PSA: We all fell for an obvious lie.

submitted by wizzwizz4 from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

The bill/law system in the US is very tricky and completely corrupted. The same thing is starting in the EU.

In the US, they first get a catchy name, like "patriot act". In the EU it is just a boring number.

Usually they have something that is agreeable, but insert some stuff which can directly affect politics. Usually it is about giving the companies and/or military more money and power.

If the bill is denied in the EU, they change a few things and do it again. Over and over.

In the US, the bill is usually accepted right away, after every politicians has been paid for, or blackmailed. In the EU, there are usually "compromises". It is up to the state-media to make it seem like a good thing.

After the bill is accepted, new bills will follow that change "just a few things". They seem like little things, like changing some words. But these words have important meaning in the sentences. This means that the law can have totally different meaning. Usually it means that companies or pentagon become less responsible.

In the actual law we can see some possible entrances:
"...the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions."
"accusing .. Israel as a state.."
"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own countries."
"Anti-Zionism has at times devolved into anti-Semitic attacks"

In the US there is already control of the news media, so it is easy for the public to swallow the new laws. The new rules in the EU also try to do this more. So control of the public becomes easier.

News that you may have missed this year: Protesters are attacked by police with explosives in France. Large groups of people protest for president Maduro. Isreal was bombing Palestina before the recent rocket attack. White helmets had created false flag. President of Israel pushes for US military support. Journalist is put in prison by UK for exposing war-crimes by US.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

And yet this law was misrepresented. We should've been having this discussion there, but instead – due to the doctoring of the screenshot – it was instead focussed around a fictional event and a fictional law (similar to the real one, but different enough that most of the conversation was irrelevant).

We should've picked up on this sooner. I should've, at the very least, but others should've too.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

due to the doctoring of the screenshot

You have repeatedly claimed this, but this is "an obvious lie".

Nothing was doctored.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

There is no way, on that site, to produce such an image with a screenshot (and that's ignoring the red circles). The image was cut up and stuff was moved around.

The shown portion was taken out of context and used to misrepresent the law. That is, in my book, doctoring.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This is not true.

The user used the Windows "Snip Tool" and red marker to circle. This feature is on every PC that has Windows 8, or later. That's a layup.

That's a suspicious statement coming from you. I thought you were familiar with computers, and offered to help the admins with code?

The shown portion was taken out of context and used to misrepresent the law. That is, in my book, doctoring.

Also false. It was not taken out of context. The bill is legit, and it contains the info from the screenshot. That is a fact. That is not doctoring.

Using doctored as a description is "an obvious lie".

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You've got a Windows machine too? Well, could you use Problem Steps Recorder (or a third-party screen recording software) to demonstrate the process of taking a similar screenshot, please? I don't expect you to do the red circles stuff.

I do know how computers work, but I wasn't using that knowledge when I determined that the image isn't possible to produce just by taking a screenshot. I was merely observing that the law only scrolls up and down, but the text was moved sideways.

(Though, doctoring aside, it's still misrepresentation to take the extract of the law out of context. Your apparent fixation on the process of doctoring suggests that you're trying to poke one hole in part of my argument and say that that brings the whole thing down. It doesn't. The doctoring bit was tacked on afterwards, and the argument stands without it.)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Go to your PC programs menu search bar.
Type in "snip tool".
Press enter.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

… That's not what I asked and you know it. It doesn't prove your argument in the slightest.

My argument stands.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well, if anyone else wants to look up the snipping tool then they can.

It will appear in they're search box before the word "snipping' can be typed in.

Your argument is baseless and dishonest. Nothing was out of context.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The snipping tool allows you to take screenshots, and allows you to doctor them. Assuming /u/Orangutan used Snipping Tool to do this, you still haven't shown that it's not doctored.

This is an attempt to distract from the argument. You're providing irrelevant evidence that doesn't support your assertions. I'm sorry, but that won't work here.