US Officially Blames Russia

[Upchurch]

The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.

 

[LSSBB]

The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.

Because to some he appears credible, thanks to the fact that Russia and wikileaks never spilled the dirt on him or his party, only his opposition.

 

[The_Animus]

The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.

You don't even understand what you don't understand. Mostly the posters in this thread objecting aren't claiming that the word of a grifter game show host is better than the intelligence community.

Keep calling others anti-intellectual when you can't even follow this thread.

You and several others in this thread need to do themselves a favor and repeat the following: "I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

More attempts to bring Trump into this will certainly follow, even though him and his opinion have no relevance whatsoever as to whether Russia hacked the DNC or whether there is evidence of such.

 

[Childlike Empress]

People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

I'm taking my considerable amount of knowledge of IT/"hacking", together with what has transpired before the elections with the shillaries denying that any hacks of Killary's cowboy server have taken place, together with the words of Assange, Murray, Binney, McAfee, even Kim Dotcom, over the allegations published by the office of a known liar Clapper who will finally lose his job in short time after he should have been fired years ago, assorted pre$$titute outlets like the Washington Pest quoting "government officials", and politiziced "experts" hired by the DNC, lead by a disgruntled Russian expat with an axe to grind and a seat at the Atlantic Council "think tank" (Alperovitch). Because I'm nor blinded by conditioned hatred for my president.

 

[Upchurch]

You don't even understand what you don't understand. Mostly the posters in this thread objecting aren't claiming that the word of a grifter game show host is better than the intelligence community.

Keep calling others anti-intellectual when you can't even follow this thread.

Whoever said I was referring merely to the people in this thread?

But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.

 

[The_Animus]

Whoever said I was referring merely to the people in this thread?

But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.

Merely would include the people in this thread. So my point still stands. And you do understand I'm far left, didn't vote for Trump, and don't believe anything Trump says?

Congratz on being your own data point.

ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

 

[Childlike Empress]

But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.

Your "argument" that Trump's voice is of any importance to rule what's going on here was demolished by both The Animus and me quicker than you could have hoped for.

 

[Upchurch]

Merely would include the people in this thread. So my point still stands. And you do understand I'm far left, didn't vote for Trump, and don't believe anything Trump says?

Congratz on being your own data point.

ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

The stuff you added after I started my post? Funny, that.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities. The US intelligence community, for example, is an appropriate authority on this particular topic. A random anonymous poster on a forum board is an inappropriate authority.

 

[caveman1917]

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities.

No they aren't.

 

[The_Animus]

The stuff you added after I started my post? Funny, that.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities. The US intelligence community, for example, is an appropriate authority on this particular topic. A random anonymous poster on a forum board is an inappropriate authority.

My apologies, I didn't realize you'd started your post before that.

I'm glad that you agree that you're relying entirely on appeal to authority. It is an appropriate authority, although it has lied in the past. That still isn't evidence and is still entirely an appeal to authority.

I haven't made claims about whether it was Russia or not, nor claimed I'm an authority. Quite the opposite in fact. But there are authorities who have claimed that Russia isn't involved. I guess that's the problem with relying entirely on appeal to authority.

 

[Upchurch]

No they aren't.

Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

Yes. Appealing to Einstein about god is a logical fallacy. Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily. Read up on it sometime.

 

[logger]

The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.

Because the "community" is corrupt?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

Yes. Appealing to Einstein about god is a logical fallacy. Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily. Read up on it sometime.

The problem is that appealing to an authority is not definitive, especially when that authority is merely repeating an assertion over and over, but not supplying sufficient evidence or data to prove their claim. There's a whole credibility factor to deal with. Since any authority cited is inevitably going to end up with a human or several humans putting forth an assertion, conclusion, or position, we have to accept the possibility they are fallible. I don't have a particularly high level of trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA and I have entirely valid reasons for remaining at a level of provisional acceptance of any claims they make.

I don't even need to hinge it on outright misrepresentations or knowingly spreading falsehoods. It could be Woozle effect, which is to say that a whole lot of people are publishing or stating the same assertions and citing each other as authorities even though none of them offer observable, verifiable/falsifiable evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

My apologies, I didn't realize you'd started your post before that.

I'm glad that you agree that you're relying entirely on appeal to authority. It is an appropriate authority, although it has lied in the past. That still isn't evidence and is still entirely an appeal to authority.

I haven't made claims about whether it was Russia or not, nor claimed I'm an authority. Quite the opposite in fact. But there are authorities who have claimed that Russia isn't involved. I guess that's the problem with relying entirely on appeal to authority.

Primary source evidence isn't always available in life and this is one of those times. We're not likely to see the raw evidence until it is declassified and that will take a decade or more. Lacking that, we must rely on authoritative sources. In this case, that is US intelligence. The fact that there is consensus among the different agencies with high confidence leaves little wiggle room based on what we currently know.

I wasn't referring to you claiming to be an authority.

 

[Upchurch]

Because the "community" is corrupt?

Data point.

 

[phiwum]

ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

Yes, it's an appeal to authority, but not a fallacious appeal to authority. It is right to defer to authorities who (1) have apparent expertise in the matter under consideration and (2) we have reason to believe they are trustworthy on these matters.

I never measured the height of Everest, and could not do so easily. I never did the calculation for the 10,000th digit of pi, but I'll accept the word of those who did. I never confirmed that the misspelled Trump tweets coming at the wee hours are written by Trump, but I believe in the words of those who've said so. I take many authorities as trustworthy. There was almost certainly a shooting at a gay nightclub in Florida, though I haven't done the legwork to confirm it.

This is a little bit different, since we have no promise that the evidence will be forthcoming for seven or so decades. But it's also quite similar: the intelligence and independent, private anti-hacking community are persons who are authorities here, and I tend to accept their non-partisanship as well as the bipartisan support of Congresspersons who've seen the evidence.

So, you are mistaken to think that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. On the contrary, we appeal to authority whenever you and I discuss Hannibal or Alexander the Great or many other figures for whom the evidence is indirect (reports in contemporary histories, for instance).

 

[phiwum]

No they aren't.

Yes, dear sir, they are.

Else, you will have to expend ridiculous efforts to determine whether Hannibal lived, while forgoing all testimony to that fact, or decide that you just don't know.

I'm happy to say that I have a large degree of belief that Hannibal existed, because testimony I regard as reliable is overwhelming.

You'll also have to do without more or less all media, which depends on first or second hand reports and interviews. Unless you are an expert in video fakery, you should dismiss video evidence as well.

This is not skepticism, but surrender.

 

[phiwum]

The problem is that appealing to an authority is not definitive, especially when that authority is merely repeating an assertion over and over, but not supplying sufficient evidence or data to prove their claim. There's a whole credibility factor to deal with. Since any authority cited is inevitably going to end up with a human or several humans putting forth an assertion, conclusion, or position, we have to accept the possibility they are fallible. I don't have a particularly high level of trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA and I have entirely valid reasons for remaining at a level of provisional acceptance of any claims they make.

I don't even need to hinge it on outright misrepresentations or knowingly spreading falsehoods. It could be Woozle effect, which is to say that a whole lot of people are publishing or stating the same assertions and citing each other as authorities even though none of them offer observable, verifiable/falsifiable evidence.

Even if you decide that you cannot trust any of the various intelligence agencies, you must surely admit that the Republicans on bipartisan committees would not go along with a ruse. They've seen the evidence and agreed it's persuasive.

 

[Childlike Empress]

While we're at "persuasive", what's (I think) new in the report is an explicit statement that "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

So any serious allegations of direct "meddling" with the elections are off the table, and what is left are shady claims by partisan hacks and a really childish fallback to "RT is mean for questioning our narrative".

The slime at NYT has already used the clownish content of the "report" to embarrass themselves again by having to issue retractions still leaving their claims in a mess.

Abby Martin Responds to Exploitation by NY Times

The long-awaited report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), allegedly proving Russian “interference” in the US election, includes a section solely dedicated to bashing RT, and specifically calls out my former show Breaking the Set, which ended two years ago, as a propaganda vector marking the beginning of the Kremlin attempt to subvert American democracy.

Desperate to push this US intelligence narrative, The New York Times called the report “damning and surprisingly detailed,” while adding that it includes no actual evidence.

The very next day, on Jan. 7, the Times published another piece titled “Russia’s RT, The Network Implicated in U.S. Election Meddling.”

In the article, NYT journalist Russell Goldman used two blatantly false statements about my work at RT to support the argument that the network is simply a Putin-dictated propaganda outlet.

First, he stated “…two anchors who quit during live broadcasts say the network is a propaganda outlet.”

I did not quit during a live broadcast, nor did I say that the network is a propaganda outlet.

He goes on to say “…Abby Martin, who said before quitting, ‘What Russia did was wrong.’”

Any cursory research into the referenced quote—when I spoke out against Russia’s military entrance into Crimea and the network’s glorification of it—will find that not only did I not quit on air, but that I continued my show for an entire year afterward.

I was interviewed about my on-air statement on many major news stations, from BBC to CNN, where I defended my editorial freedom and also called-out the double standards and hypocrisies in their coverage.

RT issued an official statement in support of my freedom to state my opinion on the network. Over the course of the next year, I continued to voice my concerns and opinions about Russia, from MH-17 to the Ukraine crisis, unfiltered.

I quit the network on my own terms in February 2015 because I wanted to do more in-depth investigative reporting, not because I believed it to be a propaganda outlet. [...]

 

[Upchurch]

While we're at "persuasive", what's (I think) new in the report is an explicit statement that "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

So any serious allegations of direct "meddling" with the elections are off the table, and what is left are shady claims by partisan hacks and a really childish fallback to "RT is mean for questioning our narrative".

Strawman is full of straw.