caykoh
Discord ID: 519812134478151682
774 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/8
| Next
!agree
Serious question, what matters most when determining trustworthiness...the messenger, or the messenge?
How do you figure so? I'm doing some research as I am writing a paper on the topic
Ah, well, I presume a cursory assessment of both would favor the academic dude, but just a bit. Imagine if his message included a simple "h2o" mention, and the pedo didnt. However, if their message is both verbatim, extracting any character components to rely on them for trustworthiness isnt possible and k have to rely in the message . Thus , both are equal trustworthy claims of water bein g clear
I agree. So here's what really gives me friction...
If the entity issuing the message can be accurate, and thust trustworthy, regardless of its reputation or current standing, as long as the message in question maps onto the facts and data
Can the term fake news actually even exist in our vernacular?
As be im ng attributeed to the entity
Being *
Fake news story, or fake news article, I assume would be the good faith substitute
Ah glad you mention that. So...
If BBc contradicts itself today, and yes tsrday once too, does tomorrow's stories from them have less credibility already ?
Sk that's the messenger matterin g more than the message
But if two days in a row, BBC fucked up their,let's say reporting on soccer hooligans rioting, falsely claiming one side was more violent than the other. Should I be skepticle of BBC reliability and reporting the accuracy of the soccer match scores?
I agree Largezo112, but would make a point that you can its just difficult, allege referee corruption incomtence
And you can spin the message to an audiences preferbce
On what content, stefan?
This is my thesis on this topic...
The message is the only thing that matters. All messengers give messages, and all of them will never achieve 100% message accuracy.Thus, as a messenger continues delivering messages, their net accuracy will still and always be in flux
If BBC lied to me about soccer hooligans, repeatedly, but tell me the rectar scale of an earthquake that just rocked me, as does my dad who a geloigst, and their the same, the BBC message on the earthquake can be trusted
I hope to compose my paper with greater Mount of data than my conclusive opinion on the topic
Exactly
One last query
Given accuracy is the valuable factor from news , how should a person create their habits of media consumption to ensure they arrive at accurate reporting?
The noise being ?
Those are almost all arguements in favor of the messenger determining the trustowrthtness though
Instead of the message
Let's assume the question applies to not current affairs in the news but let's say a research report you are given on maybe, something like, forecasts of a market you invest in, to get detail on predicting that markets safety for your money
Could be right or wrong, the author may have an interest in moving the market with the report for their own profit, does the messenger matter as t all or just the message?
I agree
Well even If there is a conflict often interest
If the message asserts only claims that would be accepted anyways, ie. The market will continue to operate based on on currency, and not outlying assertions, then the messenger should not assune reason for me to determines the message accuracy
Tim just tweeted about Milo saying 'they cant stop wiritng about him', but I dont think I can find the reference for 'they'. can someone link me or clue me into what hes referring to?
Tim just tweeted about Milo saying 'they cant stop wiritng about him', but I dont think I can find the reference for 'they'. can someone link me or clue me into what hes referring to?
Hmm, then there was an article written today then, im guessing? Or recently?
Julian Assange, unfairly targeted for exposing government corruption, or a operative if not independant contractable spy whos asking for trouble?
@Exiled Sentinel From my gatherings, the payments to the mistresses had been made by parent company of National Enquirer for one, and by Michael Cohen himself for the other.
This is what also needs to be kept in view:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-michael-cohen-plea-deal-fraud-case-20180821-story.html
Deputy U.S. Attorney Robert Khuzami said that in addition to the campaign finance violations, Cohen failed to report more than $4 million in income between 2012 and 2016, including $1.3 million from his taxi medallion holdings.
Cohen also lied to a financial institution by failing to disclose more than $14 million in debt and obtaining a $500,000 home equity line of credit he wasn't entitled to, Khuzami said. Cohen used that credit line to fund the Daniels payment, prosecutors said.
After making the hush money payments, Cohen submitted phony invoices to Trump's company, ostensibly for services rendered in 2017, the prosecutor said.
"Those involves were a sham," Khuzami said. "He provided no legal services for the year 2017. It was simply a means to obtain reimbursement for the unlawful contributions."
That, is sketcy, shady swampy DC shit, right there
In addition to a parallel obstruction investigation. With today, I just cant ignore some advances that keep being revealed ... per the memo ...
"Second, Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. "
Bro, if my memory is not mistaken, after Trump requested James Comey to not investigate Michael Flynn, and asked for his personal loyalty pledge, he dismissed him from his job shortly afterwards.
Jan. 27: Trump invited Comey to a dinner at the White House and told him "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty," according to Comey's prepared statement for the Senate.
Feb. 14: The day after Flynn resigned as Trump's National Security Advisor after misleading Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, Trump asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn, per his statement: "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go."
Feb. 15: The next day, Comey told Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Trump should stay out of the FBI probe, per Comey.
Sometime after March 20: Trump reportedly asked Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and NSA Director Michael Rogers to publicly push back on FBI probe, per the Washington Post. Sometime before March 22, Trump asked Coats if he could pressure Comey to stop investigating Flynn, per the Post.
May 10: Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office that firing "nut job" Comey eased pressure on him, per the NYT.
Days after Comey was fired the FBI began to personally investigate Trump.
June 13: Sessions confirmed while testifying under oath he left Comey and Trump alone Feb. 14, but contradicted what Comey said about their conversation after the meeting โ Sessions testified he had said he would tell the White House to follow protocol, Comey said Sessions did not reply.
June 14: The Post reported Mueller is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice.
It hella looks like activity of a public official atleast interested in interference, which isn't legal, and if there is any doubt, somone should investigate it, if not to find guilt, then to clear the accusations.
@woodchuck00 Again...
... per the memo ...
"Second, Cohen provided the SCO with useful information concerning certain discrete Russia-related matters core to its investigation that he obtained by virtue of his regular contact with Company executives during the campaign. "
He most definitly is.
Well they would be making an assumption that such conclusion would be disappointing to me, and I dont think they know I exist...lol. I'm kidding about that, kind of.
It's a safe educated guess to say that they're choice of words is certain to be referring to investigation of either the government of Russia making efforts to disrupt our processes, atleast electoral ones, and/or the campaign of Donald Trump having participated in a conspiracy in respect to such efforts
Well I would assume at that point even more damnjng evidence will be produced related to just russia efforts
The government is composed of multiple branches and departments , that are intended to check one another. It's been constructed to by any imaginable situation , to not have the privelage of investigating itaelf
That's the way our government is, 5th graders know that
Come on, man. Decades? To what extent? Exfiltrating a political parties emails, ลeleasing them strategically, having ducking operatives in our country stealing identities to try bank accounts to buy political adveristnebts , creating imposter political party social media accounts which were diasimjnated by authentic political party accounts unwittingly EVERYDAY during the campaign
are you arguing that every country shoud just get crazy with the meddling?
If you do feel confident that this isn't really anything new, or is typical geoplitical espinage operations
For a variety of reasons, most obivous one being that bob mueller isn't fucking corrupt, the guy has had a career of being like, THE crime fighter, for his entire life
he retired from governent after decades, went to work in private sector, quit, and came back to government to prosecute as a LINE PROSECTUOR, the bottom of the barrel
Ill buy your arguement if you can sell it convincingly, but I can't commit to it if there's vague accusations and preposterous claims of political motivation
Sure, theres plenty out there already that others have made to get you started. They really are good tools for complex relationships and timelines
Well I think if thats the case the script, facade description you made earlier would be rather incompatible with that, wouldn't it?
FBI determoines some of the Russians coming in on Visas, staying at Russia embassy, might be up to no good. They manage to get one of themselves, astroturfing, to talking with Russian intel agents, who beleive our FBI agent is interested in giving them sensitive materials
so the Russians take a binder of banking docs, I beleive, that we planted a bug in
Tim used to do some work for these guys actually
They're still legit, hulton, they're just not feverish Trump campers. That doesn't mean the material isn't legit
But yes I imagine a lot of this goes back a few years
but, as far as trump russian collusion. If there's any there there
then I'd anticipate poor 'ol Assange will be getting his sunlight before too long
774 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/8
| Next