It's clear you'll never figure out how you confuse innuendo for fact but I hope pointing it out has been helpful for others.
I believe that subs completely understands the difference, and knowingly pushes innuendo because he intends to be dishonest.
It’s why he can’t come straight out and say that he believes that widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud occurred in this election. He knows that if he stated this, that he’d be perceived as stupid. His pride and perceived image mean more to him than any set of morals or ethics.
His image couldn’t possibly get lower, not even if he were outed as giving $5 back alley bj’s during Trumptard rallies. All that’d do would confirm what we already know.
- Doc
Last edited by Doctor CamNC4Me on Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
believe that subs completely understands the difference, and knowingly pushes innuendo because he intends to be dishonest.
It is true, but don't think for a second that means he isn't emotionally invested in it. People who find themselves compelled to lie when things get personal -- such as with religion and politics -- take greater offense when they aren't believed then had they been telling the truth. The more transparent the lie, the greater the offense taken when mocked and not believed, and the more likely to double down on it.
When I read old 4chan posts during the rise of QAnon, it stands out to me that a necessary although by no means, and not by a long shot, sufficient condition for Q's rise is that while he mimicked the same exaggerated and bad storytelling of a hundred others trying to get in on the same trade, he didn't get defensive when everybody laughed at him.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
Our butthurt buddie doesn't understand that the media vetted the claims through attempts to get access to the emails, laptop, and other information that, had it been provided and checked out, would have been a story that needed to be shared. But once Rudy wouldn't even let the electronic emails be shared except as PDF prints without any metadata included, and the story of the guy who provided the laptop proved suspect, it wasn't information that the public "deserved to receive" as he calls it. It was unproven rumor mongering and dumbassery. I get a big part of the issue for him is that has been the bulk of his media diet for as long as he's been posting on this board at least. But still. Dumbassery is dumbassery.
Journalists doing basic fact checking before reporting seems to really wad his underwear up his rectum. Poor guy, seeing professionalism at work and not knowing what to make of it. But also telling...
NBC wrote an article on how it tried to investigate the Hunter Biden story but Giuliani refused to provide any evidence. "Somebody says stuff" is worth exactly one story, which is more than what the Hunter Biden story got.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
believe that subs completely understands the difference, and knowingly pushes innuendo because he intends to be dishonest.
It is true, but don't think for a second that means he isn't emotionally invested in it. People who find themselves compelled to lie when things get personal -- such as with religion and politics -- take greater offense when they aren't believed then had they been telling the truth. The more transparent the lie, the greater the offense taken when mocked and not believed, and the more likely to double down on it.
In other words, textbook backfire effect, except that in the case of real backfire effect, they actually believe their own lies.
It's both sad and scary how often that seems to work. The more offended they act or seem over being disbelieved, the greater is the tendency of many to actually believe them, whether what they claim is true or not. This apparently served Brett Kavanaugh well. His emotional tirade over being accused of sexual improprieties carried more weight with those who voted to confirm him than did the calmly presented testimony and evidence given by those supporting the accusations, which the FBI gave only the most cursory investigation, refusing to even accept statements from the most reputable of his accusers, with the most damaging and credible eye witness accounts. I'm sure subs, deep down, understands this, though he will never admit it, perhaps, not even to himself.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
No. He doesn’t. He doesn’t read enough to overcome his obstinate ignorance and terminal case of disevidentia. He can hang for a sentence or two, but it must be able to be consumed with a quick thumbscroll. That’s why memes are so effective with him. He’s literally as stupid as he appears to be. Stop trying to ascribe ‘4d chess’ to him.
No. He doesn’t. He doesn’t read enough to overcome his obstinate ignorance and terminal case of disevidentia. He can hang for a sentence or two, but it must be able to be consumed with a quick thumbscroll. That’s why memes are so effective with him. He’s literally as stupid as he appears to be. Stop trying to ascribe ‘4d chess’ to him.
- Doc
I guess that I find myself in the middle of these opinions. He’s certainly not playing 4D chess; he’d be having a hard time hitting ‘checkers’ level. But I don’t think that subs believes in the junk he pushes. He just does it because he thinks that doing so serves his short-term purposes.
It has to be weird, though, for subs to wake up every morning, look at himself in the mirror, and tell himself that one of his goals for the day is to be as dishonest as he can be to a handful of strangers on the web. : D
My right-wing friend is no 4-d chess player either, but like subs (and Ajax), I can tell he doesn't believe in the election fraud claims. Now don't get me wrong, he has explicitly expressed hope that the supreme court will overturn the election just because Trump did a favor for the judges, that's the level that he's at, but he has not once tried to bring up anything about evidence for election fraud with me. He's tried to bring up other stuff during the same time, but he don't dare go there with election fraud.
Subs doesn't buy the fraud claims, what he's invested in (besides being all in on right-wing politics generally) specifically, is not in the merits of the fraud cases, but in his own ability as a rhetorician to score point here, as he sees himself as a kind of hot-shot lawyer winning a case that has no merit against liberals who take themselves too seriously (guys who can't 'meme'). But he's a terrible logician. He has two rhetorical tools, 1) arguing from ignorance: "who knows what goes on inside those computers, anything can happen!" 2) alleging double standards -- "Didn't the media question the election of 2016?" "Didn't Hunter Biden do something wrong?"
That's what he's got. I doubt he's made a single claim that doesn't fall into one of those categories for support. I thought he'd branched into a "who shaves the barber" argument over fact checking, but it appears I'd misread him. All of his "evidence" for "narrow and targeted" voter fraud is innuendo to drive an argument from ignorance. If we can't explain these anomalies (that have no logical connection to a fraud scenario) then we can't be sure Trump didn't win. Same with claims about vans. That part he is fully invested in. He does strongly believe in his rhetorical skills to befuddle us. He doesn't actually believe in the merits of the case.
We can't take farmers and take all their people and send them back because they don't have maybe what they're supposed to have. They get rid of some of the people who have been there for 25 years and they work great and then you throw them out and they're replaced by criminals.
He does strongly believe in his rhetorical skills to befuddle us.
I’m thinking that his intended targets experience more bemusement than befuddlement. : D
But, this board is populated with a different sort of audience than he’d prefer, as his tactics probably work better on individuals with head injuries, slow children, or Irish Setters.
