Talk:Jimmy Dore/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 11 February 2020. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)(back)

Should have more.

Needs to have more on the fact that he's constantly denying the Trump/Russia collusion story but he swallows up every bullshit story that has to do with the Clintons and the DNC.Jaydogg1994 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2017

Prior smear attempts

I encourage everyone to read the talk page from Dore's Wikipedia entry, where Jaydogg1994 and CowHouse were admonished for trying the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Dore. Now they're taking their act to RationalWiki. I would expect the same commitment to truth here. As it stands now, RationalWiki's article on Dore is far less "rational" than Wikipedia's. Gnocchi (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gnocchi I was never "admonished". More people disagreed with me than agreed with me, and at that point I conceded. In retrospect, it was a waste of time since the argument became about whether the sources were reliable and whether Wikipedia's policy guidelines had been violated rather than whether the information presented was accurate.

"Now they're taking their act to RationalWiki." False. I was already editing this page well before I ever edited the Wikipedia page. My first edit on the Jimmy Dore page on RationalWiki was August 2nd and on Wikipedia it was September 6th. My original edit on Wikipedia was because the Jimmy Dore page was objectively awful (the main reason I bothered to edit it was that it sourced to The Duran, a clear unreliable source by Wikipedia's standards). I actually removed a poorly sourced quote that made Dore look crazy, where he talks about Clinton's "bloodlust warhawkism". If you disagree, check for yourself [1]. If you check the edit history on his Wikipedia page, I was reverting vandalism [2]. In fact, you restored one of my edits because the language I used was, in your view, "neutral" [3] [4]. So, what was I "trying" again?

"I would expect the same commitment to truth here." Feel free to point out anything that's false. The standards Wikipedia has for original research and a neutral point of view are not the same on RationalWiki.

"RationalWiki's article on Dore is far less "rational" than Wikipedia's." Please provide some actually constructive criticism in the future. CowHouse (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Since this is part of a crank campaign of targeted harassment and defamation against Dore, I was hoping we could expedite the matter. But I'm happy to restate the discussion from Wikipedia, adjusted for RationalWiki's rules. Gnocchi (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The primary purpose of this article on Rationalwiki is to document the many crank ideas Dore had. It's not to document his life story. —ClickerClock (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

That's creepy that you know what sites I post on, posting personal information is a violation of RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Privacy I haven't been engaging in "targeted harassment" at all, If you actually read the links that you posted (I don't know how you had so much time on you're hands to dig up information about me, You're such a creep) he's not the only person I have criticized for believing in irrational things. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete entries on Dore's criticism of Google

Hey guys, first time posting. I wanted to make an edit but found that it may be resolved via the talk section. So here it goes.

"He has also promoted fake stories relating to Hillary Clinton such as that Google manipulated search results to favor her," is incomplete for a "rational" wiki page. The Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME) is not a pie in the sky concept. Harvard psychologist Robert Epstien co-authored a study published in a peer-reviewed journal that found that SEME "exerts influence largely through order effects that are enhanced in a digital context." Researchers' duplication of a prior experiment of targeted SEME found "voting preferences shifted by 39.0%, a number almost identical to the shift found in a previously published experiment." Source: https://cbw.sh/static/pdf/epstein-2017-pacmhci.pdf

Secondly, it's impossible to ignore then-Alphabet Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt's extensive involvement in supporting Clinton's campaign. As has been reported, "An under-the-radar startup funded by billionaire Eric Schmidt has become a major technology vendor for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, underscoring the bonds between Silicon Valley and Democratic politics." Source: "The stealthy, Erich Schmidt-backed start up that's working to put Hillary Clinton in the White House": https://qz.com/520652/groundwork-eric-schmidt-startup-working-for-hillary-clinton-campaign/ by Tim Fernholz and Adam Pasick in a report published by Quartz. Date of publication: October 9, 2015.

Quartz reported that: "The Groundwork, according to Democratic campaign operatives and technologists, is part of efforts by Schmidt—the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet—to ensure that Clinton has the engineering talent needed to win the election. And it is one of a series of quiet investments by Schmidt that recognize how modern political campaigns are run, with data analytics and digital outreach as vital ingredients that allow candidates to find, court, and turn out critical voter blocs." (ibid.)

Schmidt, who knows quite a bit about Google's tech, was extremely enthusiastic about supporting the Clinton campaign 2 years before ballots were cast. See "Hacked emails show Eric Schmidt played a crucial role in Team Hillary’s election tech": https://qz.com/823922/eric-schmidt-played-a-crucial-role-in-team-hillarys-election-tech/ by Tim Fernhol in Quartz.

Perhaps nobody knows as much about Google's data collection than Schmidt, and he had all of this data at disposal as he remained formally outside the campaign as a vendor. To fail to make a logical leap that the chairman of Google's parent company used Google as the unofficial chief of digital operations is irresponsible. As such, claims about the impacts on voting behavior of such actions would need to rest on evidence from a peer-reviewed journal. To my knowledge, this has not been done, and thus it would be prudent to critique Mr. Dore on the account that he may have suggested the Google results had a specific, definite influence on voting behavior among groups in different states throughout the country.

Epstein has stated that he has run an experiment showing the link, but this study is not clearly scientific and is not in a peer-reviewed journal. See "Could Google influence the presidential election?" By David Schultz in Science. Article published October 25, 2016. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/could-google-influence-presidential-election

If we think Facebook has a lot of data about voters, it's still a fraction of the number of data points Google can collect on an individual (and from more individuals).

I propose adding that academic research studies have empirically tested the very real impacts of algorithmically-tinkered search results on voting behavior, with significant results (P <0.001). Further, I propose a second bullet mentioning that press reports show Alphabet Executive Chair Eric Schmidt eagerly offered ways to support Clinton's campaign, leading some to conclude that Google tilted search results to favor Clinton without telling users.

I also propose rewording the initial bullets as to ensure claims are examined rationally and do not reflect an approach that starts with conclusions and then points to evidence. Epistemically, the facts should be weighed before a conclusion is made so boldly on Rational Wiki. Leading with conclusions and explaining away questions with stories is what politicians do, not what knowledge-building people do. Cryptoeditr (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC) cryptoeditr

Tell me how to defend

I made some well-sourced changes but there isn't a lot of room in the line give for each edit to explain. I can defend my edits here, please?--Tea Sagan (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to make big changes that you think need to be justified, you should probably make a user subpage with the revision you like stored in that page and then provide justification for that revision. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I have my facts and sourcing right-- and I think I do-- ins't it ok do it here? I mean, maybe I know more (or not) than whoever initially edits. I can set forth more sourcing or defend my edits if that's what is the norm here?--Tea Sagan (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem that I have with your edits is that you seem to be on a quest to whitewash this page by removing and downplaying Dore's toxic political views and promotion of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

JD on Sex trafficking

I agree Dore too often has Fox-News-like standards to journalism/sourcing but I wonder why the article tries to link JD to Pizzagate conspirators. He's not endorsing that specific claim at all, he instead said it wasn't too far off in the sense that, and this is the critical point, government sponsored defence contractors pimp out kids to warlords & sex traffickers which is proven to be correct. That in turn is often tolerated by US/western administrators. See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Is_Obama_really_a_lefty%3F#Escalation_of_the_Afghanistan_war, https://www.aclu.org/other/military-contractor-human-trafficking-documents-released-under-foia or the 2010 movie The Whistleblower. ^{— Unsigned, by: EauDeCologne / talk / contribs 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)}

"the article tries to link JD to Pizzagate conspirators. He's not endorsing that specific claim at all". The page makes the point that he does not believe Pizzagate is real but he has enabled the views of Pizzagaters (a similar point is also made here). Dore listened to someone say that Pizzagate is real and his response was not to deny or criticise this but to say "there's something to what he's saying". Even if his example is true, he was still incorrect that Bravo was "not far off".

The link referenced in your first source did not work and I found no archive. Where does your second source substantiate Dore's claim that "our defence contracting companies will often procure young people, young boys and girls, for sex parties around the world"?

Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Linking a right wing fantasy such as pizzagate that claims the promoters' political opponents maintained a child sex ring, to military human rights abuses, is a stupid thing to do. There's no comparison at all, and there's no "comedy" or "humor" in it either. The only reason I could see anyone making such a comparison is if they were either very stupid or sympathized with the claims made by the pizzagate goons.

There's a right wing blowhard on a local AM radio station I occasionally listen to for the hell of it. After the Parkland shooting, some idiot called in claiming that all the protesting kids were crisis actors. Instead of immediately refuting the caller, which is what any reasonable and rational human being should have done, this radio guy said he had no evidence one way or the other that the kids were actors. Therefore he implicitly agreed with the caller's ridiculous claims and dirtied his name and reputation. This is the same kind of behavior Dore's doing with his enabling of the tinfoil hat crowd. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

His stance on chemtrails and rationalwiki

I found a tweet claiming he promoted chemtrails and bashed rationalwiki on his live stream, He also called Muller "part of the swamp", Is there anyway anyone can confirm this because I don't have enough time on my schedule to try to trackdown his live stream. Jaydogg1994 (talk) 09:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jaydogg1994 Somebody uploaded the clip where he gets asked about RationalWiki. I can't find any video of him discussing chemtrails since the link to the livestream no longer works. According to the Twitter account referenced in your edit, you have to watch it live because it gets hidden afterwards. CowHouse (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Careful with "conspiracy theories"

I'm a university lecturer and I love RationalWiki, but this particular article I find pretty weak. You should be careful to criticise Dore (or anyone) in a precise and fair manner, as otherwise, serious folks will accuse you of bias. Whoever wrote the "conspiracy theories" part is clearly unaware of both the actual meaning of the term as well as mainstream views in the academic and intelligence communities, respectively. Here are two problematic passages in the article:

"Why would you need to shame people who question the government's view of what happened on 9/11?"

1. The official 9/11 report presents a theory about a conspiracy of several actors and institutions, AKA conspiracy theory. 2. Many scholars, journalists and people from the intelligence and security community who have dealt with the 9/11 Commission Report believe that it is incomplete, redacted in an insincere manner or even misleading. This even includes former members of the Bush Jr. administration. To this day, there is no uncontroversial evidence that Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein were the planners or initiators of the attacks (the report itself dismisses a link to Saddam). HOWEVER: it does NOT follow from this that 9/11 was an "inside job" or some other outlandish theory. QUESTIONING the government's official report does not AUTOMATICALLY make you a conspiracy-nut. 3. This illustrates my main criticism of this article: it totally ignores that the US government frequently HAS spread conspiracy theories to start wars or to interfere in other countries in the past and that therefore, it is NOT unreasonable for a rational person to expect them to continue doing this.

"Dore does not believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone:"

Not a SINGLE PERSON I've met in the academic community who dealt with the case believes this. You may argue that this is due to my particular experience, but the best thing you can say is that half the world doesn't buy the story. Given the ballistic evidence, again, a rational person would doubt this. And again, this does NOT necessarily mean that theory x or y is therefore true.

The authors of this articles seem to believe that anybody who questions any officially sanctioned view by the US government must be a conspiracy nut. This itself is an interesting theory, to put it sarcastically. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2001:1716:4607:4D70:20ED:8C07:D801:B4D4 / talk}

It might've mattered more if the the questioning was done years ago when the event was fresher and evidence wasn't established yet, but this isn't the case. The guy isn't "open-minded", he denies or downplays large swaths of evidence, uses similar tactics of traditional conspiracy theorists such as attacking the press, appealing to "not trust government reports". He probably denies it "was an inside job" but not only he qualifies that statement, all this other actions are JAQing off. If he knew better and was honestly searching for answers, he also wouldn't be spreading this crap on a network, double down when people criticize him for it (such as handwaving a criticism that his views are like climate change denial), and do more reading in sites that disseminate legitimate information, not crazy sites. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The quote you cherry-picked is not the only evidence on the page of him being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, unless you're arguing it's unreasonable to call him a conspiracy theorist for saying things like this about WTC 7 (?):

• "Building 7 fell and it wasn't hit by fucking anything."
• "I'll have to look up the Popular Mechanics Building 7 theory because whatever it is it has got to be bullshit."
• "Building 7. Now who you gonna believe? The government that lied us into a war or your lying eyes? Building 7 was demolished by somebody. It didn't fall down because of a fire."
• "I think that when Building 7 went down, somebody was directly involved in that."
• "All I know is that Building 7 did not come down because a plane hit another building next to it."
• "They have videotape of police and the firemen saying "get back, this building's gonna go." The guy who owned that building, they interviewed him. He tells the story of "we made the decision to pull it, to pull the building." He says "pull it" which means we're gonna implode it. That's another term for implode."

Regarding JFK, conspiracy theories about his death are certainly popular but that doesn't mean they aren't conspiracy theories. Even if you exclude the two examples you mentioned, there are other examples on the page which justify describing him as a conspiracy theorist. It's hardly a controversial label since he was a speaker at the "Tin Foil Hat Comedy Night" and was a guest on the podcast "Tin Foil Hat with Sam Tripoli" twice. CowHouse (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

OPCW suppression and purge of Engineers report on Dhouma

Wikileaks doesn't have credibility after 2016. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

And oh by the way, the Dore has mentioned the Dhouma incident a grand total of 0 times. Yeah, he was too busy shooting his mouth off about made up conspiracies that he might have missed an actual coverup. By the way, I say "might have" because the best competing source is stuck behind a paywall and I actually do research before making claims concerning actual criminal charges. Unlike Dore. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about journalistic ethics about the implication of leaking information does not call into question the veracity of the information leaked, if anything it reinforces the veracity of the leaks. So I won't even bother to ask you to prove who was killed as a result of any leaks, because that argument is a total red herring.

As far as Dore covering the OPCW leaks and gas attacks, I will provide those links below:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OH3xlWWae6Q

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRQSfSKoJo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCdt578jumo

There you go, I have done the research so you don't have to. I accept your apology in advance.§ ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 / talk}

PS, your opinion of Assange is irrelevant. This is a classic "attacking the messenger" fallacy. Again, what has WikiLeaks as an outlet done to show dishonesty? Can you point to any falsification proven? (You can't). Your opinion on WikiLeaks is also irrelevant, and I have proved numerous other sources, including Robert Fisk, award winning journalist who was on the ground reporting on Douma.§ ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.201.31.48 / talk}

This isn't fucking 4chan, sign your motherfucking posts. As for what WikiLeaks has done to cause harm... Tampered with the 2016 U.S. election in a blatantly partisan way, Doxed thousands of LGBT people in the Middle East LEADING TO MANY OF THEM BEING MURDERED BY THOSE STATES BECAUSE ASSANGE COULDN'T BE BOTHERED TO FUCKING VET AND MODERATE HIS FUCKING INFO LIKE HE'S SUPPOSED TO AS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, Lied about planning to release dirt on Trump to offset the aforementioned election tampering he and WikiLeaks engaged in when they released thousands of ultimately meaningless DNC Emails, Is the cause of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory as a result of those DNC leaks and as thus is responsible for setting events in motion that lead the an armed gunman shooting up a pizzeria, and possibly more shit that I don't know about because Assange is a sociopath who only cares about himself and WikiLeaks as an organization is completely ok with letting him run it in such a blatantly petty and dishonest manner. As for " journalistic ethics about the implication of leaking information" I never brought that up, at all. You're putting words in my mouth that I never uttered. At no point did I ever go into whether or not whistleblowers should be trusted, you literally just brought that up out of nothing. " I accept your apology in advance" That will happen oh say... Never. I'm not going to apologize for popping your sheltered little bubble. WikiLeaks is a bunch of dishonest shits, and are a blacklisted source on this site due to the aforementioned fuckups that cost people their lives. And Dore is still a complete hack, Stopped clock or not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if you attempts to make this a referendum on Assange are misguided or dishonest, but either way it is wrong. Assange has been in prison durring these leaks. It literally has nothing to do with Assange as a person or a journalist as to whether the OPCW leaks are authentic or not. Mind you, now 20 OPCW members have come forward about the OPCW report on Douma. Source, Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7793253/PETER-HITCHENS-reveals-evidence-watchdog-suppressed-report-casting-doubt-Assad-gas-attack.html

Assange is responsible for Pizzagate? I suppose Christopher Nolan is responsible for the Colorado Auroa shooter too by that logic. I, on the other hand, reject that publishers are somehow responsible for what deranged people do. But if you are willing to pin that on Assange, then what say you to this falsified report for the OPCW used as a pretext by the US, France to launch strikes against Syria, a UN member state without security council approval? Perhaps we should call them all complict in a war crime and crime of aggression? And by extension, how about all the outlets who pushed the report? Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/syria-air-strikes-us-uk-and-france-launch-attack-on-assad-regime

I don't think the DNC emails were meaningless as they showed that Citigroup named all the members in Obama's cabinet, showing the problem is we had a president who was a puppet of the banks. But that is not the issue even remotely. We are discussing the OPCW, not how the DNC leaks impacted the 2016 elections (good riddance Debbie Wasserman Shultz, you deserved to be fired). Even if we take you accusation of partisanship to be true, it doesn't make the leaks false. The question is the information and material released in the leaks, not the messenger who published them.2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Btw, none if those are rational reasons for discrediting the information whistleblowers put out on WikiLeaks. However, thankfully we also have other journalists putting out the story. I cited Robert Fisk, Peter Hitchens, Aaron Maté and Amy Goodman just to name a few. So, even if you have blacklisted WikiLeaks for some misguided reason, it would not refute all of the sources and other journalists and whistleblowers.2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Assange ran WikiLeaks for years, I doubt him spending a year or so in jail will change their style. Congrats on just Whataboutisming away all those misdeeds, you're a real model of truth and justice. _{Sheltered hack.} The Daily Mail is a notorious tabloid rag, and Peter Hitchens has no standing here. Hell, his dead brother has little standing here anymore. The Guardian article basically just parrots Trump saying that Syria need more U.S. shooting, so meh... No real news there. WikiLeaks credibility as a source goes directly to whether or not their info can be trusted, and... They're still blacklisted on this site. I mean, it speaks volumes that the Ukraine scandal whistleblower went through government channels and corporate media over WikiLeaks, who you would think would break that story... Oh right, they cost lives and have fucked up so badly in the past that half their own members jumped ship and nixed info to spite Assange! Weird that! Anyway, keep telling yourself empowering fascists and causing the deaths of civilians is all in the name of the "greater good", as you probably think of it. Request denied, one possible scandal doesn't prove a wider conspiracy on its own, nor does it cover for Dore spreading conspiracy theories and calling anyone who disagrees with him a CIA shill. He's still a hack and a Truther, and WikiLeaks is still shit. Edit request denied. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Robert Fisk who was in Douma then. You seemed to have missed that one. I'll find even more sources if that is what you require. Again, for a site called rational wiki you aren't making rational arguments. None of your arguments has established that what WikiLeaks has published is false, which is the only issue. Yet you bring up the 2016 elections, Ukraine, I mean all these red herrings. Can we just stick to Syria and the OPCW please?2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, there are plenty of misdeeds, such as crimes of aggression, which were laid out at Nuremberg and the UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the ICC. So yes, giving cover for US, French, UK aggression towards a UN member state is a very serious crime. It is a crime of imperialism. I hope you wouldn't want to give cover to imperialists and war crimes.2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

No. You put words in my mouth, you straight up lied and accused me of being a shill (a knowing accomplice to a crime), you through around accusations and red herring as if they were candy. No, you don't get to whine and tell me not to address them. It isn't "rational" (fucking bog standard argument that, be original and don't make it for once) to say that one POSSIBLE, (because apparently having to stress that word and actually give your case the benefit of the doubt isn't good enough for you) scandal, which I'm more inclined to believe to be miscommunication than willful malice. Oh, and You just killed that benefit of doubt by the way. You did it by trying to guilt trip me with U.S. foreign policy which I have jack shit direct control over, while at the same time crying that we should stay on topic and remain civil. This debate is over, and you will get jack fucking shit. Now run back to your little truther forums and tell them how the big bad Rational Wiki doesn't believe in truth, and don't forget to leave out the part where you were a dishonest shit. After all, that last bit might make you look bad, and we can't have that now can we? Piss off, and don't come back. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I just used the same logic you did about empowering fascists and turned it around about imperialism and war crimes. If you consider this guilt tripping, know that I only mirrored your logic and applied it similarly. I never accused you of being a shill. If it doesn't relate to you, your motives and what you do you shouldn't take offense. I am willing move on to other examples of false attribution of blame for chemical attacks, I just prefer to tackle them one at a time. I started at Douma because it it the most recent example.2600:1002:B00A:9FBA:D867:1482:DFD9:8A25 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikileaks is a well known Russian sympathizer at this point and you are basically playing into their hands. I do not see a single source on these leaks from your viewpoint that doesn't smell of being a Russian stooge site (like RT) or is a conspiracy site that is a "useful idiot" to Putin. The "evidence" is a couple of emails with no attribution and that's IMHO fucking weak. Soundwave106 (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, WikiLeaks having a reputation for releasing classified documents leaking Emails in a blatantly one sided way is exactly the same as not being convinced of a scandal because I'm not seeing enough evidence from reliable sources. Sure, Power dynamics don't actually exist. Healthy skepticism is a lie guys, shut down the site because we're obsolete now! (Not!) ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep deleting it, but again, leave aside WikiLeaks entirely for the moment. You haven't addressed the reporting of Robert Fisk, winner of 17 journalistic awards who was at Douma at the time of the attacks. You haven't addressed Ian Henderson's report. You haven't addressed the points of Theodore Postal. So instead of going back and forth on the merits of WikiLeaks, let's address the OPCW report directly. Maybe you, like the OPCW, think that you can use your power to simply delete the information that pokes holes in assertions you wish to be true, but that isn't how logic and rationality work.2600:1002:B00A:A81D:5957:83FD:C7C0:8F13 (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comments keep being reverted because you keep linking to WikiLeaks (after it's been made clear to you that they are a blacklisted source) and because you keep spewing a whole bunch of conspiratory nonsense. Also, GC only reverted you the second time, not the first time. The Crow (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Dore, Wikileaks, RT, et al are down there with Donald Trump on the reliability scale. Even if there were evidence exonerating Assad from the chemical weapons violations, so what? He is not a nice guy and clearing his name is not a possible objective. Everybody knows he is a ruthless killer. What would be the point? Establishing that it might not have been his responsibility as opposed to, "yeah, that's right, he did it"? I hope the situation is clear here. Go away now.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

False equivalency, and well... just false. I'm assuming the outlets and institutions you would refer to as reliable got the Iraq intelligence wrong in the lead up to the 2003 invasion. There *is* evidence that points to Assad not being the culprit, and not just in the case of Douma (which we should settle first). If I understand what you are arguing is that it is OK to spread misinformation on Assad and Syria and also not give credit to Dore for covering a story correctly while most corporate conglomerate outlets have not because they are not 'nice guys'? I was under the impression that this website presents itself as an encyclopedia, not propaganda. Let the readers determine who are nice guys or bad guys by presenting them with information.

My motivation is to get the facts right. The question you aren't asking is what is the motivation of those institutions and outlets in spreading misinformation about chemical attacks in Syria? You spoke of Assange as a "sociopath", but clearly if allegations of human rights violations in the form of chemical attacks are being weaponized to give cover and pretext for imperialism, regime change and war crimes of aggression by the US, UK and France, perhaps the term "sociopath" needs to be applied elsewhere. Maybe you don't recall how the Bush II Administration used WMDs as a pretext for war crimes and conquest, but one would hope that lessons would be learned in not rushing to back establishment narratives without first scrutinizing their claims. Otherwise one would then be a "useful idiot" for war criminals and imperialists.

Motivations are not particularly relevant unless there is an agenda undermining objectivity, but seeing as how you don't like Trump, I am curious as to why wouldn't you want to show that he committed a war crime of aggression towards Syria under false pretext if that is in fact the case?

Once again, let's please address the Ian Henderson Report, the reporting of Robert Fisk and the interview with Theodore Postal. And please stop deleting my posts. I am only seeking a reasoned debate here to get at objective facts.24.238.78.48 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Rather than have you read Ian Henderson's report, which I suspect you will not have the motivation to do, I'm linking another article which sums it up: https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/11/15/the-opcw-and-douma-chemical-weapons-watchdog-accused-of-evidence-tampering-by-its-own-inspectors/

The author is Jonathan Steele, the former chief foreign correspondent for the Guardian. His credentials include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Steele#Prizes_and_awards

"In 2006, Steele won a Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism Special Award in honour of his career contributions.[4] He was named International Reporter of the Year in the British Press Awards in 1981 and again in 1991. He won the London Press Club's Scoop of the Year Award in 1991 for being the only English-language reporter to reach the villa in the Crimea where Mikhail Gorbachev was held captive and interview the Soviet president during the brief coup in August that year. In 1998, Steele won Amnesty International's foreign reporting award for his coverage of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. In 1998 he also won the James Cameron Award."24.238.78.48 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The nature of conspiracy theory requires that nothing really be provable. And in fact in this case, expert opinion is taken to lean in a certain direction: against Assad. You don't get it. I understand. You like Putin too maybe? Reuters reports "The head of the global chemical weapons organization on Monday defended the agency’s conclusion that poison was used in a high profile attack in Syria last year, after leaked documents suggested two former employees doubted some of its findings." Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence construct. Introducing doubt, or gaslighting as we like to call it, is the preferred tool of counter-intelligence agencies. Make a simple statement and try to defend it. According to Idrees Ahmad "Ian Henderson, a disgruntled OPCW employee, sent his speculative assessment to the "Working Group". But when the working group tried to establish his credentials, the OPCW confirmed that he was NOT part of the Fact Finding Mission. Which means, he had no direct access." I am not saying you are a gaslighting, Putin-loving phony. But you might be.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting is also the tool of partisan hacks, politicians and propaganda outlets. I understand how conspiracy theories work. I also understand there is such a thing as conspiracy which is a criminal act (See: Iran-Contra Scandal). For example, can you prove your assertion that "Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence construct" or is such an assertion an example of gaslighting? Perhaps you would like to share you source for this revelation, but as far as i can tell, the main one comes from Mike Pompeo, former CIA Director and expert gaslighter, who said in his own words: "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. It was like we had entire training courses...it reminds you of the glory of the American experiment."

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/china-responds-iran-us-spies-1450789

At this point, very few are addressing the sources, the reports, but are instead resulting to red herring fallacy, guilt by association fallacy and ad hominem attacks. It has happened so frequently in this discussion, and so one-sidedly, that it appears to me that these are actually arguments in bad faith at this point. Also, I looked up this sites own page on blacklists. I do not wee Wikileaks listed. I am including the links below: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites/Conspiracy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites/Internet

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites/Politics

Am I missing something here?

My opinion of Putin is irrelevant, but since you brought it up, it is negative.

Finally to your point about the OPCW, your argument is that the OPCW head whose is the one accused of the cover up denies the cover up and another says Ian Henderson is disgruntled. Yet, I supplied another expert, Theodore Postal's review of the report, and then there is the report itself which also uses the computer model in the official report contradicts the claims of the same report. This is the attacking the messenger fallacy. Ian Henderson is still an expert in this field and Theodore Postal is also an expert. So how about we deal with what the report says?24.238.78.48 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I should think you already know why WL is connected to Russian Intelligence, but here is a very nice article. Enjoy! You should know that WL-Russian collusion is a well-accepted likely fact of pro-western journalists.This is the best anyone could hope for, given that even the roundness of the planet is still being contested. Finally, I think you have come to the wrong place. What you probably wanted was...

Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The article you linked begins with "seems more and more plausible—even likely", which is qualified language and not proof. As was stated by the other post "The nature of conspiracy theory requires that nothing really be provable". So, this just seems like another example of double standards, one for pro-Western establishment sources and another for adversarial media and sources.

"Russia has long appeared to be behind the hacks into computers at the Democratic National Committee, as well as a phishing operation that penetrated Podesta’s email account. Private-sector investigators hired by the DNC concluded that Russia was behind the 2016 hacking. Later, a report released by the director of national intelligence reached the same conclusion, though it was sketchy in explaining its reasoning. But in July 2018, an indictment from Mueller’s team offered the most detailed accounting of why Russian intelligence was the likely culprit for the hacks, and detailed how Russia passed the emails to WikiLeaks through a persona called Guccifer 2.0, named after another hacker. No trial has been held." More qualified language not amounting to proof. What follows in the article amount to unproven allegations and speculation.

As far as Roger Stone, I offer this article from the Nation. "Stone has since retracted his claims, and WikiLeaks has steadfastly denied that it ever associated with him. Special counsel Robert Mueller’s new indictment of Stone does not allege otherwise, and gives us more reasons to doubt the innuendo that Stone himself caused.

Mueller does not accuse Stone of having any WikiLeaks ties or advanced knowledge of its publications."

Source: https://www.thenation.com/article/mueller-roger-stone-russiagate/24.238.78.48 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So, the same gaslighting line as before? If a majority of journalists interpret events as X, and a couple of journalists interpret the same events as Y, then, if bias is not an issue, we can usually assume that X is more likely than Y. If bias is an issue, then, prima facie, we know it is probably the smaller group of journalists that have been compromised by bias. The same argument holds for dissenting reports. I assume you have come here for an argument? Good luck. Ariel31459 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum fallacy. Mind you, most of these outlets repeated false narratives on the Iraq WMD issue. It didn't make it true then, and it doesn't now. This is an excellent example of the fallacies you are using from one of those outlets: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/

An alternative interpretation is that establishment outlets push establishment narratives uncritically.2600:1002:B014:8F95:39FB:6F94:AA3F:5C98 (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's right, you're wrong! A fallacy operates in a way that probability is not taken into account. Everything people agree on as true depends upon a majority view of some kind, even if only a majority of two. You are really not very good at this.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In philosophy you debate Truth and truth claims. Journalism is concerned with facts, not truth. Truth claims are subjective/inter-subjective, but facts are objective and provable. In other words a belief, no matter how many people hold it to be true, is still just a belief. It does not become a fact just because it is widely believed.2600:1002:B020:6AA5:302:6542:95FF:87FD (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and facts are intimately connected with true statements. Philosophers set the parameters followed by all good journalists. A fact does not become true because it is widely believed. It is only more likely to be true than the alternative. Probabilistically a fact is even less likely to be true if it is widely disbelieved by experts. Thus philosophers and natural scientists arrange their affairs accordingly.Try again.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect. All facts are by definition true, but not all truth claims are factual. Probability does not determine facts, only likelihood. You are now confusing likelihood, probability and truth claims with provable facts. You are also employing argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, also known as appeal to authority fallacy. Again, see the last link I provided for the Washington Post's official paper's stance on Iraq WMD as an example. The majority of outlets presented the WMD story with Iraq as being true, but it was a false narrative. At no point did it become factual just because most outlets pushed the narrative uncritically.

To be clear, I am not stating that there is no place for expert opinions in journalism, so long as they are treated as the opinions of experts, not as facts. The post above stated "The nature of conspiracy theory requires that nothing really be provable... Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence construct. Introducing doubt, or gaslighting as we like to call it, is the preferred tool of counter-intelligence agencies. Make a simple statement and try to defend it."

So I suggest we test this logical standard both ways. "Wikileaks is a Russian intelligence construct" is in fact "a simple statement". So can this be defended? The post didn't say "acts as" or "might as well be" or "is likely" or "is used by" "Russian intelligence". The statment was simply "is a Russian intelligence construct". What does the poster know that the Atlantic or Mueller doesn't that can establish this not as allegation but as fact? If it is a fact, then there should be proof. Show me the proof. If this is not proven, then would this not be a case of gaslighting, or as it was put before "Introducing doubt" and an example of conspiracy theory as it was put "The nature of conspiracy theory requires that nothing really be provable". Of this "fact" can't be proven, we very likely can be dealing with unfalsifiability or the unfaslifiable claim fallacy.

Now, if this poster can't prove WikiLeaks is a "Russian Intelligence construct," I want to know why assertions that Wikileaks is such is treated as a way to discredit them, but suddenly when it comes to the OPCW, dissenting expert opinions on their reports are considered conspiracy theories and somehow official reports are no longer subjected to scrutiny by journalists or experts? Since when does "officialdom" means it is infallible? Is it too much to ask that the same standards be applied uniformy to both establishment and advasarial sources? If it is too much for a uniform standard and there must be a double standard, then why is that the case? Please explain.

Finally, I do not see WikiLeaks listed as blacklisted. If it is, can someone provide me the blacklist. If not, then can we drop the whole "Wikipedia is blacklisted" argument and continue on to the dissenting expert opinions and reports? Also, conclusions are just that conclusion, which is a form of opinion, hopefully educated opinion in the case of experts.2600:1002:B024:519E:4B13:42DC:94A3:B1C6 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As you are continuing to gaslight on this topic there is no use in continuing to reason with you. If all facts are by definition true, then by your reckoning, we don't know many facts about this subject without some sort of appeal to authority. Since we tend to give scientists the benefit of the doubt and we don't trust WL, you appear to be out of luck. Sayonara.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WikiLeaks and Wikipedia two completely different organizations. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)