Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See post #56, above. 

Also, you'd think a "thinking person" would be able to absolutely carve up a "misfiring critique."

How did I not "absolutely carve up" your misfiring critique? 

You were unable to track and distinguish between sources. 

Your objections were superficial and easily met.  

You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself.

As for post #56, you shouldn't expect a list of knee-jerk quips and impressions from me.

I'll read it today. Draft a response tomorrow, then let it set overnight before posting. 

[CJD]

(06-12-2024, 04:12 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think with the numbers you supplied, it makes it even easier for the DA to knock out the likely Republican's.

500 down to 96 means 404 jurors were eliminated.

Of the pool, if the statistics hold, 435 would be D's and 65 would be R's. Each side would be able to dismiss 202 jurors. I think it is a lot easier, especially if you deep dive their social media, to root out the R's in that group, especially given so many swings, and load the jury with all D's.

202 tries to root out the 65 R's are pretty good odds, let alone if one or two slipped by, there is good chance they do not even make the jury.

202 tries to eliminate 65 Rs out of a pool of 500 and if they miss even a single one, the trial is ruined. I'm not a statistician, but I wouldn't bet on those odds.

Again, I think you're exaggerating how easy it to rig a jury in the prosecution's favor. It's exponentially easier for the defense to get one biased juror into the jury, even with the fewer republicans. All they need is a single intelligent republican (capable of avoiding the questionnaires' booby traps) who doesn't use social media very much in a pool of 500 people.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 04:20 PM)CJD Wrote: 202 tries to eliminate 65 Rs out of a pool of 500 and if they miss even a single one, the trial is ruined. I'm not a statistician, but I wouldn't bet on those odds.

Again, I think you're exaggerating how easy it to rig a jury in the prosecution's favor. It's exponentially easier for the defense to get one biased juror into the jury, even with the fewer republicans. All they need is a single intelligent republican (capable of avoiding the questionnaires' booby traps) who doesn't use social media very much in a pool of 500 people.

If you miss one, then that is one in a pool of 96 who may not even be called.

Pretty great odds if you ask me.

As for "clever republicans," makes an assumption they would lie during the questioning. I would hope none of the jurors did that, but not thee most realistic view.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 04:15 PM)Dill Wrote: How did I not "absolutely carve up" your misfiring critique?

In any way possible. 

Quote:You were unable to track and distinguish between sources. 

Your objections were superficial and easily met.  

If they were superficial and easily met why didn't you address all of them?  Also, you didn't meet either of the ones you actually attempted to address, as I carefully explained above.

Quote:You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself.

Uhm, no you're the person who contradicted their own argument while addressing that.  Are you literally just using the DARVO playbook here and hoping it sticks?

Quote:As for post #56, you shouldn't expect a list of knee-jerk quips and impressions from me.

Based on what you've posted lately that would honestly be preferable, and likely more substantive.

Quote:I'll read it today. Draft a response tomorrow, then let it set overnight before posting. 

Sure, if you want.  If it's on par with your attempts thus far maybe don't bother?

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources?  That seems like a poor argument.  As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point.

So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

This much I don't mind addressing today.

1. I dedicated a separate post to your "points about one source." Or else I don't know what source you are referring to here. 

2. I did not "assert" that it's not the newspaper's/reoporter's job to address sources. In most cases it is a reporter's job to assess sources, especially if they are used in investigative reporting. I said it is not NECESSARILY their job to re-present a source's collection methodology. How much a reporter says about that depends on the genre (news, feature, interview?) and intended audience. 

3. You've magically produced a "double standard" accusation based on yet another hasty misreading. 

To repeat--no one has said reporters cannot ask questions of sources or claimed vetting sources was not their job. 

But I'd prefer to collect all the errors and misreadings from your posts together and take time addressing them. That DECREASES the chance
that I'm basing my own response on misreadings and errors. Different strokes, right?  So expect no more on this topic until tomorrow or the day after. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 04:34 PM)Dill Wrote: This much I don't mind addressing today.

1. I dedicated a separate post to your "points about one source." Or else I don't know what source you are referring to here.

The one I actually addressed.

Quote:2. I did not "assert" that it's not the newspaper's/reoporter's job to address sources. In most cases it is a reporter's job to assess sources, especially if they are used in investigative reporting. I said it is not NECESSARILY their job to re-present a source's collection methodology. How much a reporter says about that depends on the genre (news, feature, interview?) and intended audience.

Yes, I directly quoted your "not Necessarily their job" statement.  Are you even reading my posts before responding to them?

Quote: 

3. You've magically produced a "double standard" accusation based on yet another hasty misreading.

This is literal perfection given the above. 

Quote:To repeat--no one has said reporters cannot ask questions of sources or claimed vetting sources was not their job. 

Absolutely.  And no one has claimed anything to the contrary.  In fact it's a rather key point in my post you somehow missed.

Quote:But I'd prefer to collect all the errors and misreadings from your posts together and take time addressing them. That DECREASES the chance
that I'm basing my own response on misreadings and errors. Different strokes, right?  So expect no more on this topic until tomorrow or the day after. 

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In any way possible. 

If they were superficial and easily met why didn't you address all of them?  Also, you didn't meet either of the ones you actually attempted to address, as I carefully explained above.

LOL sorry, I know I promised but this is too easy.

As far as the bolded--your media "analysis" was like a bowl of bad soup. One or two spoonfuls were enough to demonstrate the problem with the whole.

Your impressionistic "careful explanations" are in the same bowl, which as I said, I'll get to tomorrow or the next day. So hold off on the "dodge" quips. 

(06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhm, no you're the person who contradicted their own argument while addressing that.  Are you literally just using the DARVO playbook here and hoping it sticks?

Do you not get it--this is just quippery, NOT demonstration?  

Show the contradiction. Don't just claim there is one there somewhere.  For once put up or  shut up. 

Ok I'm done with topic for sure until tomorrow at least. Other interesting stuff going on.

[CJD]

(06-12-2024, 04:25 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: If you miss one, then that is one in a pool of 96 who may not even be called.

Pretty great odds if you ask me.

As for "clever republicans," makes an assumption they would lie during the questioning. I would hope none of the jurors did that, but not thee most realistic view.

The point of the voir dire process is to eliminate people whose bias would cloud their judgment.

The goal of the defense is to find jurors whose biases would cloud their judgment in a way that is beneficial to the defendant, whether guilty or not.

In the case of biased jurors, they could have a variety of goals. Some may just want to get out of it by appearing biased in a way that easily gets them eliminated or, if they do want to be part of the trial to create a result that they want, mask their biases to get onto the jury.

It isn't so much a matter of lying. More answering questions in a way that does not make one of the attorneys want to eliminate you. So, if they asked you, "What's your opinion of Trump," you would not answer, "I love that man! I'd vote for him a million times if I could!"

You'd maybe say something like, "He's the former president so I respect him for serving this country." Probably wouldn't set off the DA's alarm bells but could subtly indicate to the defense that you may be more sympathetic than you let on. An answer like that would probably require one of the DA's preemptory challenges, which they only have a limited number of.

And then I'm sure in every jury pool there are a hand full of people who don't care whether they are selected for duty or not...

Can't help but think those people would be in the severe minority though, as being a juror offers virtually no benefit unless you want to have an impact on the trial.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sorry, I know I promised but this is too easy.

As far as the bolded--your media "analysis" was like a bowl of bad soup. One or two spoonfuls were enough to demonstrate the problem with the whole.

Your impressionistic "careful explanations" are in the same bowl, which as I said, I'll get to tomorrow or the next day. So hold off on the "dodge" quips.

Dude, I'm legitimately starting to feel bad for you at this point.  I'm not kidding at all.

Quote:Do you not get it--this is just quippery, NOT demonstration?  

Show the contradiction. Don't just claim there is one there somewhere.  For once put up or  shut up. 

Ok I'm done with topic for sure until tomorrow at least. Other interesting stuff going on.

You're asking for proof when it's literally posted by me above?  I directly addressed this.  Even your circuitous argument tactic is misfiring today.

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I directly quoted your "not Necessarily their job" statement.  Are you even reading my posts before responding to them?

Double sorry. this is just so off.  And digging your hole deeper.

My statement was that it is not necessarily a reporter's job to include a source's statement of methodology in an article using the source:

 "While it is their job to report data and cite sources, it is not necessarily their job to explain their sources' methods of collection." 

You did not "quote" that. You twisted it into this paraphrase: 

"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice" 

That's what I definitely did not say. My point was only that while reporters DO need to vet sources, they do not have to do that vetting in front of their readers in every article. So no reason why, in a short news article, that a reporter needs to detail a source's collection methodology. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 05:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Double sorry. this is just so off.  And digging your hole deeper.

My statement was that it is not necessarily a reporter's job to include a source's statement of methodology in an article using the source:

 "While it is their job to report data and cite sources, it is not necessarily their job to explain their sources' methods of collection." 

You did not "quote" that. You twisted it into this paraphrase: 

"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice" 

That's what I definitely did not say. My point was only that while reporters DO need to vet sources, they do not have to do that vetting in front of their readers in every article. So no reason why, in a short news article, that a reporter needs to detail a source's collection methodology. 

Dude, just stop.  The hole can't get much deeper.

(06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 04:51 PM)CJD Wrote: The point of the voir dire process is to eliminate people whose bias would cloud their judgment.

The goal of the defense is to find jurors whose biases would cloud their judgment in a way that is beneficial to the defendant, whether guilty or not.

In the case of biased jurors, they could have a variety of goals. Some may just want to get out of it by appearing biased in a way that easily gets them eliminated or, if they do want to be part of the trial to create a result that they want, mask their biases to get onto the jury.

It isn't so much a matter of lying. More answering questions in a way that does not make one of the attorneys want to eliminate you. So, if they asked you, "What's your opinion of Trump," you would not answer, "I love that man! I'd vote for him a million times if I could!"

You'd maybe say something like, "He's the former president so I respect him for serving this country." Probably wouldn't set off the DA's alarm bells but could subtly indicate to the defense that you may be more sympathetic than you let on. An answer like that would probably require one of the DA's preemptory challenges, which they only have a limited number of.

And then I'm sure in every jury pool there are a hand full of people who don't care whether they are selected for duty or not...

Can't help but think those people would be in the severe minority though, as being a juror offers virtually no benefit unless you want to have an impact on the trial.

I understand what you are saying, and agree if it is a regular citizen, you are 100% on point.

But DJT, New York?!?

Easy to weed out the R's and have jury leaning the other way.

I am not saying they did not listen to the evidence, and jury instructions, nor that they failed to withhold any bias. Only that it would be child's play to select a bias jury in that area.

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: .So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

Dude, just stop.  The hole can't get much deeper.

Sure, I said "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection," as in to their readers. That doesn't absolve them from vetting sources. And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed. It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information. 

But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning: 

"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources. . . I'd say that's a horrible standard . . .."  
To which you later add the "job" is to "not ask any questions on either of your sources."  

These alterations redefine "job" to mean it's not a reporters' job to vet sources; then you call that misrepresentation an "amazing double standard."
And claim the alteration is "directly quoting" me because you prefaced it with "not necessarily their job." 

When you do this sort of thing I'm left with two choices: 1) count on people to recognize the misrepresentation, let it stand, and move on, or 2) bog the thread down showing what I actually said and then what you said I said. 

But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them. It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-12-2024, 08:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I said "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection," as in to their readers. That doesn't absolve them from vetting sources.

No one said they shouldn't vet sources.  In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so.

Quote:And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed.

Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed.  Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.

Quote:It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information. 

Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?"  I would certainly hope not.

Quote:But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning: 

To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording.  I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word.

Quote:"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources. . . I'd say that's a horrible standard . . .."  
To which you later add the "job" is to "not ask any questions on either of your sources."  

Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job.  I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another?

Quote:These alterations redefine "job" to mean it's not a reporters' job to vet sources; then you call that misrepresentation an "amazing double standard."
And claim the alteration is "directly quoting" me because you prefaced it with "not necessarily their job." 

No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do.  It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.

Quote:When you do this sort of thing I'm left with two choices: 1) count on people to recognize the misrepresentation, let it stand, and move on, or 2) bog the thread down showing what I actually said and then what you said I said. 

I'd present a third option, own your amazingly bad statements and interpretations for once in your posting career here.  I don't expect it, and would be amazed to see it.  But it's certainly another option.

Quote:But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them.

Which is you admitting you're either less intelligent than me, less talented than me, wrong as opposed to my being right, or all of the above.  I'm thinking this thread rather proves the fourth option.

Quote:It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading.

It's certainly worse for you, no doubt.  A better compromise would be for you to admit the complete bankruptcy of your position, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

[Dill]

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said they shouldn't vet sources.  In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so.
Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed.  Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.
Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?"  I would certainly hope not.

A single news article may draw on many data sources when reporting news. It is not a requirement that a reporter explain the COLLECTION METHODOLGY of every such source TO READERS of his/her article.  We commonly see that they do not. That a reporter does not always have to explain methodology TO READERS does not mean reporters do not have to vet sources. That's quite far from an either/or choice. You are confusing a research requirement with the limits of a news genre.

But you decided this statement about what reporters writing in a certain new genre can be reasonably obligated TO TELL READERS--"It is not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"--meant reporters do not need to "address" sources, whatever such a vague and expansive term can mean here.

And now you ask if I'm saying "that fact checking is not "crucial information."  Where does that question come from, if not continued misunderstanding
of the original claim that reporters are not always required to explain TO THEIR READERS a source's methods of collection? That is not a claim that reporters don't need to vet all sources. Reporters commonly cross-check sources before reporting claims, as they should, but they don't tell their readers who they called or where they checked. They just report; only exception, is when something about the quote requires explanation of how the reporter verified it, e.g., from a Hamas leader difficult to access. 

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording.  I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word.
Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job.  I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another?
No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do.  It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.

So you are still misreading "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"
As "not necessarily their job to address sources."  Maybe "vague" is the wrong word. "Alters meaning" is a better description.

[Dill]

(06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan  #36 Wrote: You're transparent attempts to equate me to partisan extremists, is as pathetic as it is futile.  No one but your little cabal is buying it.
Based on your overly verbose responses to pretty much everything we can all determine you find this to be a valuable use of your time.
Trust me, no one is surprised to hear you claim this.
Yes, just "windows".  Not occupied buildings being set on fire.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/man-sentenced-5-years-arson-portland-police-north-precinct/283-ea1cea0f-d86c-4ebe-b3bc-6b57e1f4909c
"Spontaneous"?!  You precious far left court jester you.  You're adorable!!!
Both are bad.  At least the more centrist/right leaning posters here can acknowledge this.
Still laughing about "spontaneous" btw.  You partisan shill. 

#41

(06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you.   I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing.  Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it.  Probably the smart move on your part.

I found this whole thing very interesting.  Every single major news outlet ran with this data and treated it as gospel.  I didn't find any real investigation into the source's claims or any explanation of their methodology.  Contrast that to counter claims that are more critical.

I'm sure your ideological distinction is a tremendous comfort to the families and friends of those who were murdered.  The point rather being that the level of violence on 01/06 was on par, if not less, than numerous BLM riots.

Yes, we understand your position here as well as your desire to minimize the actions of your ideological compatriots in comparison to the 01/06 riot.  I can only reiterate the fact that what Dill finds to be more important doesn't negate facts.  Facts such as the billions in property damage, the many people "injured" and the people killed during these protests.

An interesting aside, more from the other thread on the Capitol Hill police officers.  One of those "honored" retired as a result of the riot, claiming, and I'm paraphrasing, that he did not want to retire, the rioters made him retire.  While I wouldn't want to minimize the man's experience, and we all have different mental thresholds, I did find it a curious statement to make.  Seeing as I know hundreds of officers who went through days like 01/06 and did it for months at a time.  Some days were better, some were worse, but they lasted for months.  Yet I don't know a single one of them who retired because of those days.  Sadly, I know hundreds who have retired within the past four years because they are sick of Democratic politicians, including our DA, destroying their profession.  Maybe that doesn't strike you as important?  Just thought I'd add it as a bit of a cherry on top.

#44

(06-11-2024, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah.  Dill doesn't set any rules here, not are you my father.  You know the second statement is true, yet you refuse to concede it.  It's interesting to say the least.
And it is framed as nothing other than exactly that.  Of course your "source" provides no details, as I took pains to point out, yet you don't question that.  I think I raised some legitimate concerns about the wording used by that source and provided examples of why they should concern anyone.  I can understand why you'd prefer to duck that, but your doing so is noticeable.
Oh, not just property damage, but injuries and deaths as well.  Considerably more.
Did he use a "mission of peace'?  I certainly wouldn't agree with that, certainly not the right as a whole.  It wouldn't change a single point I made either way.
No.  Nor has anyone claimed otherwise.
With the Capitol riots?  No.  With the BLM riots?  Most certainly.
I'd argue that tacitly, at the very least, condoning riots is bad.  Not as bad as actively directing them, no.  But did Trump not say to be peaceful?  You can argue that he didn't mean it, but he did say it.  He certainly didn't condone setting up an autonomous district within US borders and label it a "summer of love".  He didn't help raise bail money for people arrested for attempted murder as our current VP did.  Again, you seem to think riots only matter when they have a certain goal, and not at other times.  I can agree that the 01/06 riots were abhorrent and a stain on our history.  I do not use them to excuse the riots of others.  I also do not think the Capitol riot being "worse" in any way lessens the impact of the dozens of BLM riots.  Your position only works if you're seeking a direct, point by point, equivalence.  I'm not.  I'm being empathetic to the tens, if not hundreds, or thousands of people who had their lives upended by months of rioting.

I don't think Trump said anything illegal.  I certainly don't agree with his statements, for the most part.  But, again, I have a hard time with a left leaning person clamoring for the rule of law considering what I've experienced the past four years.

Quote:And when I further flagged your imprecise use of the term "leftist," which collects all manner of non-aligned actors into one bag responsible for riots, reminded you that "mostly peaceful" is not some "leftist standard," and explained what the actual term of comparison was, you unleashed a firehose of abusive language, at one point positioning yourself, hivemind-like, as speaking for all forum members except my "cabal." Nevermind that most of the people you respect in the forum do not ascribe to the BLM whattabout. While that far right from which you distance yourself does ascribe to it. That's basically your "we" on this issue--virtually everyone who regularly attacks "leftists." But it's "pathetic" if I associate you with the right.

This is an odd screed as no one could reasonably infer any of that from the post you're responding to.  Are you now addressing posts outside the scope of this conversation?  It would seem counter productive to do so, especially when this discussion was proceeding rather amicably.  Perhaps this is the response I should prepare for when you're confronted by arguments you cannot even begin to address?  Such as the methodology and definitions used by a source you used to make an objective claim?  Seeing as this is your 7th or 8th attempt at this post I'd expect a little more organized and coherent response.  Unfortunately, this reads as rather angry and ill intended.
No, I affirmed that either injury is significant to the one upon whom it is inflicted.
Of course, one could argue that Dill finds an attempt to overturn an election, as half-hearted as it was, more important than dozens dead, scores injured and billions of dollars in property damage.  I also think you'd have a hard time framing this now borderline screed as a "rational argument" as well.

A US election came nowhere close to falling because of a coup.  As disgusting an event as I believe 01/06 to be at no point did it come to even 1% of succeeding as a coup.  Your hyperbolic reframing of it actually diminishes what it was, as does any extremist retelling of a story.  It was bad enough without you embellishing it to absurd levels.  Your flailing attempts here actually do more to minimize the event than the most die hard Trump supporter's best effort.

I'm not exaggerating when I say I expected a much more coherent response given the time and effort you apparently devoted to it.  It almost makes me a little sad, in a way.

#56

(06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources?  That seems like a poor argument.  As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point.

So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?"  What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself.

Adding crowd estimations together and reporting them as 100% empirical fact and then amalgamating all said numbers seems to me to be poor practice.  A more scientifically robust, and infinitely more honest, practice would be to put an estimate on that number and round it off.  So, yes, it is an oddly specific number and immediately raises concerns about the source's honesty.

Quote:Then regarding your question "why injured" and  not "assaulted." A "thinking person" should quickly see that the CCC is relying on public data, whose criteria of selection are set by a number of different sources, such as local newspapers relying on local police and hospitals and reporters. Your own description of the vagaries of what counts as assault already suggest why assessing scale of violence might make "injuries" the more reliable guide. Yet you rush to speculate whether those at CCC collecting data already categorized as "injury" themselves DECIDED to use numbers of injured rather than assaulted--i.e., data which no one has compiled--to "manipulate data."   

A "thinking person?"  Yet you hold yourself up as this paragon of polite debate and intellectual rigor.  Either your standards are slipping quite a bit or you were never what you claimed to be.  But I'll move on from your insult and address your actual response.  There are no vagaries as to what legally constitutes an assault.  It is codified into law and laws have to be specific, especially criminal law.  There are vagaries as to what constitutes an "injury", especially as your source provides no explanation of their criteria.  In addition to what they consider an injury, how were these injuries reported and by who?  Also, why can they compile data on injuries but not assaults?  You're actually raising more concerns about your sources credibility, not lessening them

No, I gave it a "thinking persons" perusal and immediately identified ways they could have fudged numbers and flaws in their process.  Working in a deep blue jurisdiction I am intimately familiar with the way wording is used to manipulate and hide unpalatable data.  Your source had several immediate red flags in that regard.  I started with no conclusion, unlike yourself in this sentence, I examined your source and what I spoke on stood out to me.

How is directly addressing the claims of your source and raising legitimate questions disregarding anything?  It would be more accurately described as paying it intense attention.  

Your entire post only addressed a single point I raised, and I'm afraid it did so rather poorly.  In fact, as I already stated, your poor attempt actually raised more concerns while alleviating or addressing any.  I understand your desire to dismiss this out of hand, despite it being rather in conflict with your self assertion of being a logical and fact based debater of topics.  But you're going to have to do a little bit better if you're hoping to convince anyone but yourself that you posted anything of substance here, or that I am making a disingenuous argument.

#74

(06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said they shouldn't vet sources.  In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so.
Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed.  Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise.
Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?"  I would certainly hope not.
To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording.  I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word.
Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job.  I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another?
No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do.  It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you.
I'd present a third option, own your amazingly bad statements and interpretations for once in your posting career here.  I don't expect it, and would be amazed to see it.  But it's certainly another option.

Which is you admitting you're either less intelligent than me, less talented than me, wrong as opposed to my being right, or all of the above.  I'm thinking this thread rather proves the fourth option.
It's certainly worse for you, no doubt.  A better compromise would be for you to admit the complete bankruptcy of your position, but I certainly won't hold my breath.

@rkiv

[Dill]

(06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself.

Uhm, no you're the person who contradicted their own argument while addressing that.  Are you literally just using the DARVO playbook here and hoping it sticks?

"No, YOU did", seems not much of a refutation. 

I'd expect you to demonstrate that the article in question WASN'T debunking the Fox interp. of BLM riots.

So I have a further question about this--what is the "DARVO playbook"

and how would it apply to arguments about data sources?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-16-2024, 10:30 PM)Dill Wrote: A single news article may draw on many data sources when reporting news. It is not a requirement that a reporter explain the COLLECTION METHODOLGY of every such source TO READERS of his/her article.  We commonly see that they do not. That a reporter does not always have to explain methodology TO READERS does not mean reporters do not have to vet sources. That's quite far from an either/or choice. You are confusing a research requirement with the limits of a news genre.

But you decided this statement about what reporters writing in a certain new genre can be reasonably obligated TO TELL READERS--"It is not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"--meant reporters do not need to "address" sources, whatever such a vague and expansive term can mean here.

And now you ask if I'm saying "that fact checking is not "crucial information."  Where does that question come from, if not continued misunderstanding
of the original claim that reporters are not always required to explain TO THEIR READERS a source's methods of collection? That is not a claim that reporters don't need to vet all sources. Reporters commonly cross-check sources before reporting claims, as they should, but they don't tell their readers who they called or where they checked. They just report; only exception, is when something about the quote requires explanation of how the reporter verified it, e.g., from a Hamas leader difficult to access. 


So you are still misreading "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"
As "not necessarily their job to address sources."  Maybe "vague" is the wrong word. "Alters meaning" is a better description.

(06-16-2024, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: #41
#44

#56

#74

@rkiv

(06-16-2024, 11:56 PM)Dill Wrote: "No, YOU did", seems not much of a refutation. 

I'd expect you to demonstrate that the article in question WASN'T debunking the Fox interp. of BLM riots.

So I have a further question about this--what is the "DARVO playbook"

and how would it apply to arguments about data sources?

Was there anything in this dumpster fire of a response that could even be responded to that hasn't already been addressed?  Because I'm not reading through all of that crap.  

[Dill]

(06-17-2024, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was there anything in this dumpster fire of a response that could even be responded to that hasn't already been addressed?  Because I'm not reading through all of that crap.  

Well, there's my question about the DARVO playbook. 

What is it and how would it apply to forum discussions here?

The posts of yours I collected together were just to make response easier.
Trends and unnecessary digressions and repetition become more visible.

I still have some material on your response to the Harvard data source too.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-17-2024, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, there's my question about the DARVO playbook. 

What is it and how would it apply to forum discussions here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO

Quote:The posts of yours I collected together were just to make response easier.
Trends and unnecessary digressions and repetition become more visible.

Do they?  I'm not seeing any.

Quote:I still have some material on your response to the Harvard data source too.

One wonders why you haven't provided it then.  Using your own logic that would indicate you fear to do so.