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 →

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But the portion was selected to misrepresent the meaning of the law. The image was edited to make it seem like that was a top-level list, when actually it was a second-level list. Red marks were placed to distract attention away from certain parts towards others.
We shouldn't have fallen for it.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Fallen for what? It's an example of Jewish influence over US legislation, which supports the OP's claim.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's far, far weaker evidence than it was presented as being.

But, more importantly, it is being used by Saiditors as evidence, yet it was misrepresented. Surely this should be setting off alarm bells?

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

OP posted the part of the law he was outraged by, and shared it as evidence of Jewish influence over US legislation. How was it misrepresented? What lie did the OP tell?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

  1. It was edited so it appeared that this was the top level of the law. The indentation was removed. This suggested that these were part of the "list of directives".
  2. The OP omitted the context that stated that these were examples of things that would fit a definition. They weren't a definition, or a list of forbidden actions, or anything like that.

All in all, the OP made a deliberate misrepresentation of the law. That falls under my definition of "lie".

[–]34679 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  1. Or, more likely, OP used the snipping tool to grab the part he was most outraged by because the full text wouldn't fit with the title. Go ahead and pull it up. Unless you're running 4K, it's not fitting on your screen.

  2. See 1. OP took a snip of that part of the law, and combined it with the header showing the name of the law, resolution number, sponsor, committee, etc. In other words, context that enables anyone to find the whole law and read it themselves.

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

  1. No, it fits on my screen fine, and my screen is quite small. Note that it's ridiculously easy to produce an accurate version of the screenshot given by simply scrolling, then cropping the screenshot; a composite shot was wholly unnecessary.
  2. That would have taken an extra line; two at worst. Not all of that even would've been needed; just partial visibility of the last line before the extract would've served to make the context clear.

I suppose Hanlon's razor might apply here, though.

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

  1. No, it fits on my screen fine, and my screen is quite small. Note that it's ridiculously easy to produce an accurate version of the screenshot given by simply scrolling, then cropping the screenshot; a composite shot was wholly unnecessary.
  2. That would have taken an extra line; two at worst. Not all of that even would've been needed; just partial visibility of the last line before the extract would've served to make the context clear.