US Officially Blames Russia

[Upchurch]

My passport has 8 stamps from Canada.

And mine doesn't, despite crossing four times this summer. Stamps prove exactly nothing.

 

[Belz...]

I think you're failing to account for the tokenist nature of cargo cult skepticism here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anderson Cooper has the patience of Job.

It was:

Conway: You reported this
Cooper: No we didn't
Conway: Many people feel you did
Cooper: Here's what we said
Conway: Fake news. Witch hunt.

Pure gaslighting from Conway.

The new MSNBC ad with Rachel Maddow praising herself for having a 'discussion' with Conway and how we should all be able to have a discussion makes me cringe. You can't have a discussion with a propaganda recording.

Then Maddow praises Greta Van Sustran for calling someone out. Maddow, take your own advice.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's also possible to have 2 U.S. passports at a time

You keep your Israel stamps in a different passport, or request that they stamp it on an ordinary sheet of paper, so that you are able to travel to Arab/Muslim countries as well, which affects a lot of Muslims and IMO is a very childish way for certain Middle East countries to behave.

Same with Greece and Turkey with regard to Cyprus.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

<snip>
4. As per phiwum, Delphic Oracle, et al. The required rituals being to self-assign either one of the marginally different tokens of "Democrat" or "Republican" and then participating in a regularly held popularity ritual after which the population assigns you the token of "senator". The last step is to group together people such that the group ends up with the combined tokens of "Democrat senator" and "Republican senator" such that it can finally be assigned the token of "bipartisan" which then acquires the required authority.

Why are you invoking my name in relation to this, exactly?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why is no one asking to see Cohen's Israeli passport?

 

[LSSBB]

Another voice chimes in:

CIA nominee agrees Russia tried to interfere in election

“Everything I’ve seen suggests to me that the report has an analytical product that is sound,” said Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican congressman.

 

[phiwum]

I think you're failing to account for the tokenist nature of cargo cult skepticism here. The basis for belief is whether the individual making the claim holds a (sub)culturally determined token of authority, which you do not but people like Clapper do. You would hence not be believed irrespective of the content of what you say, whereas people like Clapper are believed irrespective of the content of what he says.

If you want to be believed in cargo cult skepticist groups then you are required to perform a set of objectively meaningless rituals, which the (sub)culture of the specific group has assigned as a basis for providing someone with a token of authority.

You can clearly notice this ritualistic basis in the group's frowning upon empirical evidence as a basis for belief[1] as "anti-intellectual". In the specific group around here your best bet to be believed would be to perform the rituals which would lead you to acquire the token of American[2] "intelligence agent"[3] or "bipartisan"[4].

1. Such as JihadJane's helpful pointing out of Clapper's history of lying and perjury.

2. This needs no saying, Americans are by default ubermenschen, which is implicit in literally everything that passes around for skepticism around here. See for example the statements of the "intelligence community" consisting of just a bunch of American intelligence agencies.

3. As per Upchurch, phiwum, et al. The rituals you need to perform being the gestures and behaviours which eventually lead to you being provided with the relevant token by individuals which have been assigned a token which allows them to hand out tokens of "part of intelligence community".

4. As per phiwum, Delphic Oracle, et al. The required rituals being to self-assign either one of the marginally different tokens of "Democrat" or "Republican" and then participating in a regularly held popularity ritual after which the population assigns you the token of "senator". The last step is to group together people such that the group ends up with the combined tokens of "Democrat senator" and "Republican senator" such that it can finally be assigned the token of "bipartisan" which then acquires the required authority.

It is mighty cute that you confuse issues of reasonable appeal to authority with "cargo cult" behavior.

What I have said relevant to the above is this:

(1) By and large, I regard the U.S. intelligence services as non-partisan (which does not mean unbiased). I regard them as being in the right position to determine the source of the hacking, if indeed the data is there. I regard them as having no obvious reason to lie, though I acknowledge that they have misled in the past.

(2) The fact that so many services agree matters.

(3) The fact that those congresspersons who've seen the evidence find it persuasive adds to the strength of the conclusion. That some of them (Republicans) have a partisan interest to deny the conclusion makes their statements more plausible. That they might not have the expertise to evaluate the evidence, of course, weakens this conclusion.

From the above, I conclude that it is more probable than not that Russia is behind the hacks. Now, Trump has agreed, and given his history, he has a strong reason not to agree. This adds some more evidence, though he's an extraordinarily bad witness.

No cargo cult ********. I totally understand that you don't care about the testimony of intelligence services, and this is a point of disagreement on which we will not likely come to agreement. But don't misrepresent my position.

 

[caveman1917]

Why are you invoking my name in relation to this, exactly?

In relation to the "partisan" thing, this. It is where you "refute" something by using that "partisan" argument, as if people who self-assign a "Republican" token can not be taken in by such language. Just look at John McCain for a counterexample.

 

[caveman1917]

It is mighty cute that you confuse issues of reasonable appeal to authority with "cargo cult" behavior.

Oh please, even if we were to adopt this "informal logic" then an appeal to authority would only be reasonable if we'd have (empirical) evidence for the trustworthiness of the authority. (Sub)culturally assigned tokens aren't a basis for a reasonable appeal to authority but a basis for cargo cult behaviour.

(1) By and large, I regard the U.S. intelligence services as non-partisan (which does not mean unbiased).

Then why bring it up?

That some of them (Republicans) have a partisan interest to deny the conclusion makes their statements more plausible.

And here is an example of obvious tokenism. You go from a token (Republican) to a claim of "interest to deny the conclusion". This completely ignores that there are plenty of Republicans opposed to Trump, that they might have other - more individual - reasons for promoting the claims, or a host of other possibilities.

 

[Childlike Empress]

caveman1917, I've been here for a full decade and am aware of your general point. In fact the absurdity of believing me about a fairy tale with no evidence was part of the joke, which in the next sentence claimed that some in the "Intelligence Community" would actually believe it, desperate and panicked as they apparently are, as they might have already believed it anyway.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

In relation to the "partisan" thing, this. It is where you "refute" something by using that "partisan" argument, as if people who self-assign a "Republican" token can not be taken in by such language. Just look at John McCain for a counterexample.

What I refuted was the attempt to cherry pick a few words out of a document and attribute motive to it.

Kindly remove my name from your post now as it grossly misrepresents my position.

 

[caveman1917]

What I refuted was the attempt to cherry pick a few words out of a document and attribute motive to it.

The point isn't what you tried to refute but how you did it - by appeal to the partisan nature of the people who bought access to the report.

Kindly remove my name from your post now as it grossly misrepresents my position.

ETA: I couldn't even if I wanted to.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The point isn't what you tried to refute but how you did it - by appeal to the partisan nature of the people who bought access to the report.

As opposed to say, attributing partisan intent to the report because of the partisan 'token' of one of the several purchasers?

ETA: I couldn't even if I wanted to.

I've requested for someone else to, then.

Do not invoke my name in support of your arguments without my permission in the future.

 

[caveman1917]

As opposed to say, attributing partisan intent to the report because of the partisan 'token' of one of the several purchasers?

I didn't attribute any partisan intent to the report. I said that its use of language seemed to be designed to resonate with people using Clinton-style rhetoric.

Do not invoke my name in support of your arguments without my permission in the future.

I will post whatever I damn please.

ETA: your latest post, where you accuse me of "attributing partisan intent to the report" even though I didn't bring up any sort of partisan-based argument, only shows even more the validity of me including your name in support of my argument.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I didn't attribute any partisan intent to the report. I said that its use of language seemed to be designed to resonate with people using Clinton-style rhetoric.

I didn't run that pedestrian over, I just aimed the car at them and accelerated until they were located beneath the vehicle!

I will post whatever I damn please.

Apparently blatant lies and misrepresentations of other posters, it seems.

 

[Minoosh]

Talk radio tonight kept criticizing BuzzFeed - they mentioned it over and over again, almost like they wanted to point people in that direction.

My main question is still: What made Trump finally agree that Russia was spying on both candidates? I suspect that after the briefing, he recognized that certain details could have come only from Russian surveillance. He says he's too smart to fall for that. He's nowhere close to playing in the same league as Putin and the erstwhile KGB.

I think he's probably "poisoning the well" by calling CNN "fake news." Possibly he is trying to get out in front of allegations that he employed Russian sex workers regularly (probably while married) and sometimes had them do strange things. This might all be acceptable to his followers especially because, hey, he's a virile man, he needs a lot of sex, he's been upfront about that. They wouldn't necessarily want him as a son-in-law but otherwise they will give him a pass for any sex-related scandals.

With luck there actually is a videotape, and Trump is more than fair game. Remember Alicia Machado? He said (roughly) that people should look at her sex tape. There was no sex tape. I assume there are other voices on Twitter that will point out the hypocrisy.

 

[trustbutverify]

With luck there actually is a videotape, and Trump is more than fair game. Remember Alicia Machado? He said (roughly) that people should look at her sex tape. There was no sex tape. I assume there are other voices on Twitter that will point out the hypocrisy.

In a rational era, that's exactly what would happen. But we're living in a time where rationality is viewed as an elitist sin.

 

[caveman1917]

I didn't run that pedestrian over, I just aimed the car at them and accelerated until they were located beneath the vehicle!

Don't project your own "partisan" theory on me.

Apparently blatant lies and misrepresentations of other posters, it seems.

I'll accept that you interpreted my statement about Clinton-style rhetoric as being a "partisan" statement (nevermind all the Republicans also using that rhetoric, right?) but in projecting your own partisan theory on my statements you're really only supporting the inclusion of your name in my argument above.

 

[caveman1917]

caveman1917, I've been here for a full decade and am aware of your general point.

Yeah, I was using your post more as a springboard anyway.

In fact the absurdity of believing me about a fairy tale with no evidence was part of the joke

I did something similar with Alex Jones' fish people earlier. I found that one somewhat better since it fit all their requirements, given that there does exist a subcultural group which calls themselves "skeptics" and declares Alex Jones to be an "appropriate" authority. But they're not even consistent about their own rules, given that that just gets you a claim of "anti-intellectualism". Someone should give them a mirror

which in the next sentence claimed that some in the "Intelligence Community" would actually believe it, desperate and panicked as they apparently are, as they might have already believed it anyway.

You think they're desperate and panicked? To me it seems more like the usual combination of incompetence and seeing what they want to see. To say they're desperate and panicked would be to relegate this case to a "special status" even though, to me, it seems no worse than usual. I mean, they weren't desperate and panicking when making those claims about Iraqi WMD's, Libya's soldiers being given viagra to rape people, Crimea's referendum being faked, etc etc etc.