Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
False information is everywhere

By islander
October 28, 2022 5:13 am
Category: Fact Check

(0.0 from 1 vote)
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com

Share
Rules of
the Post

Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


This article explains what pre-bunking is, how it works, and how it can help in spotting false information.

”Officials in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Union County, North Carolina, and Contra Costa County, California, are posting infographics on social media urging people to "think critically" about what they see and share about voting and to seek out reliable election information.

Earlier this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency put out a public service announcement saying cyberattacks are not likely to disrupt voting.

Twitter will soon roll out prompts in users' timelines reminding them final results may not come on Election Day.
They're all examples of a strategy known as "prebunking" that's become an important pillar of how tech companies, nonprofits, and government agencies respond to misleading and false claims about elections, public health, and other hot-button issues.

The idea: show people the tactics and tropes of misleading information before they encounter it in the wild – so they're better equipped to recognize and resist it.”


Cited and related links:

  1. npr.org

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "False information is everywhere":

  1. by islander on October 28, 2022 5:18 am

    "The goal is "addressing these patterns of disinformation rather than each individual story," said Michelle Ciulla Lipkin, executive director of the National Association for Media Literacy Education, which worked with NASED to develop the toolkit."


  2. by HatetheSwamp on October 28, 2022 8:02 am

    I can't tell you how amused pb is over this entire enterprise.

    The progressive Swampcult foisted it's version of reality on the larger world, censoring any and every form of intellectual diversity in a way that would have made even Orwell's NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR's Big Brother cringe.

    Now, when, Twitter is owned by an administration that sets as it's mission, creating a forum for the free expression of honestly held opinion, the entire Swamp, is consumed by a desire to free the world from what it calls "false information" which really is nuthin but opposing opinion.

    Go ahead, isle, po. Squirm. The day of your power to judge and condemn is over!

    What a hoot!

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha, ahhhhhhhhhhh!


  3. by Curt_Anderson on October 28, 2022 3:09 pm
    Islander,
    My feeling for site like Twitter and Facebook is that it's better to be too permissive than too restrictive. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. If somebody posts noxious lies, it's best that they are exposed and countered with facts by other readers. That's what I hope happens on these pages. I have some expectation that people are and should be critical thinkers. Posts that cite sources are more credible than posts that make astounding claims without accompanying links.

    As I said, it is better that fellow readers expose and correct falsehoods. It becomes a difficult and subjective job for a website to officially label all the varieties and intensities of falsehoods. If any any falsehood or misleading statement that slips through and isn't labeled, then readers might assume it's true.

    It's not possible to convince fanatics of the truth. With repeated doses of truth the merely gullible might eventually come around. Debunking might reach the intellectually lazy or those who for whatever reason don't have access reliable information.

    False information is tricky thing. There are out and out lies. Then there is misinformation that is the result of a misleading statement. If you take claims like "illegal votes were cast in the 2020 election!" or "there were errors in the vote counts", both are true, and it's true of every election in which millions of votes are cast. But it's not true that that it was sufficient to change the outcome of the election.





  4. by islander on October 29, 2022 6:38 am
    Curt~
    Hate apparently thinks the article is about censorship. It isn’t. The article is about recognizing conspiracy theories and false information. Recognizing such involves the use of critical thinking of course, which also helps in reading comprehension. 



    The ability to recognize a conspiracy theory or recognize a lie is not censorship.

    I’m also in favor of minimal censorship from independent private entities like Facebook Twitter and this board. I’m absolutely against government censorship against Constitutionally protected free speech.



    Heather’s letter today just happened to include a bit about the difficulty and moral dilemmas social media sites face when making such decisions.



    ” Late yesterday, Twitter’s board completed the $44 billion sale of the company to billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk. Musk has promised to be an advocate for free speech and to reopen the platform to those previously banned for spreading racist content or disinformation—including former president Trump—but his actual purchase of the site might complicate that position.

    In the technology magazine The Verge, editor Nilay Patel wrote, “Welcome to hell, Elon.” The problems with Twitter, Patel wrote, “are not engineering problems. They are political problems.” The site itself is valuable only because of its users, he points out, and trying to regulate how people behave is “historically a miserable experience.” 


    Patel notes that to attract advertising revenue, Musk will have to protect advertisers’ brands, which means banning “racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals people to be total a**holes.” And that content moderation, of course, will infuriate the right-wing cheerleaders who “are going to viciously turn on you, just like they turn on every other social network that realizes the same essential truth.” And that’s even before Twitter has to take on the speech laws of other countries.


    Musk clearly understands this tension. Trying to reassure advertisers before the sale, he tweeted: “Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!” Car manufacturer General Motors has temporarily stopped running ads on Twitter until its direction becomes clearer.


    Today, racist and antisemitic content rose sharply as users appeared to be testing the limits of the platform under Musk. The Network Contagion Research Institute, which studies disinformation on social media, noted that posters on the anonymous website 4chan have been encouraging users to spread racist and derogatory slurs on Twitter. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Center on Extremism, which focuses on civil rights law, backed this observation up today when it noted that on October 27, an anonymous post on 4chan, which users immediately spread to extremist Telegram channels, told followers how to increase antisemitic content on Twitter.

    
In the first 12 hours after Musk acquired the site, the use of the n-word increased nearly 500%. H.C.R




  5. by oldedude on October 29, 2022 6:52 am
    "recognizing conspiracy theories and false information"

    Isle- the scary thing is that "conspiracy theories" that have been debunked are splitting this country in two. Trump & Russia. The Biden Crime Family. Hunter's Laptop. Trump & a false document given by the DOJ/ FBI, and many others that people still refuse to let go of even though they've been disproven.

    My question is; who is to say what is false information, and what is not? Who is going to be the Himmler of the US? The person that regulates the thoughts of Americans? And what if we get a JE Hoover in the Whitehouse? And the Himmler turns out to be an actual Himmler.


  6. by islander on October 29, 2022 7:51 am

    "My question is; who is to say what is false information, and what is not? Who is going to be the Himmler of the US? The person that regulates the thoughts of Americans? And what if we get a JE Hoover in the Whitehouse? And the Himmler turns out to be an actual Himmler."

    You sound like someone who needs to read the article and take some of the steps necessary to help you learn the strategy of debunking. It will definitely help you to answer such questions.



  7. by HatetheSwamp on October 29, 2022 7:56 am

    Hate apparently thinks the article is about censorship. It isn’t. The article is about recognizing conspiracy theories and false information. Recognizing such involves the use of critical thinking of course, which also helps in reading comprehension.

    pb thinks this is about progressive sanctimony...i.e., your side's self-righteousness assumption that to hold an opinion at odds with your own this to think falsely.

    It's so dang cute. Naíve and cute.


  8. by HatetheSwamp on October 29, 2022 8:32 am

    My question is; who is to say what is false information, and what is not?


    That's precisely the issue now that the people at Twitter who JUDGED that the Hunter Biden story is "false information" and that musings of the President of the United States are "disinformation" can't silence those who think differently than they.

    Liberty is chaotic.

    isle, especially, here, hates the beauty of freedom...when that means all are free.

    But, isle is garden variety. There're millions just like him.


  9. by oldedude on October 29, 2022 11:31 am
    pb thinks this is about progressive sanctimony...i.e., your side's self-righteousness assumption that to hold an opinion at odds with your own this to think falsely.

    That was my point, and after looking at liars on the international scale for 40 years, I was told that I should read an article and it would debunk all the courses from DoD and State Department. I'm pretty sure they are better than reading "an" "article."

    I would argue at nauseum that who's ever in power will hold sway over what we are to think, say, and do.


  10. by islander on October 29, 2022 12:55 pm

    od~Did you read the article? Did you understand what it said said? If you did you’d know better than to think that just reading the article itself was going to answer your questions for you.

    One of your questions can be answered without the need for courses or learning the strategies for debunking. "[your] question is; who is to say what is false information, and what is not?...The responsibility for determining that falls squarely on your own shoulders just as it does for each of us. Some however are much better at determining the truth than others and for some the truth is irrelevant...It doesn't matter.


  11. by HatetheSwamp on October 29, 2022 2:24 pm

    Some however are much better at determining the truth...

    You, of course, are one of them. Ain't!!!!!


  12. by oldedude on October 29, 2022 7:16 pm
    "Some however are much better at determining the truth than others and for some the truth is irrelevant...It doesn't matter."

    I would argue at nauseum that who's ever in power will hold sway over what we are to think, say, and do. I'm doubling down.

    There is no way around that. "Truth" is subjective. And whomever has the ability to decide what is truth and what is not has absolute power, especially in the media, has the power. It used to be that powerful people had access to goods and/or services. Now, what you are trying to do is to limit the access to information to make people at the whim of their masters (the government and the media).

    Lead and I have been saying there are issues with the BS we're being fed by this administration. I don't trust them to make that decision for my family and myself. I believe that all humans have faults and see things as their life experiences. Mine is very different than yours. We reach different conclusions given the same information.



  13. by islander on October 30, 2022 5:37 am

    Truth is not subjective. Truth is that which conforms to reality. What you or I think, believe, or want to be true, is irrelevant to what is indeed true. Something that is not true does not become true because somebody thinks it’s true, anyone who believes that truth is subjective believes a lie and truth no longer has any real meaning.


  14. by HatetheSwamp on October 30, 2022 5:58 am

    anyone who believes that truth is subjective believes a lie and truth no longer has any real meaning.

    Of course, bubba. The only person here who EVER argues about truth being subjective is you.

    BTW, blue is the only beautiful color. Eh?


  15. by oldedude on October 30, 2022 6:43 am
    "Truth is not subjective. Truth is that which conforms to reality."

    So who's reality are we talking about? The person who makes the rules in the government/ media? Again. Welcome to Himmler. It's the EXCHANGE of ideas that make us think. I'm really sure your reality is not the same as mine. So what's the "truth?" I think you confusing "truth" with "facts." Even then, we argue about the facts on this site continually. Our own reality touches on what can or cannot be understood by an individual.


  16. by islander on October 30, 2022 7:32 am

    ”So who's reality are we talking about?”

    I’m talking about reality, which is independent of either of us. I think you are confusing objective reality with beliefs and opinions which can differ among individuals and any of those individual beliefs or opinions might or might not conform to reality. If someone’s belief or opinion conforms to objective reality then it would be true. If it doesn’t it would be false.



  17. by oldedude on October 30, 2022 7:37 am
    I don't believe in "objective reality." It "assumes" we all see the same thing the same way.

    E.g. 50 people see a shooting. You will get 50 stories. All different. Yet only one thing happened.


  18. by islander on October 30, 2022 7:39 am

    ”BTW, blue is the only beautiful color. Eh?


    If you honestly think blue is the only beautiful color, what is true is that you think blue is the only beautiful color To assert that blue is the only beautiful color apart from that, as if it’s beauty were an objective reality would be false since the beauty of the color blue only exists in the eye of the beholder so to speak.

    If you assert that you think blue is the only beautiful color and you are being honest, then it is true that this is what you think. It's true since your assertion conforms to reality.

    I think you can understand that.



  19. by HatetheSwamp on October 30, 2022 7:56 am

    Well said, there, isle.

    Here's the thing: Much of what you proclaim as objective truth here is of the "Blue is the only beautiful color" type which you support support with more "Blue..." arguments.


  20. by oldedude on October 30, 2022 7:58 am
    I think it conforms to MY reality and has nothing to do with yours.

    What I am not doing is trying to argue with you, I'm arguing with the premise. I don't agree with it. We can do that. It's two different things. If I agreed, I would try to impose MY reality on others, thinking it was "THE" reality. Even if I agree with a group only means a finite group agrees. Outside of that group may not be a reality at all.


  21. by islander on October 30, 2022 8:01 am

    "I don't believe in "objective reality." It "assumes" we all see the same thing the same way."

    No, it absolutely does not.


  22. by islander on October 30, 2022 8:28 am

    od~You seemed to have understood what objective realty means for a second there when you said, "50 people see a shooting. You will get 50 stories. All different. Yet only one thing happened."

    The one thing that actually happened, regardless of what the 50 different stories describe, would be the objective truth.



  23. by islander on October 30, 2022 8:46 am

    Hate wrote: Here's the thing: Much of what you proclaim as objective truth here is of the "Blue is the only beautiful color" type which you support support with more "Blue..." arguments."

    Nope! you've never heard me proclaiming something as an objective truth since, as I have stated many times,there is very little if anything we can claim is a "certain" objective truth. Anything like that would be prefaced as an if then assertion. In my opinion we can come close to to asserting an objective truth in a tautology or true by definition.




  24. by HatetheSwamp on October 30, 2022 9:32 am

    That can't possibly be true isle because, we're that the case, you'd agree with me every time I note that subjectivity is truth.


  25. by islander on October 30, 2022 9:50 am

    You're not making sense, Hate.


  26. by HatetheSwamp on October 30, 2022 9:57 am

    Maybe, isle, you don't UNDERSTAND!!!!!


  27. by oldedude on October 30, 2022 10:30 am
    "The one thing that actually happened, regardless of what the 50 different stories describe, would be the objective truth."

    I don't think so. Another example.

    2.2 BILLION people believe that Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 96 times in the Bible. That is their truth. By your scale, this is an objective truth.

    But then you have the Muslims. There are 1.9 Billion of them. They both believe they are right and have fought some pretty bloody wars over it. And even bloodier wars within each religion. So tell me. Who's correct? Who has the objective truth.
    openbible.info
    en.wikipedia.org


  28. by islander on October 31, 2022 5:58 am

    od~”2.2 BILLION people believe that Christ said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." 96 times in the Bible. That is their truth. By your scale, this is an objective truth.”

    

No. It doesn’t matter how many people believe something, their believing it does not make it an objective truth.



    od~”But then you have the Muslims. There are 1.9 Billion of them. They both believe they are right and have fought some pretty bloody wars over it. And even bloodier wars within each religion. So tell me. Who's correct? Who has the objective truth.”

    What makes you think that the beliefs of either of them must be objectively true?

    You still seem to be equating objective truth with someone's belief or opinion. If Joe believes X is true and you say, "It is true for him" you are saying nothing about it's actual truth or falsity, you are only saying that Joe thinks it's true. I don’t think you have truly grasped the meaning of objective truth.

    

An objective truth does not ‘become true’ simply because someone believes it’s true or thinks it’s true.


    An objective truth is true (conforms to reality) even if nobody knows it’s true or believes it’s true.

    Objective truth is what honest people strive for even while knowing they may never fully achieve it.


  29. by islander on October 31, 2022 6:01 am

    Hate~”Maybe, isle, you don't UNDERSTAND!!!!!”

    You are absolutely correct. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say, “That can't possibly be true isle because, we're that the case, you'd agree with me every time I note that subjectivity is truth.”

    What you said doesn’t make sense to me. 

Perhaps you can explain what you are talking about and why you think it means I must agree with you that subjectivity is truth.


  30. by HatetheSwamp on October 31, 2022 7:32 am

    So, isle. After all these years. After dozens upon dozens of posts, you've merely translated "Subjectivity is truth," into "truth is subjective."

    Be honest. You're not the first.


  31. by islander on October 31, 2022 7:43 am

    Never did anything of the sort...Be honest and show me where you think I did that.

    You won't be able to since I don't believe "Subjectivity is truth" or "that truth is subjective."


  32. by HatetheSwamp on October 31, 2022 7:51 am

    I haven't seen any indication of that, but it's happened here before with another poster I probably exchanged more posts with than I have with you.

    But, isle! You're not an idiot.

    When I claim that subjectivity is truth, what have you thought that I was attempting to splain!!!!!?


  33. by oldedude on October 31, 2022 7:59 am
    "What makes you think that the beliefs of either of them must be objectively true?"

    "Objective truth is something that is true for all people, no matter what their culture or religious beliefs. These truths are fundamental truths. I don’t need to tell you the exact temperature of the fire to tell you that fire is hot. In the same way, I don’t need to tell you that you need food to survive."

    What you're doing is putting that in a political format, which is the reason I disagree with it. If you leave this on a different level, maybe. You also, as usual, couldn't define it. Lots of examples, no definition. That's not helpful to anyone.
    learning-mind.com


  34. by islander on October 31, 2022 8:39 am

    od~I’ve explained and defined objective truth over and over here. Truth is that which conforms to reality. When someone talks about subjective truth they are not talking about Truth, but rather they are talking about what someone believes in his own mind to be true and that person’s belief doesn’t have to conform to reality. It doesn’t have to be True.

    When it is said that objective truth is true for everybody it doesn’t mean everybody believes it is true. Objective truth is true in and of itself which makes it true for everybody whether they believe it or not.

    Joe had too many shots of Jameson’s and sees a pink elephant in the room. There is no elephant in the room (objective truth) but Joe believes he is seeing a real pink elephant. That belief is Joe’s subjective belief and some would say that the elephant in the room is “true” for Joe even though Joe’s belief doesn’t conform to reality. The only thing that is objectively true is that Joe thinks there is an elephant in the room. However...The Truth is...there is no pink elephant in the room and that's an objective truth since it conforms to reality.


  35. by oldedude on October 31, 2022 11:03 am
    "Truth is that which conforms to reality."

    That is so general in nature, it's inaccurate. I have been arguing exactly that point because it is too general in nature. I'm still going to disagree and am done. We are disagreeing. That's all. That is fair between two people.


  36. by islander on October 31, 2022 1:35 pm

    od~The explanation I gave you was extremely specific and I gave you perfectly clear examples of what “truth is that which conforms to reality" means verses a subjective belief. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.

    What part of my explanation do you you disagree with?

    If you don’t understand any of it just say so and tell me what part you’re having trouble with and I’ll give you more examples that might help you. If you simply don’t want to talk about it anymore I can understand why and that’s fine with me also.


  37. by oldedude on October 31, 2022 7:45 pm
    Look. You need to look to other sources. I disproved your theory about us being a "democracy" and you just press on. Using your own citations. Read my posts. These were all in PSCI 100. I've given you the reasons why each one disproves your theory. Let it go, I will tell you that a Democracy is preferable form of government. AND for large governments (either in population or land mass) there needs to be a better system. Figure it out.

    The average congress passes 30(ish) bills per year. Prove to me it would be better for everyone in the US to vote on every one of those bills. This was a sympathetic fuk. just take it and be happy you got it. I'm pretty sure you have many of those.


  38. by oldedude on October 31, 2022 8:16 pm
    just to reiterate the facts.
    You can't produce any evidence that democracy is the preferred political system for us. Jefferson spoke Greek. He's the one that studied these issues. You're an amateur flailing at best not to drown. I notice none of your "friends" have posted on this.

    The true end result is that we live in a "REPUBLIC." Just say yes and move on. You're wasting everyone's time.

    done. You can't argue the point.


  39. by islander on November 1, 2022 6:16 am
    Pssst...od

    You're on the wrong page. LoL !!


  40. by Donna on November 1, 2022 6:32 am

    When people say "democracy", they're referring to a form of government that holds elections. No one uses the word to describe a form of government where the citizenry votes on every policy proposal. In fact there doesn't exist a government like that. All of the world's democracies are republics.


  41. by islander on November 1, 2022 7:54 am

    You are correct Donna,

    The united states is a Democratic Constitutional Republic...It has a different form of government for example than the People’s Republic of China or the former USSR which described itself as a Union of Socialist Republics.

    In recent years, especially since Trump, many Republicans have been trying to blot out the democratic aspect of our form of government and use the word republic all by itself. The republic aspect simply means that we don’t vote directly on every issue, we have representatives to vote in our place. We the people, however, directly vote for our representatives. Our representatives are elected in a voting process in which the winner is determined by a majority vote, that is, the winner is the candidate the majority of the people want to represent them (democratic aspect).

    The constitutional aspect means that we have constitution guaranteeing us certain rights and our Constitution protects the minority from what is sometimes called “mob rule” and it protects the majority from being “lorded over” and ruled by an elite minority.


  42. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 9:05 am

    isle,

    What is the difference between a Democratic Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Republic?

    In recent years, especially since Trump, many Republicans have been trying to blot out the democratic aspect of our form of government...

    Really? How?

    What stupefies me is that you praised those J6 Committee meetings in which due process was abused and rumor, gossip and hearsay were presented as testimony and then suggest Trump and Republicans are the ones trying to "blot out" what's democratic.



  43. by islander on November 1, 2022 9:31 am

    A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy.

    Constitutional means that our government is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

    Nobodies rights were violated and due process was not abused by the Jan 6 committee. Do you know the difference between an investigation and a trial in a court of law?


  44. by Donna on November 1, 2022 9:42 am

    Plus, all of the testimonies at those hearings were by Republicans, many of whom had been Trump employees and supporters.


  45. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 9:51 am

    And, Donna, it was virtually all rumor, gossip and hearsay...often offered out of context.

    It was not our Constitution’s finest hour.


  46. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 10:12 am

    Nobodies rights were violated and due process was not abused by the Jan 6 committee. Do you know the difference between an investigation and a trial in a court of law?

    Nobody's? That covers a lot of people. I disagree. Wholeheartedly.

    Were rights violated? Technically? Probably...I say probably not? But, due process abused! Absolutely and as a matter of course.

    The Dems pinned their hopes in the 022 election on building on women's outrage over the Dobbs decision...and, on using the J6 Committee to make Trump an issue.

    The Trump part for sure didn't work. Except for the Flatulent Fool moaning about Ultra-MAGAs and Mega-MAGAs, no one's talking Trump...at least on the Dem side.

    Why?

    Because people know that the J6 Committee raped all that is good about American, uh, Democracy.


  47. by islander on November 1, 2022 11:41 am

    Hate wrote:" it was virtually all rumor, gossip and hearsay."

    That, as you, know is pure Bullsh!t.

    The witnesses at the Jan 6 hearing testified directly to what they saw, heard and knew under oath!

    "Americans have had a lot of opportunity to think about oaths this summer, watching the public hearings from the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol. Before they testify, every witness takes an oath, promising to tell the truth.

    Saying things under oath is different from a speech, a tweet or an off-the-cuff remark.

    Oaths and vows mark some of the most important events in our lives. Whether it’s offering sworn testimony, after coming down the aisle at your wedding, or joining the military, oaths are serious business. And they should be.
    They are one of the only ways we have of formally marking the agreements make that define how we will live together, whether in our married home, with brothers-in-arms or in an entire country. We define how we will act in those agreements we bind with an oath.

    In the Jan. 6 hearings, witnesses are asked to agree with the following — “Do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?” It’s serious business that can be enforced with years of jail time if you break the oath.

    Watching the select committee’s hearings, we’ve learned about other oaths that matter to witnesses and, in some ways, motivate them to testify. For example, Russell Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, testified that he received a call from President Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani pressuring him to help remove Biden electors in Arizona and replace them with Trump electors. He said he told the former president, “You’re asking me to do something against my oath, I will not break my oath.”

    elon.edu


  48. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 11:51 am

    Right, isle. We remember, for example, all those things she heard people say about what other people said and did. We remember Lizzy asking her about how she felt. And, we remember especially her riveting account about what she was told took place in the Beast...which was denied by the actual witnesses before she even had time to take a potty break.

    It was at that moment that millions of us realized that Lizzy and the gang were runnin a Show Trial.

    And, that's why moderates and independents ain't making Trump an issue in the election.


  49. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 11:56 am

    Cassidy Hutchinson,BTW.


  50. by islander on November 1, 2022 11:58 am

    "which was denied by the actual witnesses before she even had time to take a potty break."

    She was testifying under oath those others you are talking about were not. They "could have testified under oath", if they'd wanted to at any time, but of course they didn't.


  51. by HatetheSwamp on November 1, 2022 12:22 pm

    She was offering hearsay testimony. I'm sure she was telling the truth...

    ...about an untruth she heard.

    That's what hearsay is.

    They "could have testified under oath", if they'd wanted to at any time, but of course they didn't.

    That's just wrong. Idiotic, and just wrong.

    They begged to be able to testify under oath. They weren't called.


  52. by islander on November 1, 2022 1:20 pm
    They "could have testified under oath", if they'd wanted to at any time, but of course they didn't.`isle

    That's just wrong. Idiotic, and just wrong.

    They begged to be able to testify under oath. They weren't called.
    ~Hate

    They didn't have to be called by the committee. If they dared to, they could have signed a sworn written deposition such as an affidavit outside of any kind of courtroom proceedings. Such an oath can be authorized and administered by Judges, Notaries, Justices of the Peace, Clerks of the Court, or Court Commissioners, and the penalties for lying are the same as in a court of law.

    You listen to and believe too much biased false information. The reason I started this thread about debunking false information was to help folks like you to learn how to identify it.

    By the way, can you name any of the witnesses at the Jan 6 committee hearing that lied under oath? How about Russell Bowers, the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, when he testified under oath that he received a call from President Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani pressuring him to help remove Biden electors in Arizona and replace them with Trump electors. He said he told the former president, “You’re asking me to do something against my oath, I will not break my oath.”...Was that all a lie?


  53. by Curt_Anderson on November 1, 2022 2:11 pm
    Islander,
    I have my doubts about "pre-bunking". Some people are immune to facts and logic. You know who I am talking about.

    I wrote the following soon after Cassidy Hutchinson testified and was immediately labeled a liar by the volunteer members of Trump's good squad. They insisted that Ornato and Engel were "eager" to refute her testimony under oath. I knew that was BS. I've repeated the same suggestion you made about testifying under oath a few times. HtS and OldeDude are oblivious to the obvious: the last thing Ornato and Engel want to do is to testify under oath in an effort to refute Hutchinson's testimony.

    Comment #7
    If they really wanted to make under oath statements they wouldn't have had to wait for the committee to invite them. (The committee has invited them back by the way). All they would need to do is find a judge or notary public to make under oath statements.

    selectsmart.com


  54. by oldedude on November 1, 2022 2:22 pm
    At this point in time, I wouldn't volunteer any information at all to the J6 kangaroo court. That's just stupid. They have proven time and time again it is not to be trusted with anything. And maybe everything they said is true, but they were smart enough to ask a lawyer, which of course said a flat no and to shut their mouths about the whole issue. I would have to have a subpoena and threats to testify to them. And then, I would get the questions and have written answers so they couldn't blindside me.

    They did this all themselves. This is the third time they've gone after Trump and have yet to prove anything substantial.


  55. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 4:18 am

    Bang on, OD.

    What stuns me more than anything in the 022 political season is that people like Curt and isle...and the whole TDS crowd...are not disturbed by the way the J6 Committee has operated. And, needlessly.

    Both you and I condemned the J6 riot as it was taking place. I've said, repeatedly, that I think that Trump is despicable and, while you have more class than I, I know that you have grave misgivings about him too. You've already decided that you won't support him in 024, as have I.

    As Donna points out, many GOPs have offered testimony willingly to the Committee.

    The J6 Committee didn't have to run a Show Trial. The absolute truth is that if there's a there there, most GOPs...like we two...will accept the truth.

    The truth? There's no evidence that OrangeMan orchestrated an insurrection. And, the Committee is struggling to make something out of those 187 minutes.

    But, so far, nuthin.

    You and I both are clear minded enuff to realize that the goal of the J6 Committee was to make Trump an issue in this election. He ain't.


  56. by oldedude on November 2, 2022 6:24 am
    Donna- "When people say "democracy", they're referring to a form of government that holds elections. No one uses the word to describe a form of government where the citizenry votes on every policy proposal. In fact there doesn't exist a government like that. All of the world's democracies are republics."

    Only in your cases, when you don't know the difference between them.
    Democracy- NOT a representative government. The people have DIRECT voting to the laws that rule them. Like I said overandoverandoverandover. Smaller "governments." Communes now, granges, Turn of the century towns where there are a finite number of people to vote.

    Republic- Citizens vote for people to make the laws and pass them. A REPRESENTATIVE government.

    If you don't understand the difference, you'll make the typical ASSumptions of one person, one vote, which creates a whole bunch of (mostly sheeple) wrongful tirades.

    I realize that (espeially you two, but most sheep) ASSume this is the way it works because you don't know and don't want to understand the differences.


  57. by islander on November 2, 2022 6:57 am

    ”The J6 Committee didn't have to run a Show Trial.~Hate

    It wasn’t a trial. It was a congressional committee hearing that was investigating the Jan 6 attack on our capital. A Trial and a committee hearing, as you should know, are two completely different things. One is an investigation, that is, its purpose is the gathering of evidence in an effort to see if a crime has even been committed. The other, a trial, is a proceeding that is held to determine if a suspect charged with a crime is guilty or not guilty.

    ”The J6 Committee didn't have to run a Show Trial. The absolute truth is that if there's a there there, most GOPs...like we two...will accept the truth.”

    

LoL !!! I always have to laugh when you talk about truth. You have made it abundantly clear over and over that for you, what you call the truth doesn’t have to conform to reality.



  58. by islander on November 2, 2022 7:06 am

    ”I have my doubts about "pre-bunking. Some people are immune to facts and logic. You know who I am talking about~Curt

    

Most of us know exactly who you are talking about.😀 

I think any method that can strengthen our ability to recognize false information is helpful for those of us who really want to know the truth. I’ve discovered myself on occasion fooled into accepting one of their lies as being true. Often times it’s because what they say contains multiple lies used to support the one lie that I’m debunking and I don’t give enough thought to the truth or falsity of those others and accepting some of them without questioning them.

    I know some people are immune to facts and logic, whether it’s due to a genuine lack of understanding or sheer stubbornness and dishonesty even to themselves is something I always wonder about. When you read their posts it’s easy to see how uncomfortable the Jan 6 hearings make them. They foolishly call it a “show trial” but it was not a trial of course and the American people were able to see and hear for themselves what the committee had learned and we were all able to see and hear the direct testimony from the witnesses themselves. I think this is one of the better things our technology has done for us, it has enabled us to see and hear live what was taking place and what was said rather than reading someone else’s version and interpretation of it. 





  59. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 7:11 am

    Geezers, like us, learned about "justice" under Hitler and Stalin and Mao. We can discern the similarities between 20th century fascism and the J6 Committee.

    Your ilk did your derndest to make Trump the issue in 022. You failed. You waaaaaaaaaay overplayed your hand.

    Over here? We're not sorry.


  60. by islander on November 2, 2022 7:43 am

    "Geezers, like us, learned about "justice" under Hitler and Stalin and Mao" ~Hate

    That's obvious! They taught you authoritarians well, but here in USA we are governed under a different system...And I like our system of justice better than theirs.


  61. by Donna on November 2, 2022 7:50 am

    I would never have a problem testifying under oath because I'm not a lawbreaker and I have nothing to hide.


  62. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 8:29 am

    When the purpose of the hearing is to find fault with you, your account of the truth may very well be irrelevant.


  63. by Donna on November 2, 2022 10:06 am

    I'm not paranoid.


  64. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 10:35 am

    Man, Donna!

    You missed my point, AGAIN.

    I wasn't saying that you're paranoid. You're naíve.

    Not one moment of the effort invested by the J6 Committee has been devoted to finding out the truth of that day. It's all about finding something to accuse Trump of.


  65. by islander on November 2, 2022 12:34 pm

    "Not one moment of the effort invested by the J6 Committee has been devoted to finding out the truth of that day"~Hate

    LoL !! There you go again Hate, using the word truth! 🤣

    While they weren't devoted to finding out your subjective truth, they were however devoted to finding out the Truth that conforms to reality...and I seriously doubt you'll ever admit it but unfortunately for you, they did just that. 👍


  66. by oldedude on November 2, 2022 12:46 pm
    "While they weren't devoted to finding out your subjective truth, they were however devoted to finding out the Truth that conforms to reality...and I seriously doubt you'll ever admit it but unfortunately for you, they did just that."

    LOL!!!!!! See there you go yet again! ASSuming YOU'RE reality is everyone's. That is the sure sign of a Narcissist! That is exactly what I was talking about. The FACTS don't support your fantasy.


  67. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 12:47 pm

    isle,

    Your expression, "subjective truth" is an oxymoron in pb's world. But, go for it.


    On the J6 Committee. Up to and beyond that Cassidy Hutchinson fiasco, pb expected that the typical American voter would fall prey to the propaganda wrapped up in innuendo, rumor, gossip and hearsay foisted on them under the guise that they were presenting evidence.

    And, Dems did rise in the polls about that time but, by now, approval of Dems is in free fall. From what pb can tell, the public woke up and saw the lies for what they are...in spite of OrangeMan's personal unpopularity.


  68. by Donna on November 2, 2022 1:20 pm

    "Not one moment of the effort invested by the J6 Committee has been devoted to finding out the truth of that day." - Hts

    LOL, because I know that you're serious!


  69. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 1:29 pm

    I am absolutely serious.

    The J6 Committee looks as close to Stalin Soviet justice as anything America has seen since, perhaps, the heyday of Senator McCarthy.

    The fact that Americans ain't thinking Trump as the election nears indicates that America agrees with pb about J6.


  70. by islander on November 2, 2022 2:20 pm

    Hate~

    The majority of Americans didn't even watch the Jan 6 hearings. You've stated that you yourself didn't even watch all of the hearings...This (click on the link) is the kind of testimony most Americans missed...Tell me what these witnesses who were under oath lied about? If you can't do that, tell me, in your opinion, if there were any unfair questions that they shouldn't have been asked?

    If so, which questions should they not have asked?


    View Video


  71. by HatetheSwamp on November 2, 2022 3:30 pm

    isle,

    It frightens me just a tad for the future of our democracy that you're in love with this clip.

    Tell me what these witnesses who were under oath lied about? If you can't do that, tell me, in your opinion, if there were any unfair questions that they shouldn't have been asked?

    If so, which questions should they not have asked?


    There's a he said/he said. Clearly, it's obvious who YOU want to be telling the truth. But, your want don't make it so.

    Do I think there were unfair questions? H, e, double hockey sticks, yeah! The fact that the testimony consists of mostly leading questions by someone who wants to condemn Trump and who doesn't want to seek truth...AND THAT NO ONE FROM AMERICA'S LOYAL OPPOSITION PARTICIPATED...would concern any fair-minded citizen. This is still America.

    But, to the point of the hearings, what in the name of God's green earth, does this have to do with Trump orchestrating an insurrection!!!!!? For that matter, what crime that Trump might have committed is even testified to?

    Much ado about nuthin, there, isle.

    And it accounts for the fact that no one whose vote can be effected is voting on J6, or Trump.

    I'm sure it's steamy TDS porn but, beyond that!!!!!?


  72. by islander on November 3, 2022 5:31 am

    LoL!! At first I thought you might go through a pretty tortuous routine of mental gymnastics and rationalizing in order to come up with something that you thought sounded intelligent but would really end up only made you sound foolish.

    Guess what !!!

    You did !!! 🤣


  73. by HatetheSwamp on November 3, 2022 6:33 am

    I don't know what to say, isle. I watched the video and saw Stalin justice come to America. For you, apparently, it's, as I said, TDS porn.

    Subjectivity is, undoubtedly, truth.


  74. by islander on November 3, 2022 7:08 am

    Hate writes: ”Subjectivity is, undoubtedly, truth”

    

Yes, we are all aware that this is what you believe, you’ve told us that many times.

    Subjectivity has to do with a lack of objective reality and this is why, when you try to discuss things with those of us who are grounded in objective reality, you sound so foolish when you talk about your so called “truth”.😀

    😀 Smiley hopes that when your subjective truth comes into conflict with objective reality, which will happen from time to time, that it will be benign. That is, it won’t be a situation where you could get seriously hurt or injured.




  75. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 7:13 am
    I would have rather you found your "jesus" instead of something that you've gone off the rails with. You've taken "that's hot" to your political views. It's pretty nauseating.


  76. by HatetheSwamp on November 3, 2022 7:18 am

    Subjectivity has to do with a lack of objective reality...

    That's absolute bullfernerner.

    I know that you're of approximately average intelligence, give or take. So, I can only guess that the mental block you have with the notion that subjectivity is truth is rooted in emotion, probably deep-seated.

    Reality is, by definition, well, objective. That goes without saying...except, it seems, for you.


  77. by islander on November 3, 2022 7:36 am

    "Reality is, by definition, well, objective" ~Hate

    😀 Smiley says, "very good! You're finally catching on. Now all you have to do is go on to the next step and you'll be able to grasp why Truth is that which conforms to reality. Objective reality " !!



  78. by HatetheSwamp on November 3, 2022 7:54 am

    isle, isle, isle! When has pb EVER said it's not!!!!!?

    Of course, truth "is that which conforms to reality."

    That notwithstanding, that J6 Committee video is nuthin but TDS porn for you.


  79. by Donna on November 3, 2022 7:58 am

    Trump has always been smart about getting dupes like the Oath Keepers to take the fall for his own crimes. If you remember, at the close of his speech at the Ellipse on Jan 6, 2021, he made sure to phrase what he wanted his followers to carry out in such a way that protected him from legal liability if or when they committed violence when he said to them "...[march] over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard".

    We saw this in his "perfect call" with President Zelenskyy. That's why he called it a "perfect call"; he probably spent a lot of time constructing how to go about getting Zelenskyy to attack his then political opponent Joe Biden without breaking the law, although many legal experts still think he broke the law during that famous call. At any rate, thanks to his supporters in the Senate who would have refused to convict him for any crime, he got away with it.

    On Jan 6, 2021, we know that Trump wanted the insurrection to succeed because he refused to stop it even after everyone around him at the White House that afternoon, including his offspring, implored him to. In fact not only did he refuse to stop the insurrection until hours later, at 2:24 PM after the mob had breached the Capitol building and were chanting "HANG MIKE PENCE!", he opted to Tweet instead, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!", which is not at all what they wanted him to tell his armed mob. This, after he told them hours earlier in his speech at the Ellipse "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country." Several insurrectionists even shared online that they hoped to kill or wound him.

    It's easy to see the truth of what happened. It's much more difficult to prove it truth, though, as we saw in the O.J. Simpson trial.





    news.yahoo.com


  80. by islander on November 3, 2022 8:04 am
    "isle, isle, isle! When has pb EVER said it's not!!!!!?

    Of course, truth "is that which conforms to reality."
    ~Hate

    I said to smiley, "Look! Hate is beginning to get it" !!!

    😀 Smiley said, "Just don't expect too much from him, his memory is very poor"!




  81. by HatetheSwamp on November 3, 2022 8:07 am

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha, isle.

    For the gazillionth time. To say that subjectivity is truth is to talk about you...not truth and not reality.


  82. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 8:11 am
    Donna,
    I didn't see where he said to hang mike pence. That was lost in your post. Correct me if I'm wrong.


  83. by Donna on November 3, 2022 8:20 am

    As usual, he was careful not to say anything that might incriminate himself. But it's clear by what he did as well as what he refused to say that he was okay with it.



  84. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 8:35 am
    So he didn't say it. Gotcha. Thanks.


  85. by Donna on November 3, 2022 8:43 am

    Right. And O.J. Simpson didn't murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.




  86. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 1:23 pm
    Or hillary didn't have an illegal server in her bathroom with classified information on it.


  87. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 9:26 pm
    And Maxine Watters didn't make threats against the GOP to stalk them where they are, etc.


  88. by oldedude on November 3, 2022 9:46 pm
    So I'm gonna go back to this...

    "Earlier this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency put out a public service announcement saying cyberattacks are not likely to disrupt voting."

    Do you really understand what that is? In the BEST of REPUBLICS (which this is quickly turning into a system of anarchy thanks to the dims last couple of years of burning down cities) according to Aristotle, is not.

    This is a government that is attempting to re-assure the people their votes actually count. By either side, this is what is expected and appreciated. Only the naivest would consider this a thought they were not concerned.

    So. I think either side would have put this out. As you look at the real intel without politics (yes, there is such a thing), this would be the best thing to say, and underneath the surface they are flailing for their lives. Hoping beyond all hope nothing happens to prove them wrong.

    Remember, one of the primary voting systems was compromised and their CEO arrested for having their cloud held in China and exposing voting volunteers/ Workers. Given that, any 14-year-old could have our voting information and change it. Especially the Chinese.
    nypost.com


  89. by islander on November 4, 2022 6:31 am

    We hope, naturally, that there will be a complete and thorough investigation and if any laws were broken this executive should be prosecuted and held accountable.

    His, Eugene Yu, albeit small company was given a contract to design a program to help with the scheduling of poll workers in LA County. The company, Konnech, was required to keep his company’s data in the US and only provide access to citizens and permanent residents. The company allegedly was storing some of the data used in connection with this contract in a cloud based in China. Storing any sort of information that is related to our elections, even something like this in a China based cloud would be and should be illegal.


  90. by oldedude on November 4, 2022 8:25 am
    I absolutely agree with that.

    There are also some issues with Dominion machines and their CEO, Croomer. There are problem that has come up since 2016 is the votes can be changed, depending on the access to the software.

    This means the company can take kickbacks from any side and tip an election. And they are also pretty slack on their auditing standards. This makes the system ripe for abuse from any side (including foreign "investors" and large companies/ individuals).
    thegatewaypundit.com


Go To Top

Comment on: "False information is everywhere"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page


From our contributors:
Display Order:

SOTU POLL: Whopping 72 Percent Approved of Biden Speech — Including 43% of Republicans
President by HatetheSwamp     February 8, 2023 7:41 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (8 comments) [108 views]


Biden Beats All the Odds and Knocks It Out of the Park In the SOTU
President by Ponderer     February 7, 2023 7:44 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (27 comments) [251 views]


GUTFELD! Super Bowl commercial.
Humor by HatetheSwamp     February 8, 2023 8:34 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [17 views]


Joe's $hiteatin grin...
President by HatetheSwamp     February 8, 2023 6:32 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [6 views]


NYP: Biden’s State of the Union set new records for dishonesty and emptiness
President by HatetheSwamp     February 8, 2023 5:05 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [28 views]


DeSantis batters LGBT wokesters at Disney
Education by HatetheSwamp     February 7, 2023 4:41 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (11 comments) [150 views]


Sarah Huckabee Sanders gives her variation of Trump's "big, strong men with tears in their eyes" anecdotes
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 7, 2023 9:24 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [65 views]


Chinese spy balloons invaded American airspace three times during the Trump presidency
President by Curt_Anderson     February 5, 2023 9:18 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Donna (29 comments) [556 views]


pb's Sotu odds:
President by HatetheSwamp     February 7, 2023 10:50 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [64 views]


Twitter suspends Sen. Steve Daines’s account
Media by HatetheSwamp     February 7, 2023 8:53 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (1 comments) [81 views]


Fact Check selectors, pages, etc.