Rand Paul's Masterclass In Gaslighting

[traveler]

45 minutes ago, Loving Radiance said:

Is it that you don't want your argument to be examined in its structure and reflected back to you?

Leo examined my point and reflected back on me what he percieved it to be. Then I used his metaphor to let him know where he misunderstood my point. Then he makes the decision to ignore it completely and focus on a slightly defensive comment I made afterwards. This signals to me that he has no intention having a constructive conversation, but rather to shut me up with a gut-punch because he never can admit that someone has a good point or because he simply can't see it.

45 minutes ago, Loving Radiance said:

Can you see that it makes you invested to defend yourself against this kind of allegation?

Yes and I can see the point about how this could compare to the election allegations, but there are other points that I've made where I've explained why it isn't the same form of allegation. One is empty  based on nothing, the other has evidence and "somewhat" credible people. Keep in mind that I'm not saying it was fraudulent, I'm merely saying keep an open mind.

But I guess the left has a lot of trust in the media based on what I've gathered, so if the media says it's not fraudulent then that is the one and only truth.

45 minutes ago, Loving Radiance said:

Putting yourself in Leo's or Forestluv's shoes, how else would you elicit self-reflection from someone in your position?

My statement didn't solidify my position on politics, I made a comment based from an onlookers perspective who isn't hypnotised by the world of right vs left. If you have a strong stance on either side, then everything challenging your perspective will be labelled "in opposition to me" in your mind. You can't actually hear what I'm saying while you're under the trance of the political circus.

 

Edited January 30, 2021 by traveler

[Forestluv]

7 hours ago, traveler said:

it's just some conspiracy theorist that doesn't know me at all that have no real evidence to support that claim (Leo), then it's probably not true, then it's probably just some nutcase trying to stir up drama. This is where their logic stop making sense, they don't know me so their accusations are empty, but there are many people that know a lot more about the elections than we do that have said that it is fraudulent, that is why we need to have an openmind.

Conspiracy theories always have nuggets of truth as a hook. They are manipulative stories as they twist words and context. And they use emotions. Whether it's BS theories of 9-11, JFK, election fraud or you being a pedo. Watch how it works. . . 

There is evidence of you being a pedo. There was an administrator and moderator on a reputable forum that said so. And you yourself suggested that there should be an investigation into whether you are a pedo. . . Notice how this "evidence" is manipulated. Now imagine we can use this "evidence" on social media to convince millions of people that you are a pedo. All sorts of people come out of the woodwork adding allegations and "evidence". Of course it is all BS and would never stand up in a court of law because it is all heresay. Yet this will not count as "proof" for those "open-minded" to the theory that you are a pedo. There will be no convincing them. They will say the judges were corrupt and it wasn't a fair trial against you. They may say that you paid off the prosecuting attorneys. That is how conspiracy theories become more intricate.

7 hours ago, traveler said:

but there are many people that know a lot more about the elections than we do that have said that it is fraudulent, that is why we need to have an openmind.

Notice the assumption here. There is an assumption there are "many people that know a lot about elections". Who are these people? Sidney "The Kraken" Powell? The woman who believes the ghost of Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan communists stole the election? How about Trump's "lawyers" that didn't even know "MI" stands for Michigan (Not Minnesota). They actually filed a case claiming of election fraud in Michigan by using "evidence" from Minnesota, because they thought "MI" stood for Minnesota. Or how about senile Rudy Giuliani? The man who wanted to hold a press conference at the ritzy Four Seasons Hotel, yet due to incompetence ended up in a gravel parking lot of Four Seasons Landscaping next to a porn shop in a run-down part of town. And his star witness was a convicted sex predator and a woman under a restraining order that showed up drunk. These are the people that "know a lot more"?

Let's consider people that actually know a lot more elections.

Trump's cyber-security team. This was run by a Trump appointee that is a republican. Trump's own republican election security team concluded there was no widespread fraud.

The law firms representing Trump. Trump's own law firms decided that these were frivolous cases and abandoned Trump. Trump's own lawyers wouldn't even defend him! That is why he ended up with half-baked "lawyers" like Sydney Powell. 

Trump's justice department concluded there is no credible evidence of widespread fraud.

Trump appointed judges and conservative judges concluded there was no evidence of widespread fraud. They warned Trump's lawyers that if they continue to bring frivolous lawsuits they would be held in contempt of court. This is why legitimate law firms abandoned Trump and why Trump had to hire half-baked lawyers. And it is why Trump's team started making their accusations on social media and press conferences. They knew the allegations were not credible and they didn't want to be held in contempt of court. There are no legal consequences for spreading conspiracy theories through social media, yet there are legal consequences to repeatedly bring frivolous lawsuits to court. 

Republican election officials. All state election officials concluded that there was not widespread fraud, including Republican officials that voted for Trump. 

Multiple Recounts verified original counts.

Investigations into previous elections have determined that voting fraud is rare in the U.S. and nowhere near enough to overturn an election. 

Taken collectively, one now needs to enter into conspiracy theory territory to maintain "open-mindedness" that there was widespread fraud. One needs to create a story that there is a massive conspiracy, including Trump's own officials and republicans, that they are hiding widespread fraud. Why would Trump's own appointees and republican officials / judges hide election fraud against Trump from public view? One needs to create a conspiracy story. . . 

Being "open-minded" does not mean the object is binary. There are probabilities. There is a much greater probability that I drank coffee this morning than the chance that: the moon landing was fake, 9-11 was an inside job, the coronavirus is a hoax, there was widespread election fraud or that you are a pedophile. 

And the bar to clear is not fraud. There is a low level of fraud in every election. The bar to clear is that there was widespread fraud.

Should I be open-minded that the coronavirus is a hoax by the government? I'm open-minded that there is an extremely small chance of that being true. Perhaps one in a trillion chance. Yet I'm not going to entertain every theory that has an infinitesimal chance of being true. That would consume one's entire life and it's a waste of time. 

[traveler]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Conspiracy theories always have nuggets of truth as a hook. They are manipulative stories as they twist words and context. And they use emotions. Whether it's BS theories of 9-11, JFK, election fraud or you being a pedo. Watch how it works. . . 

There is evidence of you being a pedo. There was an administrator and moderator that said so. And you yourself suggested that there should be an investigation into whether you are a pedo. . . Notice how this "evidence" is thin and manipulated. Now imagine we can use this "evidence" on social media to convince millions of people that you are a pedo. All sorts of people come out of the woodwork adding allegations and "evidence". Of course it is all BS and would never stand up in a court of law because it is all heresay. Yet this will not count as "proof" for those "open-minded" to the theory that you are a pedo. There will be no convincing them. They will say the judges were corrupt and it wasn't a fair trial against you. They may say that you paid off the prosecuting attorneys. That is how conspiracy theories become more intricate.

I see your point and it is a good point. But, being open minded is not a state of certainty, it is a state of unknowing, a much clearer view but also very unclear. So yea open minded people might still be open minded to the idea that I am, but they'll also be open minded that I'm not. From this POV it is much easier to see things without bias, because you're not attached to any outcome.

You definitely have done your research but all of your findings are colored by your belief system, you have a deep trust in the system where other people from their research have good reason not to trust it. I'm not against you, I find it very interesting to hear your perspective on this. It is a much nicer perspective to have than that of the "conspiracy theorist."

I just gotta say, the label "conspiracy theory" clouds many peoples ability to think for themselves, they instantly discard whatever is being presented just by reading that label. It is good to do your own research before agreeing to that label. Many "conspiracy theories" turned out to be true. 

And btw. Someone saying you're something is not evidence that you are that. I can say that you are a potato, now there is evidence that you're a potato.

Edited January 30, 2021 by traveler

[Blackbeat]

On 29/01/2021 at 11:14 AM, traveler said:

Why are you guys so enraged by a different POV? Aren't we supposed to be open minded on here? What if the election was fraudulent? You haven't even considered that because your on the side of the winner. You have confirmation bias, everything you hear reinforces your position, which limits your perception.

Social media is designed to feed your own beliefs to you, so if you don't actively seek to learn about the POV of someone with another belief system, you'll never understand where they are coming from and you'll never have empathy. You'll just be contributing to the chaos like most other human beings are doing, by being selfish.

I don't get it, I don't have a strong opinion on politics and I'm not from America, so when I read most of the stuff on here relating politics It feels just like reading comments on Twitter. Just one side shit talking the other, reinforcement of separation, too much attachment. 

Trumps is no good.

Biden is no good. 

Everybody loses, no one is right, there you go.

spitting fax

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, traveler said:

But, being open minded is not a state of certainty, it is a state of unknowing, a much clearer view but also very unclear.

Being open-minded has degrees as does the object of open-mindedness.

Consider these two situations:

1. Being open-minded to the possibility that there are microscopic living organisms that we cannot see with the naked eye. 

2. Being open-minded to the possibility that a three-headed lizard on the planet Xenon created the coronavirus to transform humans into bugs that he can eat.

We can be open-minded to both, yet both scenarios are not equivalent. Which of the above would you entertain as plausible? Which of the above would you actually invest your time into considering? 

1 hour ago, traveler said:

You definitely have done your research but all of your findings are colored by your belief system

Any construct we create is colored by assumptions. You seem to be falsely equating and saying "let's be open to any idea" as if every idea was equal.

1 hour ago, traveler said:

you have a deep trust in the system

That is your assumption and portrayal onto me. I don't see government through rose-colored glasses. I can see that government has aspects of corruption. Yet you are perceiving through a binary lens, not a nuanced multi-perspectival lens. Just because government has corruption does not mean government is 100% corrupt. Government can have people that are non-corrupt, partially corrupt and extremely corrupt. Some governmental agencies could provide some value while other agencies don't offer much value. 

I don't start off looking at a situation with the assumption that government is 100% corrupt or that government is 100% non-corrupt. In the claims of widespread election fraud, there are too many data points that it is BS and not enough data points that it's credible. Entertaining the idea that Trump's own law firm, Trump's own justice department, Trump's own judges, Trump's own election security officials and republican election officials are all conspiring to hide widespread election fraud against Trump is ludicrous. The idea that the Hugo Chavez and Venezuelan communists are conspiring with George Soros and republican election officials is ludicrous. Is it possible? Sure. And so is a three-headed lizard on the planet Xenon. . . Just because government has aspects of corruption, does not automatically make any claim credible. 

1 hour ago, traveler said:

I just gotta say, the label "conspiracy theory" clouds many peoples ability to think for themselves, they instantly discard whatever is being presented just by reading that label.

By definition, the possibility of widespread election fraud would require a a conspiracy of many people secretly covering up the widespread election fraud. This coordinated team of conspirers would include:

--Trump-appointed judges

-- Conservative judges

-- Lawyers at the law firms representing Trump

-- FBI agents in Trump's justice department

-- Trump's attorney general Bill Barr

-- Trump's entire cyber security team

-- Republican state election officials that voted for Trump

Is it possible all of these people are conspiring against their own political party to hide widespread election fraud so that their own leader loses? Sure it's possible, yet it is extremely unlikely. 

1 hour ago, traveler said:

And btw. Someone saying you're something is not evidence that you are that. I can say that you are a potato, now there is evidence that you're a potato.

Exactly. A claim is distinct form the evidence supporting that claim. Trump, Sydney Powell, Giuliani et. al. made lots of claims. They can say Venezuelan communists under the Hugo Chavez regime stole the election. Yet that claim is not supported by evidence. That is the whole point. Trump's own law firms, judges, justice department, attorney general and republican election officials have all determined that the claims are merit-less. Similarly, the claim that you are a pedophile is meritless. 

You are going beyond simple open-mindedness and creating false equivalencies. You are saying we should be equally open-minded to the possibility that I am a potato and that I am a human. 

[traveler]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Being open-minded has degrees as does the object of open-mindedness.

Consider these two situations:

1. Being open-minded to the possibility that there are microscopic living organisms that we cannot see with the naked eye. 

2. Being open-minded to the possibility that a three-headed lizard on the planet Xenon created the coronavirus to transform humans into bugs that he can eat.

We can be open-minded to both, yet both scenarios are not equivalent. Which of the above would you entertain as plausible? Which of the above would you actually invest your time into considering? 

Number 1. 

The reason is that I haven't heard of, read about, thought of or seen pictures of any three headed lizard from planet Xenon creating the corona virus. The difference between the  two options you gave on a scale of probability is a lot bigger than the difference there is on the subject matter at hand. I have heard of, read about, thought of and seen pictures of corruption in the government of the USA. 

8 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Any construct we create is colored by a beliefs and assumptions. You are falsely equating all belief systems and say "let's be open to any idea" as if every idea was equal.

Every idea is equal from a higher POV. Many people mistake their belief system for absolute truth, this is the essence of so much hate and misunderstanding. I'm not saying that you shouldn't believe in something, if you stay aware that what you believe isn't absolutely true then you won't take yourself so seriously, you'll be able to listen and understand where other people are coming from. 

17 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That is your assumption and portrayal onto me. I don't see government through rose-colored glasses. I can see that government has aspects of corruption. Yet you are seeing through a binary lens, not a nuanced multi-perspectival lens. Just because government has corruption does not lead to government being 100% corrupt. Government can have people that are non-corrupt, partially corrupt and extremely corrupt. Some governmental agencies could provide some value while other don't offer much value. 

I completely agree. I think your assumption and portrayal onto me is that I'm a conspiracy nut that is seeing through a binary lens. 

22 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Is it possible all of these people are conspiring against their own political party to hide widespread election fraud so that their own leader loses? Sure it's possible, yet it is extremely unlikely. 

Extremely unlikely from a certain worldview and likely from another. 

26 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You are going beyond simple open-mindedness. You are creating false equivalencies. You are saying we should be equally open-minded to the possibility that I am a potato and that I am a human. 

You have evidence from direct experience that you are human or at least that there is a human body here and not a potato. All the knowledge you have about the election is second hand. 

[Forestluv]

56 minutes ago, traveler said:

I have heard of, read about, thought of and seen pictures of corruption in the government of the USA. 

Of course there is government corruption in the U.S. That is not the issue. At issue are claims of election fraud that have been debunked by Trump's own lawyer's, attorney general, justice department, judges, cyber security team, and republican state election officials. Corruption is when people act inappropriately in their own self interest.  The claims of widespread election fraud would require that Trump's own officials and conservatives conspired against their own party and self interest. 

It would be like accusing a football team of cheating so that the other team would win. 

56 minutes ago, traveler said:

Every idea is equal from a higher POV. Many people mistake their belief system for absolute truth, this is the essence of so much hate and misunderstanding.

This is conflating absolute with relative. Yes, every idea is equal in the sense that every idea is an idea. Just like every animal is an animal. Yet this does not mean that every animal is equal. 

56 minutes ago, traveler said:

The reason is that I haven't heard of, read about, thought of or seen pictures of any three headed lizard from planet Xenon creating the corona virus. 

Of course you have read about it. You didn't make it up yourself. You read about a three headed lizard from the planet Xenon creating the corona virus on this forum. Then you yourself have written about it. And you are now reading about it for a second time right now.

Notice how "reading about" something is equivalent in the context of "Reading about = Reading about", yet not all reading about is equivalent. Reading about how a three headed lizard creates the coronavirus on a forum is not equivalent to reading about the coronavirus life cycle in a scientific journal. 

56 minutes ago, traveler said:

I think your assumption and portrayal onto me is that I'm a conspiracy nut that is seeing through a binary lens. 

I never said that you are a conspiracy nut. It has nothing to do with you personally. I have been discussing the structure of conspiracies.

In my view some of your statements are binary and you are not seeing nuances. For example, you seem to be using a binary construct of governmental corruption. Binary constructs have value in some contexts. yet they are also very limiting. 

56 minutes ago, traveler said:

Extremely unlikely from a certain worldview and likely from another. 

If a football team is known for cheating, is it more likely that they cheat so they win or cheat so the other team wins? 

If Chelsea beats Arsenal in a football game, how likely is it that Arsenal cheated so that Chelsea would win? Very unlikely. 

If there was evidence that Chelsea cheated, how likely is it that Arsenal would hide this evidence so that Chelsea could remain the victor? Very unlikely. 

If Democrats committed widespread fraud, why would Republicans in various agencies work together to cover up the evidence so that Democrats would win the election? It doesn't make sense. 

[traveler]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

Of course there is government corruption in the U.S. That is not the issue. At issue are claims of election fraud that have been debunked by Trump's own lawyer's, attorney general, justice department, judges, cyber security team, and republican state election officials. Corruption is when people act inappropriately in their own self interest.  The claims of widespread election fraud would require that Trump's own officials and conservatives conspired against their own party and self interest. 

It would be like accusing a football team of cheating so that the other team would win. 

Aren't those people only working under him while he is president? You could hate your boss and conspire with your colleagues to get him fired, it doesn't seem super implausible that many of Trumps own employees dislike him.

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

This is conflating absolute with relative. Yes, every idea is equal in the sense that every idea is an idea. Just like every animal is an animal. Yet this does not mean that every animal is equal.

Yea, I think we agree in many ways. The mishap I think is that you're already firmly placed in a fixed position (that there was no fraud) and I'm not, so recognizing that there might have been fraud is a total fairytale to you, where it for me is a possibility. I'm not just saying that it is a possibility because everything is possible, but from information I've gathered in my lifetime and watching alternative media I am open to this worldview being an actual thing.

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

In my view some of your statements are binary and you are not seeing nuances. For example, you seem to be using a binary construct of governmental corruption. Binary constructs have value in some contexts. yet they are also very limiting. 

Can you please give me an example of this? 

 

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

If a football team is known for cheating, is it more likely that they cheat so they win or cheat so the other team wins? 

If Chelsea beats Arsenal in a football game, how likely is it that Arsenal cheated so that Chelsea would win? Very unlikely. 

If there was evidence that Chelsea cheated, how likely is it that Arsenal would hide this evidence so that Chelsea could remain the victor? Very unlikely. 

These are not equivalent situations.

If the people owning the clubs behind the scenes had whatever agenda, maybe for Arsenal to finish at 3rd place or for Arsenal to lose a game, do you think they would go tell the media that there was fraud behind the scenes? Do you think any of the people working at Arsenal would have this information other than the top people at the club, the players, the manager and owner? Do you think they would risk their own livelihood and have the possibility of getting humiliated on the news by coming out with these baseless claims without any evidence? Some would probably have the balls to do so and they would be humiliated by every Chelsea fan for doubting the fairness of the game, but most Arsenal fans would begin to be skeptical and some would listen to what these players risking everything had to say. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by traveler

[Leo Gura]

@traveler You are gullible fool.

Case closed.

[Arcangelo]

Forest I am applauding!

You know who was a pedophile for real?

Muhamed the muslim guy, it says it on the Koran.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

Forest I am applauding!

You know who was a pedophile for real?

Muhamed the muslim guy, it says it on the Koran.

Dumb example, since 1500 years ago people died young and married young. By your logic most people were pedophiles 2000 years ago.

This is what happens when you ignore historical context.

[Arcangelo]

If you marry a 6 year old and have sex with a 9 year old, you are pedophile in my book. No context is gonna save you.

 

Arc

[Danioover9000]

@traveler

On 1/29/2021 at 6:31 PM, traveler said:

Well said, thanks.

   It's probably better to not use any current hot topics as examples for your point, because from what I've seen so far, some are still too triggered to move away from the example and to abstract and see it differently, outside the box. It's probably best to leave this discussion behind soon, whatever way it ends.

  Also, your welcome. 

[Danioover9000]

@Arcangelo

2 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

If you marry a 6 year old and have sex with a 9 year old, you are pedophile in my book. No context is gonna save you.

 

Arc

   Exactly, why this has to be explicitly explained and used as an example is bizarre.

[traveler]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@traveler You are gullible fool.

Case closed.

Your words have no power over me. 

[Preety_India]

Speculation that the elections might have been a fraud is a case of slander.. 

When there is no evidence, there is no logic, whether it's a direct claim or a speculation.. 

Just because you can't make a direct claim, doesn't give you the benefit to simply float a speculation and assume that it could be true. 

This is like strawmanning and in its extreme form its downright slander and gaslighting. 

 

[Lyubov]

33 minutes ago, Arcangelo said:

If you marry a 6 year old and have sex with a 9 year old, you are pedophile in my book. No context is gonna save you.

 

Arc

I wonder if this is actually true or some inaccurate myth spread by christian conservatives. Marriage and sex a few thousand years ago seems abusive and perverted by today's standards. I'm pretty sure humans started marrying right around puberty and it was treated as sort of a rite of passage. 

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

On 1/28/2021 at 2:23 AM, Hardkill said:

Like Trump, he also needs to be eliminated from existence.

   Yeah, he needs to experience enlightenment, that'll erase his ego, which would allow him to object with every party, and side with every party. The ultimate middle man version of Richard Feynman. 

[Danioover9000]

@Lyubov

20 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

I wonder if this is actually true or some inaccurate myth spread by christian conservatives. Marriage and sex a few thousand years ago seems abusive and perverted by today's standards. I'm pretty sure humans started marrying right around puberty and it was treated as sort of a rite of passage. 

   Not surprising, given limited life spans and limited ways of healing then, limited technology and weaponry, allows other cultures to wage war much more easier, and after the fighting is over, people need to repopulate. 

[Arcangelo]

2 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I wonder if this is actually true or some inaccurate myth spread by christian conservatives. Marriage and sex a few thousand years ago seems abusive and perverted by today's standards. I'm pretty sure humans started marrying right around puberty and it was treated as sort of a rite of passage. 

It says it in the Koran.

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Arcangelo

   Exactly, why this has to be explicitly explained and used as an example is bizarre.

I think that Muhamed is the world's most famous pedophile don't you think?

 

Now, let's find the connection between Muhamed being a pedophile and gaslighting which is what the thread is about.

If someone tells me that Muhamed is not a pedophile that person is DEFINITELY a gaslighter.

Because a 9 year old has not even reached puberty.

 

I think it is very different for a guy that is 30yo to have sex with a 17.5 yo (that looks like 21yo BTW)

Than a fucking 60 something yo pervert that has sex with a 9 yo

Do you agree?

Us normal guys (not pedophiles) like developed bodies: bodies with developed ass and tits, and legs OFC.

Muhamed was sexually attracted by a 9 year old. Sexually attracted enough to rape her. That's not normal

What's bizarre to me is that so many people (millions) call muhamed a holy man.

 

 

 

Arc