that would be contrary to a rather significant amount of evidence.

Second thing - and again - Hitchen's law applies because the claim is unsupported by anything save Zuckerberg's statement.

But based on the content that's posted on these forums, perhaps your desired burden of evidence in the form of 'direct evidence' only applies when the position/discourse doesn't align with yours am I right?

... dude, d'you really want to try mod bashing on with me?

Absolutism applies to quite a few things, particularly when it comes to matters that affect civil rights. Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

An absolute statement is not a reference to absolutism but a formal logic term. What you originally said was this:

Bottom line and undeniable fact is that censorship is abhorrent no matter which way you vote

... which is an absolute statement, and had nothing to do with absolutism.

That you missed this implies one of two things: that you didn't understand the post and/or don't know the term, or you deliberately ignored it to bounce back into your ivory tower concerning the ills of absolutism. If it's the former no harm no foul (we've cleared up that little misunderstanding!) but it's the latter it's a rather disingenuous way to argue.

 

[Gethelred]

I have to take a step back here, it's incredible what's going on here.

Rather than be genuinely shocked at what Mark's has just conveyed, instead those that find the views too confronting and against their agenda are using the need for "direct evidence" to strawman the content.

Perhaps it may not be "undeniable" but it provides more than sufficient confidence for a reasonable person to form their views on the matter.

absolutely wild!

... this is not what a strawman is.

No-one has made his argument weaker by misrepresenting it. Asking for evidence of a claim is not a misrepresentation of a presented argument.

This is very silly.

 

[Gethelred]

Nor is any of this hypocrisy, let alone of the left.

 

[100action]

... and Christopher Hitchens was not a lawyer.

Two things.

What does standing have to do with truthfulness? Do you think everyone who has achieved a level of wealth or owns something of sufficient size is honest all of the time or makes statements to do with their business that always contain all the facts? Because if you believe either of those things, that would be contrary to a rather significant amount of evidence.

Second thing - and again - Hitchen's law applies because the claim is unsupported by anything save Zuckerberg's statement.

... dude, d'you really want to try mod bashing on with me?

An absolute statement is not a reference to absolutism but a formal logic term. What you originally said was this:

... which is an absolute statement, and had nothing to do with absolutism.

That you missed this implies one of two things: that you didn't understand the post and/or don't know the term, or you deliberately ignored it to bounce back into your ivory tower concerning the ills of absolutism. If it's the former no harm no foul (we've cleared up that little misunderstanding!) but it's the latter it's a rather disingenuous way to argue.

His standing as a CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company providing information to 10m+ viewers matters in this context including the information he is providing about the administration's conduct.

I am sure you don't need me to explain why a RWNJ that formerly worked at Meta and has no fiduciary duty to its shareholders, makes the same claim under the influence of alcohol in a bar setting to his fellow shitfaced patrons wouldn't hold the same weight? - I am uncertain why your thinking diverted straight to his wealth.

Bottom line is that all of this is besides the point and enough with the red herrings. Mark provided insight on the disgraceful conduct/overreach of the administration on the podcast (consistent with his letter prior to the elections to the US House of Rep. Judiciary Committee) that is credible.

Free speech is a key pillar of the American left movement (or use to be?) arising from the censorship campaigns in response to the Cold War. Government censorship threatens the essential principles of freedom of expression. The conduct of the government (put in place by the modern left) that is justified by its supporters is hypocritical.

 

[Father Jack]

His standing as a CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company providing information to 10m+ viewers matters in this context including the information he is providing about the administration's conduct.

I am sure you don't need me to explain why a RWNJ that formerly worked at Meta and has no fiduciary duty to its shareholders, makes the same claim under the influence of alcohol in a bar setting to his fellow shitfaced patrons wouldn't hold the same weight? - I am uncertain why your thinking diverted straight to his wealth.

Bottom line is that all of this is besides the point and enough with the red herrings. Mark provided insight on the disgraceful conduct/overreach of the administration on the podcast (consistent with his letter prior to the elections to the US House of Rep. Judiciary Committee) that is credible.

Free speech is a key pillar of the American left movement (or use to be?) arising from the censorship campaigns in response to the Cold War. Government censorship threatens the essential principles of freedom of expression. The conduct of the government (put in place by the modern left) that is justified by its supporters is hypocritical.

It's true because you want it to be true, we get it.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

His standing as a CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company providing information to 10m+ viewers matters in this context including the information he is providing about the administration's conduct.

I am sure you don't need me to explain why a RWNJ that formerly worked at Meta and has no fiduciary duty to its shareholders, makes the same claim under the influence of alcohol in a bar setting to his fellow shitfaced patrons wouldn't hold the same weight? - I am uncertain why your thinking diverted straight to his wealth.

Bottom line is that all of this is besides the point and enough with the red herrings. Mark provided insight on the disgraceful conduct/overreach of the administration on the podcast (consistent with his letter prior to the elections to the US House of Rep. Judiciary Committee) that is credible.

Free speech is a key pillar of the American left movement (or use to be?) arising from the censorship campaigns in response to the Cold War. Government censorship threatens the essential principles of freedom of expression. The conduct of the government (put in place by the modern left) that is justified by its supporters is hypocritical.

Ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about cheese.

 

[Gethelred]

His standing as a CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company providing information to 10m+ viewers matters in this context including the information he is providing about the administration's conduct.

I am sure you don't need me to explain why a RWNJ that formerly worked at Meta and has no fiduciary duty to its shareholders, makes the same claim under the influence of alcohol in a bar setting to his fellow shitfaced patrons wouldn't hold the same weight? - I am uncertain why your thinking diverted straight to his wealth.

... and yet, when you you responded, you went directly to his wealth as well.

'Standing' through a traditional lens meant family reputation, lineage, breeding; "from the right stock." It's always been interesting to me how things like this have been retained, despite the - frankly - grotesque origins of the ideas behind them. Money might be a superior means of measurement - it certainly avoids accusations of eugenicism or classism - but it's not a guarantor of honesty.

And - again - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it.

Bottom line is that all of this is besides the point and enough with the red herrings.

lol at the idea that because you cannot address something it's a red herring.

... Mark provided insight on the disgraceful conduct/overreach of the administration on the podcast (consistent with his letter prior to the elections to the US House of Rep. Judiciary Committee) that is credible.

Hitchen's law.

Next.

Free speech is a key pillar of the American left movement (or use to be?) arising from the censorship campaigns in response to the Cold War. Government censorship threatens the essential principles of freedom of expression. The conduct of the government (put in place by the modern left) that is justified by its supporters is hypocritical.

...

I'm sorry, does the right not also value free speech? I must've missed all the memo.

In all seriousness, freedom of expression is a liberal value. To believe in a liberal society is not a right or a left wing position but a position on societal freedom, in the same way both the right and left have their own positions on authoritarianism. It's a different spectrum of political opinion.

And it's long been a position within a liberal society that your rights extend to the point in which they begin to impede another person's rights, which is why universal free expression doesn't exist in most places including America.

Shouting "Fire!" in a theatre isn't legal, nor is talking loudly about bombs in an airport.

So, there you have it. It's not even hypocritical for a liberal to hold the opinion that censorship is allowed, let alone whether liberalism=left wing, let alone whether it'd be hypocritical of either group or perspectice to hold that position.

Honestly, you'd have been better off to follow your own advice:

I have to take a step back here,

 

[100action]

... and yet, when you you responded, you went directly to his wealth as well.

'Standing' through a traditional lens meant family reputation, lineage, breeding; "from the right stock." It's always been interesting to me how things like this have been retained, despite the - frankly - grotesque origins of the ideas behind them. Money might be a superior means of measurement - it certainly avoids accusations of eugenicism or classism - but it's not a guarantor of honesty.

And - again - that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without it.

lol at the idea that because you cannot address something it's a red herring.

Hitchen's law.

Next.

...

I'm sorry, does the right not also value free speech? I must've missed all the memo.

In all seriousness, freedom of expression is a liberal value. To believe in a liberal society is not a right or a left wing position but a position on societal freedom, in the same way both the right and left have their own positions on authoritarianism. It's a different spectrum of political opinion.

And it's long been a position within a liberal society that your rights extend to the point in which they begin to impede another person's rights, which is why universal free expression doesn't exist in most places including America.

Shouting "Fire!" in a theatre isn't legal, nor is talking loudly about bombs in an airport.

So, there you have it. It's not even hypocritical for a liberal to hold the opinion that censorship is allowed, let alone whether liberalism=left wing, let alone whether it'd be hypocritical of either group or perspectice to hold that position.

Honestly, you'd have been better off to follow your own advice:

1. Where did I respond to his wealth? surely you are not conflating the market capitalization of a company with his personal wealth?

If you can't understand why the CEO of a large company needs to convey what he did through a regulatory minefield that requires an element of truthfulness, then there's no point in discussing this any further.

2. Re Hitchen's Law this isn't a court of law and doesn't apply in all contexts. Using this here seems like a weak attempt at encumbering the unrealistic burden of proof on Mark (where there's no doubt laws/regulations preventing him providing direct evidence) to dismiss his claims.

A Bayesian interpretation is a far better and more nuanced approach. On the balance of probabilities, Mark's claims are highly credible.

3. It's all been addressed. My main point was Mark's insights relating to censorship from the Biden administration is credible - this is unchanged. All this latter discussion regarding Hitchen's Law (lol) etc are red herrings.

4. In modern times, the right does value free speech but this thread relates to the hypocrisy of the left. If you have views on the hypocrisy of the right, I'd recommend a posting it on the hypocrisy of the right thread.

Censoring people that have opposing views on let's say vaccines on social media is not the same as regulations in place in airports/on planes. (before you take this path, yes I am vaccinated against COVID and most vaccines are likely a net positive).

Feel free to turn this into a whole discussion around the semantics of censorship/free speech though to score brownie points.

 

[Gethelred]

1. Where did I respond to his wealth? surely you are not conflating the market capitalization of a company with his personal wealth?

Okay, then.

Feel free to describe specifically what you meant by 'standing', without drawing any reference whatsoever to his wealth.

If you can't understand why the CEO of a large company needs to convey what he did through a regulatory minefield that requires an element of truthfulness, then there's no point in discussing this any further.

... so - just to clarify - he has no requirement to establish his claim with fact because... lawsuits? Gag orders?

This got conspiracist real quick.

2. Re Hitchen's Law this isn't a court of law and doesn't apply in all contexts.

Again: Christopher Hitchens was not a lawyer, and Hitchens Razor is a debating term. While it mightn't apply in all contexts - because, as stated, absolutes are dumb - it certainly applies here.

Using this here seems like a weak attempt at encumbering the unrealistic burden of proof on Mark (where there's no doubt laws/regulations preventing him providing direct evidence) to dismiss his claims.

Can you provide us with examples of these tongue-tying laws so that we can establish precisely what Zuckerberg - or you - is accusing the US governement of doing in order to hamper his ability to disclose what the specific nature of the censorship was?

A Bayesian interpretation is a far better and more nuanced approach. On the balance of probabilities, Mark's claims are highly credible.

... could you please try and tell me how your various attempts at avoiding the need for evidence in favour of a balance of probablities test isn't just a manifestation of confirmation bias?

3. It's all been addressed. My main point was Mark's insights relating to censorship from the Biden administration is credible - this is unchanged. All this latter discussion regarding Hitchen's Law (lol) etc are red herrings.

lol.

Calling something a red herring when what you mean is a distraction or evasion has lent this conversation a certain level of adorableness, but it hasn't rendered your subsequent and continued attempts at dismissal any more credible than the first time you tried.

4. In modern times, the right does value free speech...

Point of order.

In a modern context, the right value speech for themselves but not for others. See, 'wokeness', any attempt at use of gender nonconforming pronouns, the various book bans taking place throughout parts of the American south and east.

So, if we were looking for hypocrisy, perhaps we could start there.

Censoring people that have opposing views on let's say vaccines on social media is not the same as regulations in place in airports/on planes. (before you take this path, yes I am vaccinated against COVID and most vaccines are likely a net positive).

I didn't take any path, but this is an interestjng direction anyway.

You said this earlier:

Bottom line and undeniable fact is that censorship is abhorrent no matter which way you vote...

So, which is it? Is censorship okay sometimes - as in, loudly and vehemently advocating putting C4 on the left wing of the next flight to Sydney whilst going through customs might be a bad idea - or is censorship always abhorrent no matter which say you vote?

Do you remember me telling you that absolute statements are dumb?

Feel free to turn this into a whole discussion around the semantics of censorship/free speech though to score brownie points.

... um...

<looks left and right>

This is a footy forum. Precious little penned on here is worth more than the time spent penning it, and that still a bar most posts would slink under comfortably.

What brownie points d'you think I'm getting for posting in this thread???

And, after all that, you've still failed to establish anything resembling hypocrisy, let alone from the left. Ah well.

 

[Trouto]

This is common knowledge but good to see the veil lifted. Censorship through harassment of non-government entities.

Imagine mistreating and alienating one of the strongest supporters of the democrat party into saying stuff like this lmfao:



This is some disgraceful stuff and appears to be the go to tactic for the modern left these days. How anybody wants to be associated with the modern left is beyond me.

This to me smacks of Zuck reading the room and feeling that the push back against the Social Media crackdown is starting to hurt his business.

I seriously doubt if he cares about "free speech"

 

[CM86]

This is not a court of law, this is an internet forum where a degree of trust will be required for a basic level of discourse. In the context of Mark's standing and the platform which he makes these statements provides more than sufficient confidence to form a position on until there is some new information from a reputable source of equal standing to suggest otherwise.

But based on the content that's posted on these forums, perhaps your desired burden of evidence in the form of 'direct evidence' only applies when the position/discourse doesn't align with yours am I right?

Absolutism applies to quite a few things, particularly when it comes to matters that affect civil rights. Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

"Hitchen's Law" isn't a statue or legal precedent. It was literally explained in the post you replied to.

Hitchen's Law/Razor/Rule. It's a generality.
Algorithmic search bots, grifting as AI, wouldn't be able to explain that to you.
So if all of your information, arguments and responses are coming from asking for 'AI' to reply... Then it would make sense that you think someone talking about "Hitchen's law', would be an appeal to a court of law.

 

[Trouto]

This is common knowledge but good to see the veil lifted. Censorship through harassment of non-government entities.

Imagine mistreating and alienating one of the strongest supporters of the democrat party into saying stuff like this lmfao:



This is some disgraceful stuff and appears to be the go to tactic for the modern left these days. How anybody wants to be associated with the modern left is beyond me.

Also, i am surprised that your post hasnt resulted in you getting a warning or thread ban seeing that Joe Rogan is a proven "Conspiracy Theorist" (Sandy Hook Shooting).

Perhaps now that Zuckerberg has let us know that his so-called "fact checkers" were politically motivated and full of B/S, the ability to instantly paint someone as a "conspiracy theorist" by looking at fact checkers is not as easy to do?

 

[CM86]

Perhaps now that Zuckerberg has let us know that his so-called "fact checkers" were politically motivated and full of B/S, the ability to instantly paint someone as a "conspiracy theorist" by looking at fact checkers is not as easy to do?

"Let us know"?

Why do you believe everything Zuckerberg claims now, and refuse to believe anything he's claimed previously?



Can't imagine why Zuckerberg would bend the knee to Trump.
I mean, I guess... Apart from the threats.
There is that.
But the threats probably weren't politically motivated, right? Because Trump isn't a politician, he's just a working class one-of-us.

Trump wrote in a July post on Truth Social that if elected he would pursue “ELECTION FRAUDSTERS at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”​

"Probably," Trump said when asked if Zuckerberg is "directly responding to the threats you've made to him in the past."​

We're just lucky that Zuck is letting the truth out now, right?
All the fact checkers blocking 'lies about respirators causing deaths, not Covid".
It's about time we got Jones back on to tell the truth about Sandy Hook! Right Trouto ?

 

[Trouto]

"Let us know"?

Why do you believe everything Zuckerberg claims now, and refuse to believe anything he's claimed previously?



Can't imagine why Zuckerberg would bend the knee to Trump.
I mean, I guess... Apart from the threats.
There is that.
But the threats probably weren't politically motivated, right? Because Trump isn't a politician, he's just a working class one-of-us.

Trump wrote in a July post on Truth Social that if elected he would pursue “ELECTION FRAUDSTERS at levels never seen before, and they will be sent to prison for long periods of time. We already know who you are. DON’T DO IT! ZUCKERBUCKS, be careful!”​

"Probably," Trump said when asked if Zuckerberg is "directly responding to the threats you've made to him in the past."​

We're just lucky that Zuck is letting the truth out now, right?
All the fact checkers blocking 'lies about respirators causing deaths, not Covid".
It's about time we got Jones back on to tell the truth about Sandy Hook! Right Trouto ?

I believe Zuck about as far as I could throw a bank filled with all his money

 

[CM86]

I believe Zuck about as far as I could throw a bank filled with all his money

now that Zuckerberg has let us know that his so-called "fact checkers" were politically motivated and full of B/S

So Zuckerberg hasn't let us know anything, then?

He's made a claim, that you should trust about as far as you can throw blah blah blah.

Do you understand the difference between stating that he's let us know something, vs stating that he's probably lying about something new?

 

[Trouto]

So Zuckerberg hasn't let us know anything, then?

He's made a claim, that you should trust about as far as you can throw blah blah blah.

Do you understand the difference between stating that he's let us know something, vs stating that he's probably lying about something new?

Whats happening here? Have you convinced yourself I believe or dont believe Zuck?

Why are you focusing on my statement "letting us know" ??

What point are you trying to make?

 

[100action]

Okay, then.

Feel free to describe specifically what you meant by 'standing', without drawing any reference whatsoever to his wealth.

This has been stated a few times already: his standing as the CEO of a $1.5t publicly listed company that has a fiduciary duty to maximize its value for its shareholders.

... so - just to clarify - he has no requirement to establish his claim with fact because... lawsuits? Gag orders?

This got conspiracist real quick.

So regulations around the recording and release of phone calls don't exist? Regulations around the disclosure of other mediums of information doesn't exist? I guess this must all be a conspiracy to the left.

Take Australia for example, I've been told there's this thing called the Surveillance Act and the Privacy Act, I don't have direct evidence of these pieces of legislation and perhaps you may be able to help me out?

Again: Christopher Hitchens was not a lawyer, and Hitchens Razor is a debating term. While it mightn't apply in all contexts - because, as stated, absolutes are dumb - it certainly applies here.

lol what are we doing taking a principle conjured up from some journo/author to make himself feel bigger than he is (applying it to an approach that is fairly pedestrian no less), in god knows what context and requiring it to a footy forum. What he is suggesting is really only reasonable in the court of law. We are not putting someone behind bars.

We are debating on an internet forum whether the comments provided by Mark is credible. Applying Hitchen's Law here is absolutely wild. I would like to see this applied to every post on the forum - there'd be no discussion.

Can you provide us with examples of these tongue-tying laws so that we can establish precisely what Zuckerberg - or you - is accusing the US governement of doing in order to hamper his ability to disclose what the specific nature of the censorship was?

California Penal Code 632

... could you please try and tell me how your various attempts at avoiding the need for evidence in favour of a balance of probablities test isn't just a manifestation of confirmation bias?

One doesn't need 'direct' evidence to form a position on the matter. Hearing it from the active CEO of the company on a podcast to millions is credible enough to form an position.

If the Biden administration or Mark himself finds a way to disclose 'direct' evidence to suggest otherwise - sure I'll change my position. Given Mark has made these claims to such a large audience, the silence from the Biden administration is a bit deafening isn't it?

This is how most rational humans perform decision making functions:
1. Is there information to inform a decision?
2. Is the information direct?
3. If not, is it from a source of high trust?
4. Do i need to re-evaluate my position if there is better information provided?

No one outside the court of law stops at point 2 if they get a NO. Imagine requiring this for an internet forum.

Point of order.

In a modern context, the right value speech for themselves but not for others. See, 'wokeness', any attempt at use of gender nonconforming pronouns, the various book bans taking place throughout parts of the American south and east.

So, if we were looking for hypocrisy, perhaps we could start there.

This thread is about the hypocrisy of the left. My response was directed in general to your throwaway question implying the right do value freedom of speech. You've then gone a little tangent contrary with the position you implied in your question that's not relevant to the thread. This seems like another mis-direction from the essence of the original post in this chain.

So, which is it? Is censorship okay sometimes - as in, loudly and vehemently advocating putting C4 on the left wing of the next flight to Sydney whilst going through customs might be a bad idea - or is censorship always abhorrent no matter which say you vote?

Do you remember me telling you that absolute statements are dumb?

I think we can all agree that the government i.e. the Biden Administration should not be censoring opposing views re vaccines on social media from adults. This is bad censorship.

And, after all that, you've still failed to establish anything resembling hypocrisy, let alone from the left. Ah well.

This has been well established. Established so strong the likes of which has never been seen before:

Free speech is a key pillar of the American left movement (or use to be?) arising from the censorship campaigns in response to the Cold War. Government censorship threatens the essential principles of freedom of expression. The conduct of the government (put in place by the modern left) that is justified by its supporters is hypocritical.

 

[100action]

Also enough of this nonsense, here is the evidence straight from the horse's mouth (Biden Administration):

Allegation:

Mark Zuckerberg has accused United States President Joe Biden’s administration of pressuring his team to censor content on the COVID-19 pandemic

Biden Administration response:

“When confronted with a deadly pandemic, this Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety.”

A roundabout way of saying, **** yeah, we made them censor those posts.

Did Biden’s White House pressure Mark Zuckerberg to censor COVID content?

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the Meta chief said he regretted caving in to government pressure.

www.aljazeera.com

Feels good to be proven right. Going back to the main my main post that started it all, it was in fact very reasonable to hold the view that Mark's insights relating to censorship from the Biden administration is credible.

 

[100action]

Also, i am surprised that your post hasnt resulted in you getting a warning or thread ban seeing that Joe Rogan is a proven "Conspiracy Theorist" (Sandy Hook Shooting).

Perhaps now that Zuckerberg has let us know that his so-called "fact checkers" were politically motivated and full of B/S, the ability to instantly paint someone as a "conspiracy theorist" by looking at fact checkers is not as easy to do?

Let me save em the time for you.

"You've just alleged Zuckerberg said fact checkers were politically motivated."

Hitchen's Law applies here, unless you provide direct evidence including testimony and damning correspondence from the fact checker team, this claim can be dismissed.

 

[CM86]

Whats happening here? Have you convinced yourself I believe or dont believe Zuck?

Why are you focusing on my statement "letting us know" ??

What point are you trying to make?

Let me save em the time for you.

"You've just alleged Zuckerberg said fact checkers were politically motivated."

Hitchen's Law applies here, unless you provide direct evidence including testimony and damning correspondence from the fact checker team, this claim can be dismissed.

Sometimes I forget that there are people like you.

And I attribute malice to ignorance.

Your words and actions still have tangible outcomes. But it's not deliberate. You're functioning to the height of your ability.

Im sorry for losing patience and snapping.

 

[Trouto]

Let me save em the time for you.

"You've just alleged Zuckerberg said fact checkers were politically motivated."

Hitchen's Law applies here, unless you provide direct evidence including testimony and damning correspondence from the fact checker team, this claim can be dismissed.

Alleged?

Zuckerberg said Fackebook's "fact checkers" were "too politically biased".

Should I have used the exact quote instead of typing "politically motivated"?

 

[Trouto]

Sometimes I forget that there are people like you.

And I attribute malice to ignorance.

Your words and actions still have tangible outcomes. But it's not deliberate. You're functioning to the height of your ability.

Im sorry for losing patience and snapping.

gee, your apology sounds so sincere, I really like how you question my intelligence with your sorrow.

Perhaps next time if you dont instantly get that i am either a rampant lefty or psycho right-winger, you can ask me nicely for clarification?

 

[Trouto]

Alleged?

Zuckerberg said Fackebook's "fact checkers" were "too politically biased".

Should I have used the exact quote instead of typing "politically motivated"?

My sarcasm radar was a bit awry when i replied, 100action