you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

AKA: don't spread misinformation!

Free and open discourse is by far the best way to determine if something is true or not. Playing hall monitor by censoring "misinformation" only hinders that process. Twitter's reasoning for the ban had nothing to do with "misinformation" anyway. It had to do with releasing "hacked" info even though no hacking was involved and the laptop was obtained legally.

ALSO: We DON'T know that happened to that laptop BEFORE April 2019.

Why does this matter? If we apply this logic to evidence in general we can dismiss all of it. Generally, we don't know what happened to something before it was obtained. However, we have pretty strong evidence at this point that the laptop is authentic. The FBI subpoenaed it from the shop owner so clearly they thought it was worth looking at. Multiple news organizations have independently verified it, neutral 3rd parties have verified it, timestamps and file system indexes are consistent, journalists have vouched for it, the emails (which are cryptographically signed) have been corroborated with their recipients, it contains personal pictures of Hunter, etc.

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

Free and open discourse

Yes - about what is known, not about what the GOP want to claim.

Generally, we don't know what happened to something before it was obtained.

Hence we can wait until we have better information. The emails that have been available for a long time were not particularly useful for the GOP misinformation propaganda

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yes - about what is known, not about what the GOP want to claim.

How do you propose we discuss unknowns then, or things that are inherently unknowable? The mechanism by which we would determine if something is known or not is also free discourse. We gain knowledge through experience, not through unelected information aristocrats deciding the truth for us.

It was "known" that the Sun orbited the earth until it wasn't.

Hence we can wait until we have better information.

The current consensus is that it's real. The censors who you are defending for censoring it are no longer censoring it because they no longer classify it as misinformation. Are they correct or not? And if not, why defend the censorship at all when there's such an obvious example of them getting it wrong?

The emails that have been available for a long time were not particularly useful for the GOP misinformation propaganda

I'm not sure what the duration of the availability of the emails has to do with their veracity, but if you know of a way of breaking cryptographically secure email signatures please do tell.

You cheapen your responses by blaming everything on the GOP. Let your arguments stand on their own.

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

How do you propose we discuss unknowns then

Merely admit they are unknown.

For example, much of history is literally unknown. Historians often make the mistake to connect evidence and documents in a manner that affirms trajectories of development, rather than admit there are refutable aspects of that self-affirming constructions or narratives. The answer to this was proposed by a science historian - Karl Popper - to focus on the least refutable evidence in one's assessments of potential historical narratives. For those who'd rather not use logical exercises to rank the least refutable evidence above more easily refutable evidence can also use the words: 'allegedly', 'potentially', &c. We can all propose theses for investigation without drawing initial conclusions about those theses.

Read the emails here: https://bidenlaptopemails.com/biden-emails/index.php This is not the same batch shared with the Feds. This group has emails that extend beyond April 2019. Note the last email. That's when this batch was made available online. We should ask: how did those emails become available online? Why were they made availabe? How were they made available? Who can be prosecuted for defamation? Why is there nothing in those emails that is an affirmaiton of any serious national security problems? If there are no significant problems noted in those emails, why share them? What is the point of these hackers who've provided these emails? How easy was it to include emails in this email list, if one wanted to? Merely type an email into the list....

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

Attacking the GOP while putting a racial slur in your username. Is there no end to how pathetic you are?