40 sats \ 8 replies \ @kepford 16 Aug \ on: WSJ: Ukraine (with Zelensky's Knowledge) Destroyed the Nordstream Pipeline news
How many times does this sort of thing have to happen for people to get how it all works.
There are no good guys. They all lie...
Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal—a publication that’s hardly pro-Moscow or anti-NATO—reported that both the CIA and Zelensky knew about a plot organized by Zelensky’s commander in chief, Valeriy Zaluzhniy. Indeed, according to the Journal, Zelensky “initially approved the plan.”
In other words, the CIA and the Ukrainian regime have been lying all along. They knew exactly who destroyed the pipeline but continued to fuel speculation that the Russians did it. The Poles also knew.
Some aspects of the Journal‘s report remain quite suspect, however. The claim that the CIA is innocent of any involvement is rather unbelievable, especially given the implausibility of the claims that mission was pulled off by half a dozen men on a rented sailboat. The whole story feels like Washington knew it wasn’t going to be able to claim Ukrainian innocence much longer. So, the US regime has helped craft a convenient story in which the CIA tried to prevent it.
write
preview
this territory is moderated
55 sats \ 7 replies \ @kepford 16 Aug
I don't even care one way or another but the fact that people believe the US establishment and the media and think that it is unimaginable that the CIA/gov could be lying about something like this is absurd. I don't know what happened. And honestly 99.9999% of Americans don't either. Yet they act like because the Media tells them something that closes the case. All so tiresome.
reply
46 sats \ 6 replies \ @SimpleStacker 16 Aug
I have this weird theory about why MSM is so trusting of official sources. I thought of it when observing my daughter participate in middle school debate. I'm sure a lot of the journalists who work for WSJ, NYT, Wapo, etc, also did things like debate & journalism in high school and college.
And the theory is that our kids are being trained to prioritize sources over logic. In debate, if you can't back up your claim with sources (and the more authoritative the better), you will tend to lose the debate. Even if your arguments are logically sound, unless you can cite an authority to back you up, you still tend to lose.
And of course, what are the most "authoritative" sources, in the eyes of debate judges? Usually something from .gov or .edu.
In a way, this makes sense. Because who would trust the claims of a middle schooler over a much more established source? But the problem becomes that we have lots of people whose educational training conditions them to seek out and trust .gov and .edu over everything else - even their own logic.
And, to explain the situation that made me realize this: my daughter had to debate rent control and she had the negative side. But since most media and academia are liberal, she had a really hard time finding sources that were anti rent control. So she had a really hard time debating the position, compared to her opponent who was able to find a lot of sources favorable to rent control.
This theory is consistent with #651137 which @Undisciplined posted today, about how the media just gives people a justification or a talking point to reinforce what they already believe, whether or not the argument even makes sense.
reply
68 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 16 Aug
Dave Smith talks about this sometimes, when reflecting on his time at CNN.
He felt like the host of the show he was on would often be thinking "Why should I believe some comedian over this official government appointee?" In his view, that was a perfectly reasonable position to have, until you realize that the comedian (Smith) is trying to tell the truth, while the appointee is a professional liar.
reply
13 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 16 Aug
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Was your daughter using Google or ChatGPT to research her debate topic?
I found this using Brave search ai: https://search.brave.com/search?q=rent+control+problems&source=goggles&goggles_id=https%253A%252F%252Fraw.githubusercontent.com%252Fallsides-news%252Fbrave-goggles%252Fmain%252Fright.goggles&summary=1&summary_og=27ae652b6786cfc1cd4af5
Pathetic that middle schoolers are being taught that rent control is a great thing. Talk to any landlord or real estate professional.
I didn't know what rent control was until I started looking for my own place at age 23.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 16 Aug
She was probably using Google. I didn't help her so I'm not really sure. Actually now that I am thinking about it, the debate topic was actually whether government should provide free housing, not simply rent control.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 16 Aug
Even better... "free" housing
It's another term for 'public housing' or HUD section 8
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 16 Aug
Trusting sources blindly is lazy
MSM figures and journalists simply quote one another.
Morning Joe: Elon Musk is a fascist. NYT: According to Morning Joe, Elon Musk is a fascist.
It's 1984 newspeak or Pravda or (insert your favorite metaphor)
reply
48 sats \ 0 replies \ @Zenul_Abidin 17 Aug
Morning Joe: Elon Musk is a fascist. NYT: According to Morning Joe, Elon Musk is a fascist.
And then someone goes to Wikipedia and adds this with a citation to NYT... and nobody tries to revert the change or even challenge it.
reply