So it is wrong to argue against such slander by stating: The following things would have to be true in order to make such an accusation plausible; is there any evidence for these things? No? Then what are we talking about?
It is important to maintain the ability to distinguish who is doing the “slandering” and who is doing the debunking. Insisting that people must not even entertain the hypothetical in order to illustrate its shortcomings is absurd and demonstrates a kind of ideological orthodoxy that actually emboldens those putting forward the falsehoods. To use an analogy that hasn’t been pulled out of thin air, thrice told tales about 9/11, Holocaust denial and flat earth have been disproven on these boards multiple times by often following alleged hypotheticals and disproving them, not by simply denying the false claims by saying they are morally repugnant or because they result in hurting real people.
Well, I did say, at some point. This particular falsehood at this particular time is being used by the most powerful man in the Country in an attempt to besmirch his opponent. I think that makes a difference.
Maybe that makes me ideological or even absurd. I don’t know.
While random people on twitter have been quoted by RW media in order to try to make a point, I don’t think that we are going to be seeing SDMB used as a cite to further their narrative.
Though if they did, that would actually be kinda entertaining.
The guys on Pod Save America frequently point out not just how terrible Trump is from a moral and policy perspective, but also how incompetent at even doing the terrible things they are trying to do. That’s the thrust of the “assuming it’s true” argument.
They ginned up “evidence” as an October surprise, that, even if true, would not show that the target had even done anything wrong.
Anyone who doesn’t want to participate in that discussion doesn’t have to, and can certainly say they don’t think others should be having it. (Repeating that multiple times, though, starts to seem like a shouting down tactic to me.) But that is different from seeing a post that entertains the hypothetical and accusing the person who said “assuming it’s true” of saying that it is actually true.
“Okay. Assuming for the sake of argument that you have a dog, it doesn’t matter. I grade homework based on what’s turned in, not what’s left at home. You didn’t turn anything in, and that’s what matters.”
Sometimes assuming something for the sake of argument lets you short-circuit a bad argument. That can be valuable.
NBC practically begged Giuliani to show them the contents of the hard drives and he turned them down.
I’m not willing to declare it a Russian operation, because there’s nothing incriminating there in the first place. Everything there is to know has been known for months. No serious journalist will touch it. Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine have been investigated and found not to be corrupt. His dealings in China were not corrupt. And at any rate there is no proof that Joe Biden was involved in either one of them.
Tony Bobulinski was on Tucker the other night acting indignant and pretending that Adam Schiff calling it a Russian disinformation campaign was somehow a personal attack on Bobulinski and his family, who are VETERANS AND HOW DARE HE!!! …even though no one even mentioned him or suggested that he was somehow complicit in the disinformation campaign. He just needed some excuse other than “I want to help Trump win the election.”
And Ted Cruz was doing his usual indignant act at the Senate hearings with Jack Dorsey the other day, accusing Dorsey of “censorship,” and asking him bullshit showboating questions like “Who elected you?” It was embarrassing. (Though I’ll also say that Jack Dorsey really should have shaved his mountain hermit beard for his appearance. He talked like he was in the middle of an acid trip.)
This is silly season, the last gasps of a joke of a presidency entering its death throes.
Anyone who thought it was a Russian disinformation op, to some extent myself included, should apologize… to the Russians, for thinking that they would have had such a poorly executed kompromat campaign.
So, sorry, Russia, I really should not have insulted your capabilities that way.
Congratulations to the ever-vigilant defenders of American democracy- I believe Hunter Biden has still yet to receive his first vote. America is saved!
Exactly. This was the disinformation op for which we literally saw the President impeached! How anyone could assume there was anything to this story when it finally limped like the beaten orphan it was onto the pages of the NY Post is beyond me.
Actually, whatever that document is, it’s not the evidence everyone is talking about. In fact, conversation on the right about this is like, “Hey, what’s this document the Times is talking about? I’ve never heard of it.” They ‘debunked’ a document no one cares about, which had nothing to do with the hard drive evidence or Tony Bobulinski’s evidence, so far as I know.
