you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

Once again Wizzwizz is supporting the indefensible state/corporate position.

I wonder why that is...?

Hmmmmm.... I bet you'd love to down vote this. :-)

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

No, I'm not supporting the state/corporate position. At least, not here. ☺

Even if you disagree about this particular example, surely you agree in principle that lying about important things is bad, and that we should be checking for and calling out these lies.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Well, it looks like the bill that /u/Orangutan had posted had already passed into federal law on 1/14/2019.

H.R.672 - Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017

Even if you disagree about this particular example, surely you agree in principle that lying about important things is bad, and that we should be checking for and calling out these lies.

This is the bill passed into law.

Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017

This bill requires the Department of State to include in its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom information about each European country where there have been particularly significant threats or attacks against Jewish persons or institutions. The report shall include information about the security needs of such Jewish communities, U.S. efforts to partner with European law enforcement agencies and civil society groups, European public awareness initiatives to promote pluralism and tolerance, and efforts by European governments to adopt and apply a working definition of anti-Semitism.

This US law is designed to monitor alleged anti-Semitic activity in Europe.
However, it doesn't protect any other minority groups. Nothing about Arabs, Persians, Slavic, Hispanics, African, Asian, etc.

Why is the Congress passing laws requiring the US State Dept to monitor alleged activity in multiple countries in Europe?

The law exclusively benefits the Jewish community, while leaving out all other groups.

I didn't find any info that was false.

This is part of a larger Israeli campaign. Guns and Butter Podcast: The Global Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel. Everyone should listen to this important and informative podcast.

Israel is attempting to criminalize criticism of it's actions. The media isn't discussing this.

Thanks, u/HopeThatHalps, for spotting this when we were all taking the doctored screenshot at face value.

*Thanks, Wizzwizz for indentifying another character (HopeThatHalps) who is apparently involved in this Israeli campaign, and actively monitoring Saidit.

We'll be sure to keep an eye on HopeThatHalps, as well..

Also, thanks Wizzwizz for another bungled PSA, and for outing yourself and your motivations/intentions.

we should be checking for and calling out these lies

Agreed.

cc:
/u/Magnora7
/u/d3rr

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I honestly don't care about the law. I care that /u/Orangutan made it seem like it was about one thing when it was actually another thing. If those things were both bad? Well, there's no reason that one should've been passed off as the other, then.

There's (almost always) no benefit to lying, unless your goal isn't to make the world better.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I honestly don't care about the law.

Your hasbara is bunk. I doubt that a single person reading this thread will believe this statement.

There's (almost always) no benefit to lying, unless your goal isn't to make the world better.

I don't disagree with this. The question is: Better for whom?

Israeli politics isn't well known for transparency. Quite the opposite.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

It's a US law. Doesn't affect me directly, and I don't really care enough to put in the effort to weigh up the pros and cons. But whether I care about the law isn't really what this is about either.

Look. Let's assume that I'm a shill, so everything I say has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Also take into account that I might be being paid by very smart people, who know that you know I'm a shill, to support things in order to encourage you to instinctively argue against them, and so convince more people of the stance you've been manipulated to support due to your status in this community. Also take into account that they'd be paying me to say this, too. Imagine that this entity is predicting you, then predicting you predicting them, then predicting you predicting them predicting you… and see how your model of their behaviour changes.

Now, if you can wrap your head around all that (it's pretty convoluted), consider: who benefits from these suggestions (under the line in the original post I made here) being followed? And who benefits from the association of those suggestions in people's minds with something they disagree with?

Now, how can you make this situation benefit your goals?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Let's assume that I'm a shill

Yes. We should.
I do.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're acting like a common troll. You didn't answer any of the questions posed in my comment, and I doubt you so much as thought about them. Even if I'm a shill, that doesn't make what I say wrong.

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So, if someone just so happens to have an opinion that is counter to yours, they're a shill? You just dismiss everything they say no matter what?

/u/wizzwizz4 and I seem to share a lot of the same stances, am I a shill too? Is everyone who doesn't believe the jews run everything a paid for shill? You realize that is an INSANE amount of money to pay merely to try and convince you to believe the "globalist narrative", right?

When people have your beliefs there is ZERO room for discourse. There is ZERO room for the pyramid of debate and it goes against everything this site stands for. You've ALREADY made up your mind and your position, no matter how much contrary (factual) evidence is provided, will never change.

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right? I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, but I do want to say that you're stunting your own growth as a person by being this way.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thanks for this. I was beginning to think I was going crazy; it's good to know I'm not the only one in the world outside my social circle with approximately this set of views.

To give /u/Tom_Bombadil credit, he is acting as a rational actor would if they had a ridiculously high certainty of everything they believe in (I'm talking tens of nines here). The amount of evidence required to get to such a point, however, is astronomical – if every single Jewish person in the world individually walked up to him and promised him that they were part of a conspiracy to take over the world, then it might be enough evidence to be that certain… but he clearly doesn't have that much evidence or we'd all be convinced by now.

The only solutions that I can think of are:

  • He determined this certainty before he became an approximately rational actor, and so should re-evaluate these beliefs in light of this incongruity.
  • He isn't an approximately rational actor.
  • This is one of his axioms; he's assigned a probability of 1 to it and literally infinite evidence is required to convince him otherwise.

I've probably missed something here; if I've made a faulty assumption or a faulty leap in thought please let me know.

[–]AschTheConjurer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, you're not crazy. Just scrolling down these comments and looking at Bombadil's comments - in context, no less - paints him as either a troll or a genuine anti-semite conspiracist. Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell which it is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right?

What exactly are you debating with me about? Are you debating another persons opinion for them?

Did you happen to listen to this podcast? Guns and Butter Podcast: The Global Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel.

Are you disputing the speakers information?

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm disputing that just because someone follows more mainstream beliefs doesn't automatically qualify them as a "shill". The word shill is used to discredit someone solely based on an ad hominem attack. No matter what anyone says it will not matter as long as they are a shill. Hence there's zero counterargument when you label someone as a shill. It's anti-intellectual.

If you're truly right in your stance then you shouldn't have to resort to name calling. Whether someone truly is a shill or not should have no bearing on what the points they're making. If their points aren't valid then it doesn't matter who they are or who's paying them, you should be able to rationally argue against them.

Imagine if I just said "Oh you're just a conspiracy theorist, I don't give credit to anything you say". I might joke a bit or laugh at you, but I sincerely try to level with you guys and I do try to hear you out. It's lazy to just discredit someone and name call because they believe something you don't.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You don't care??

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's a US law. I don't live there.