Encountered my first "Truther" today

[Stellafane]

Isn't this a skeptic's site, where extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof?

What the hell is extraordinary about a Truther acting stupid? I would have been vastly more shocked if a Truther actually said or did something that makes a lick of sense.

In other words, this guy needs to verify his story before anyone goes firing up the lynch mob.

You really, really, really, really don't get it, do you? I don't care what you think. I don't care what your opinion is. When you state that something has been "exposed as a fabrication," that isn't just some turn of phrase, or a random combination of words. You're stating something as a fact.

See the three words I underlined in the preceding paragraph? Well guess what: They're not equivalent. You don't simply get to say things as if they're facts, based on what you happen to think -- especially when what you think is based upon nothing more than "I don't like it."

Of course, if you were even feebly able to grasp this basic concept, so necessary to lead a normal life among rational adults, you wouldn't be a Truther. Because if there were some miracle pill that restored someone's ability to distinguish reality from fantasy, they'd instantly see that the whole 9/11 CT is a despicable load of crap, and that they've been wasting their lives making the worst kind of stupid fools of themselves.

If that's what you want to do, spend your time in a playpen of stupidity, then hey, whatever floats your boat, dude. But when you accuse someone else of being a liar -- which you did when you baldly stated TriForCharity's story was a fabrication, instead of stating something like "I don't believe it" -- then you have done something that only the most juvenile of losers will do. And the punch line will be that when you are proven wrong, which I personally believe is very likely, you'll either not accept the evidence (a tried-and-true Truther tactic) or you'll just act like it never happened, like you never publicly insulted someone who was simply recounting a small personal anecdote. Because to Truthers, people aren't real, they're just props in a strange little universe of their own making, a fevered, random intermingling of reality and imagination. And that's a problem that extends far beyond any infatuation with what really happened on September 11, 2001.

 

[RedIbis]

How odd: I've watched as truthers executed a plan to physically impede my movements; tried to prevent me from posting literature; covered up my literature when it was posted; had them rip my literature out of my hands and tear it up; had them threaten lawsuits against me for alleged "traitorous" "criminal" and "libelous" behavior (including one such threat I just learned about last week); had them encourage other truthers to stalk me; had them investigate my background and call all around the country trying to get information about me; had them publicly accuse me of not being Mark Roberts, of not being a tour guide, of being a "dual citizen," a Jew, a Christian, a Bush administration shill, an MK-Ultra victim, an agent of the CIA, FBI, NSA, Mossad, Masons, Illuminati, and a victim of unscrupulous psychiatrists who work for the JREF. Several times I have seen truthers behave so disruptively that police told them they would be arrested if they continued. Several times I have seen what I feared to be public truther nervous breakdowns, including lying down and screaming. I have seen several videos of truthers being arrested for their disruptive behavior. I have seen truthers admit to their truthy activities leading to the dissolution of their relationships with family, friends, teachers, sigoths, and spouses. A truther set himself on fire for attention. Another went on a public hunger strike. Another murdered his father. Another faked his suicide during a radio show. Another was arrested while trying to run weapons to felons wanted by the FBI. Others have sworn to join armed militias or to have actually started a militia. One said he was digging a hole in his backyard to hide in. Hundreds stood outside Larry Silverstein's office building on 9/11 and chanted "Murderer!" Truthers have repeatedly said that someone should kill me and have repeatedly threatened me with all kinds of violence, including murder. Three times I felt that truther death threats against me merited police involvement, and each time the police did take action.

What a sheltered world RedIbis must inhabit, that he finds it impossible that a hotheaded truther kid would stand behind the car of someone he's had an argument with. Where the hell has RedIbis been all these years?

Gravy,
Make a decision. Either ignore me or don't. Either retire or don't. But if you chime in the thread and address me directly expect a response and the expectation of civil discourse or there would be no reason to get involved in this discussion.

The quoted post of course is a helpful illustration with what's wrong with this so-called debunking. As usual it's all about you, and then you premise the entire post on a fabrication, a lie, to use your favorite word.

First, where did I say I find "it impossible that a hotheaded truther kid would stand behind the car of someone he's had an argument with"? I said I don't believe this story about this kid, as described by tricharity. There's a difference.

Secondly, just by sheer probability there are going to be people who engage in bad, even criminal behavior, whether they support inside job theories or they don't. What you are doing, and what is done far too often around here is conflating the behavior of all people who argue the official story and putting them under the big tent of Truther.

You would lose a great deal of your rhetoric if you had to see your opponents as individuals and treat them as such. This conflation and marginalization is the cheapest of rhetorical tactics and allows you to demonize an entire group of people. This is directly related to the response that the OP got. There was a willingness to accept the entire story without even a murmur of skepticism because it fit expectations of a Truther, a non-existent monolithic entity, more the product of imagination than reality.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I said I don't believe this story about this kid, as described by tricharity. There's a difference.

But you didn't stop there. You said this story about this kid had been exposed as a fabrication. That was a lie.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

This whole, sad episode is just another example of why the Truth Movement is a skid mark beside the road of human development.

The rational response, upon hearing this anecdote, is to acknowledge that the behavior described by the OP is reprehensible. If you're really here for an honest, productive conversation, you would never harass someone just because he wore an FDNY T-shirt. Ever. You would also distance yourself from anyone who did.

But no, you'd rather attack the messenger. You automatically assume that (a) no Truther could ever act like that -- despite scads of evidence to the contrary... bullhorns outside Larry Silverstein's office on the 5th anniversary, anyone? -- and hence (b) anyone who opposes you must be lying, embellishing, multifarious, whatever; leading us to (c) the correct response is to attack.

Dead wrong.

This is why the Truth Movement, to this day, is riddled with "big top" thinking, running the gamut from the clinically insane to the neo-Nazi.

If you want to convince people you aren't a bunch of nuts, this is absolutely the wrong way to do it. Grow up.

Another post that perfectly illustrates my point.

a) you appropriated the false premise that I "automatically assume that (a) no Truther could ever act like that -- despite scads of evidence to the contrary... "

It's explained above that I never said that and only questioned tri's story. However, you already knew that.

b) you've provided a stunning example of the type of marginalization I describe in my previous post. Since I'm obviously a Truther, where would I fit in this neatly marginalized desciption: "from the clinically insane to the neo-Nazi." ?

 

[RedIbis]

But you didn't stop there. You said this story about this kid had been exposed as a fabrication. That was a lie.

Dave

For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven 100% correct. It hasn't and that's the whole point here. You didn't even bother to ask him to verify even the smallest of his charming details.

 

[The Big Dog]

Gravy, whiny BS snipped

It has been more than 24 hours since you made this claim:

"His story is exposed as a fabrication."

It is time for you to support your claim, Red, no more changing the subject, no more ******** equivocations:

Put up, or for god’s sake shut up.

/"it fit expectations of a Truther." I would agree that your baseless claims and refusal to provide one bit of evidence to support them other than an argument from incredulity and rank ignorance has more than filled our expectations.

 

[Dave Rogers]

For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven 100% correct.

No, it wouldn't. For it to be true, specific information would have to have been presented that demonstrated the story to be false. Its current status is that its truth value is unknown, so your statement that it had been exposed as a fabrication was untrue. You knew that no such event had taken place, so your statement was a lie. And what's worse is that you know perfectly well that it was a lie, and you're now trying to confuse the issue to pretend it wasn't. And this is exactly what we've come to expect from the truth movement; tell a lie, then try to pretend it wasn't a lie, then say you're searching for the truth. Lies and hypocrisy.

Dave

 

[The Big Dog]

For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven 100% correct. It hasn't and that's the whole point here. You didn't even bother to ask him to verify even the smallest of his charming details.

Wow, that is stundie worthy, absolutely stundie worthy.

You claimed it was exposed as a fabrication, and we have asked you to show us where and how.

And you have refused to do so, and you have whined ever since being called on it. Because you know that you can't justify your claim. Because it is a fabrication.

 

[dtugg]

I don't understand why RedIbis bothers to tell such obvious lies. It's not as if he ever fools anybody with them. All he does is further expose himself as a despicable liar.

 

[Myriad]

First, where did I say I find "it impossible that a hotheaded truther kid would stand behind the car of someone he's had an argument with"? I said I don't believe this story about this kid, as described by tricharity. There's a difference.

You said that triforcharity's account "has been exposed as a fabrication." There's a difference.

Gravy was probably giving you too much credit by assuming that you had a rationale for claiming triforcharity's account has been exposed as a fabrication, other than you personally not believing his story, which no sane person would equate with exposing the story as a fabrication.

That kind of false certitude is common to all dedicated Truthers. Yes, every single individual one of them. Those who lack it don't stay Truthers long. "Something that convinces me" = "a smoking gun." "I believe" = "it's now established." "I don't believe" = "it's been exposed as false." "I'm convinced" = "it's the beginning of the end for the OCT." "There are questions that should be investigated" = "9/11 was an inside job."

The phrase "a smoking gun" used to mean a single piece or small body of evidence that is so definitive and incontrovertible as to falsify all competing hypotheses. There might still be a few naifs around who still expect it to mean that when a Truther uses it. They might even think a Truther is lying by calling an irrelevant, false, unsourced, or otherwise useless claim a "smoking gun." But really, the Truther is just exhibiting the usual false certitude and empty words. To call it a lie is to attribute more weight to it than it deserves, like calling a five year old a liar for claiming that his mommy is the best mommy in the world.

Thus, I believe (note the lack of a claim of incontrovertible fact here) that others are being very uncharitable by calling your claim that triforcharity's account "has been exposed as a fabrication" a lie. More likely it was, instead, just an ingrained knee-jerk claim rooted in false certitude with no meaning, intention, or thought behind it.

However, please be aware that there are many who, not realizing that such claims actually mean absolutely nothing even to the people making them, might mistake them for dishonesty, arrogance, disrespect, ignorance, irrationality, hatred, or malice.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[johnny karate]

Gravy,
Make a decision. Either ignore me or don't. Either retire or don't. But if you chime in the thread and address me directly expect a response and the expectation of civil discourse or there would be no reason to get involved in this discussion.

The quoted post of course is a helpful illustration with what's wrong with this so-called debunking. As usual it's all about you, and then you premise the entire post on a fabrication, a lie, to use your favorite word.

First, where did I say I find "it impossible that a hotheaded truther kid would stand behind the car of someone he's had an argument with"? I said I don't believe this story about this kid, as described by tricharity. There's a difference.

Secondly, just by sheer probability there are going to be people who engage in bad, even criminal behavior, whether they support inside job theories or they don't. What you are doing, and what is done far too often around here is conflating the behavior of all people who argue the official story and putting them under the big tent of Truther.

You would lose a great deal of your rhetoric if you had to see your opponents as individuals and treat them as such. This conflation and marginalization is the cheapest of rhetorical tactics and allows you to demonize an entire group of people. This is directly related to the response that the OP got. There was a willingness to accept the entire story without even a murmur of skepticism because it fit expectations of a Truther, a non-existent monolithic entity, more the product of imagination than reality.

Another post that perfectly illustrates my point.

a) you appropriated the false premise that I "automatically assume that (a) no Truther could ever act like that -- despite scads of evidence to the contrary... "

It's explained above that I never said that and only questioned tri's story. However, you already knew that.

b) you've provided a stunning example of the type of marginalization I describe in my previous post. Since I'm obviously a Truther, where would I fit in this neatly marginalized desciption: "from the clinically insane to the neo-Nazi." ?

For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven 100% correct. It hasn't and that's the whole point here. You didn't even bother to ask him to verify even the smallest of his charming details.

None of that changes the fact that you told a demonstrable lie.

 

[Stellafane]

For it to be a lie, it would have to be proven 100% correct. It hasn't and that's the whole point here. You didn't even bother to ask him to verify even the smallest of his charming details.

That statement is not only beyond moronic, it's cowardly. What you said is a lie because you don't know whether it's true or not, but you said it anyway as a fact. That's the very definition of a lie. And you know what? It will continue to be a lie, now and forever, irrespective of whether or not Triforcharity's story is ever confirmed. Because even if you happened to guess correctly (which I very strongly doubt), you had no right to state it as a fact without first knowing whether or not it is actually true. Thus you lied.

And right on cue, here comes the weasel words like "100% correct," which is what gutless Truthers always do because they think that if they call into question one little minor detail, however irrelevant, it gives them carte blanche to make up whatever baldfaced lie they feel like. Never mind that anyone who recounts an emotional episode that involves their family will almost always fail to use the most precise terms possible, or phrase something a little ambiguously. Here's a personal example: several months ago I was involved in a head-on collision that totaled both my car and the other driver's. I was OK except for a slightly bloody nose. But he was pinned under the steering wheel screaming at the top of his lungs that his legs were "F-----D!!" (rhymes with "ducked"). When the police arrived they informed me that the other driver was driving on a "criminally suspended license," that if he hadn't needed immediate medical attention he would have been arrested on the spot (he ended up being medivac'd to the hospital because he was hurt so badly), and that he would be arrested as soon as it was medically feasible. So immediately afterward, when describing the accident, among the basic facts I mentioned were (1) I was unhurt, (2) the other guy was hurt badly, maybe even paralyzed, and (3) He would soon be facing legal charges.

Well, guess what? Within a couple of days I realized that both wrists were so sore I could barely type, and not only that, there was a spot on my back that to this day if I touch it wrong it feels like it is on fire. Meanwhile, the other driver wasn't hurt badly at all, and within two weeks was out snowmobiling. Oh, and he was never arrested. And just to add a cherry to the icing, I'm no longer sure about the precise stretch of road where the accident took place.

So is my story 100% correct? No, as it turns out. Was it a lie? Of course not, since it was an honest interpretation of what happened to me, with some confusion and misinformation thrown in. Does that give you justification to call it a fabrication? Only if you're an incredibly stupid, immature hypocrite.

Of course, such behavior is part and parcel with being a Truther, isn't it? Making statements that are imbecilic, untrue, and very, very cowardly -- what a "life," if you want to call it that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thus, I believe (note the lack of a claim of incontrovertible fact here) that others are being very uncharitable by calling your claim that triforcharity's account "has been exposed as a fabrication" a lie. More likely it was, instead, just an ingrained knee-jerk claim rooted in false certitude with no meaning, intention, or thought behind it.

However, please be aware that there are many who, not realizing that such claims actually mean absolutely nothing even to the people making them, might mistake them for dishonesty, arrogance, disrespect, ignorance, irrationality, hatred, or malice.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Youu are far, far too kind. He has been asked repeatedly to justify or withdraw his comments, and he has flat out refused to do so.The fact that he made the claim, and refuses to support or withdraw it, demonstrates that he is acting from "dishonesty, arrogance, disrespect, ignorance, irrationality, hatred, or malice" as you put it.

 

[RedIbis]

You said that triforcharity's account "has been exposed as a fabrication." There's a difference.

Gravy was probably giving you too much credit by assuming that you had a rationale for claiming triforcharity's account has been exposed as a fabrication, other than you personally not believing his story, which no sane person would equate with exposing the story as a fabrication.

That kind of false certitude is common to all dedicated Truthers. Yes, every single individual one of them. Those who lack it don't stay Truthers long. "Something that convinces me" = "a smoking gun." "I believe" = "it's now established." "I don't believe" = "it's been exposed as false." "I'm convinced" = "it's the beginning of the end for the OCT." "There are questions that should be investigated" = "9/11 was an inside job."

The phrase "a smoking gun" used to mean a single piece or small body of evidence that is so definitive and incontrovertible as to falsify all competing hypotheses. There might still be a few naifs around who still expect it to mean that when a Truther uses it. They might even think a Truther is lying by calling an irrelevant, false, unsourced, or otherwise useless claim a "smoking gun."

However, please be aware that there are many who, not realizing that such claims actually mean absolutely nothing even to the people making them, might mistake them for dishonesty, arrogance, disrespect, ignorance, irrationality, hatred, or malice.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It's always heartening when a mod jumps in and ladels over another layer of pop psychology, marginalization and labeling.

Your, dare I say, "knee-jerk" lecture on false certitude is proven wrong when I said I would accept the conditions Hokulele suggested. I am not certain about Tri's story. I was also never arrogant or disrespectful. I offered and received a measure of respect from Tri. All I've done is question the veracity of his story, and I'm not alone in this thread in doing that.

The reaction I've received is ironic considering this is a skeptic's forum. I ask you, sincerely, reading back on Tri's story and all of the subsequent details, did your skeptic's bell ring even once?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's been a tough week for him. First his story is exposed as a fabrication and now this.

All I've done is question the veracity of his story, and I'm not alone in this thread in doing that.

Another lie.

Dave

 

[johnny karate]

It's always heartening when a mod jumps in and ladels over another layer of pop psychology, marginalization and labeling.

Your, dare I say, "knee-jerk" lecture on false certitude is proven wrong when I said I would accept the conditions Hokulele suggested. I am not certain about Tri's story. I was also never arrogant or disrespectful. I offered and received a measure of respect from Tri. All I've done is question the veracity of his story, and I'm not alone in this thread in doing that.

The reaction I've received is ironic considering this is a skeptic's forum. I ask you, sincerely, reading back on Tri's story and all of the subsequent details, did your skeptic's bell ring even once?

None of that changes the fact that you told a demonstrable lie.

 

[dtugg]

All I've done is question the veracity of his story

No, liar, you claimed that it was a "exposed as a fabrication." Shockingly, you haven't backed that statement up yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's always heartening when a mod jumps in and ladels over another layer of pop psychology, marginalization and labeling.

Your, dare I say, "knee-jerk" lecture on false certitude is proven wrong when I said I would accept the conditions Hokulele suggested. I am not certain about Tri's story. I was also never arrogant or disrespectful. I offered and received a measure of respect from Tri. All I've done is question the veracity of his story, and I'm not alone in this thread in doing that.

The reaction I've received is ironic considering this is a skeptic's forum. I ask you, sincerely, reading back on Tri's story and all of the subsequent details, did your skeptic's bell ring even once?

"a measure of respect" except that part when you called him a liar, huh porkchop?

Anyway, enough with the moving of the goal poles, enough with the distractions, enough with “huh, you guys aren’t vewy skeptical,” support your claim or withdraw it.

Or at least shut the hell up about it.

By the way Red, I believe that my first post in this thread was in response to your accusation that he was “exposed” to be a liar. You can be damn sure my “skeptic’s bell’ went off like Big Ben when I read your post.

 

[funk de fino]

It's always heartening when a mod jumps in and ladels over another layer of pop psychology, marginalization and labeling.

Your, dare I say, "knee-jerk" lecture on false certitude is proven wrong when I said I would accept the conditions Hokulele suggested. I am not certain about Tri's story. I was also never arrogant or disrespectful. I offered and received a measure of respect from Tri. All I've done is question the veracity of his story, and I'm not alone in this thread in doing that.

The reaction I've received is ironic considering this is a skeptic's forum. I ask you, sincerely, reading back on Tri's story and all of the subsequent details, did your skeptic's bell ring even once?

No, but my liars bell is ringing now.

 

[kookbreaker]

I kept holding out hope that RebIbis would someday get his act together instead of demonstrating moral and intellectual cowardice. There were some moments of hope, albeit faint that this might happen.

I am now convinced that this will never happen. RedIbis has flagrantly lied and isn't able to own up to it. This is the worst sort of behavior.

He is now in the ignore file.