The Insurrection Lie II: False Reports ...Continue To Unravel.

[myth]

Like this?

And there have been more instances like that than you likely are aware of. There also have been numerous cases of conservatives being censored for quoting something outrageous that was said by a liberal while the person who originally said it had no action taken against them.

I'm sure there are plenty of instances I'm not aware of, given the volume of content Facebook is trying to filter. Facebook uses bots to automatically enforce a lot of their rules, and those bots routinely censor or ban content by mistake. At least that's what they say.

For instance, look at what's happened in Australia recently. I doubt that Facebook intended to block emergency services and other government pages when they implemented bans on news media; it would obviously raise a stink (and it did), so they have nothing to gain by it (blocking the government/NGO pages, not the news ones).

I'm not saying Facebook isn't biased against conservatives. They probably are, it's well known that Silicon Valley is left leaning and most of the conservatives that I know working in tech hide their political views because of this. But, I have my doubts that Facebook has some sort of coordinated campaign to silence conservatives. It's possible, but I'm not quite sure that's likely.

[rogue06]

I'm sure there are plenty of instances I'm not aware of, given the volume of content Facebook is trying to filter. Facebook uses bots to automatically enforce a lot of their rules, and those bots routinely censor or ban content by mistake. At least that's what they say.

For instance, look at what's happened in Australia recently. I doubt that Facebook intended to block emergency services and other government pages when they implemented bans on news media; it would obviously raise a stink (and it did), so they have nothing to gain by it (blocking the government/NGO pages, not the news ones).

I'm not saying Facebook isn't biased against conservatives. They probably are, it's well known that Silicon Valley is left leaning and most of the conservatives that I know working in tech hide their political views because of this. But, I have my doubts that Facebook has some sort of coordinated campaign to silence conservatives. It's possible, but I'm not quite sure that's likely.

That would be far more reassuring if there was even some similarity in the percentages being censored and banned.

And as I noted you have conservatives getting banned for quoting what a liberal said on Facebook while the liberal who actually made the offending remark, is not.

[myth]

That would be far more reassuring if there was even some similarity in the percentages being censored and banned.

And as I noted you have conservatives getting banned for quoting what a liberal said on Facebook while the liberal who actually made the offending remark, is not.

For sure. I'm just saying, in the time I allocated to dig into that issue (which was, admittedly, not a lot) I didn't find enough credible evidence to make me think the larger problem was likely intentional, so I quit looking into it. I am concerned about some of that. I'll be making a thread soon about the whole Gamestop saga and this sort of blatant censorship is one of the things that angered me the most. Like when Discord banned the r/wallstreetbets server.

[seanD]

Not a good example, as they fixed it shortly afterwards. That's something to find a little amusing, that such an important document set off some kind of autodetection because it used the phrase "merciless Indian savages" (which in virtually any other context would be highly offensive), not something to continually hold up as some example of indictment of Facebook.

How about social media platforms coordinating censorship of the Biden/Hunter laptop story and even banning NYP because they broke the story in order to clearly help Biden's election? Good enough? That's just one among thousands of examples, only that was one of the more high profile incidents.

[Cow Poke]

To be clear, I don't think everyone disseminated news needs to be regulated. I'm suggesting a classification that causes larger news media companies to be regulated, but smaller organization or individual are free to report on news. They'd do so with less legal protections, but also with less responsibility. I'm not interested in regulating the free speech of everyone who wants to talk about news. But I am concerned that people's opinions about the world -- not just their interpretation of the data, but their basic understanding of what the facts actually are, is so dependent on for-profit and mostly unregulated businesses that do not have the citizenry's best interests at heart. It's difficult to view the revocation of the FCC fairness doctrine, for instance, as a net positive. I think that, combined with a general postmodern sentiment has resulted in an environment where people (including myself, though maybe not for the same reasons) have a very low degree of trust for news media organizations in general.

I'm not 100% committed to what I've suggested. I suppose I'm sort of brainstorming about how to restore some degree of public trust in the news media, promote rigorous journalistic ethics, contribute to a higher availability of accurate information, and do it without just trampling free speech in the process. For instance, in the thoughts I posted above (and I might not have said this), such a regulatory regime could be voluntary on the part of the news organization. They can choose not to get licensed, but they don't get the associated benefits. And those that DO choose to get licensed would likely be viewed with a much higher degree of trust by the public. Theoretically, at least.

It's sad, because the "journalists" used to police themselves, and there was PRIDE in being a "just the facts, ma'am" reporter, or an "in depth investigative journalist". Not any more.

It's like the medical community who is left to police themselves, and it's really really hared to get a doctor tossed out on his ear.

I'm with you - I don't like the idea of "government regulation" of the news media, but it has gotten so nutty across the spectrum. Those of us who grew up with Walter Kronkite and Chet Huntly and David Brinkley really miss the "And that's the way it was, February 21, 1972" reporting.

[oxmixmudd]

Interesting rant to try to distract from your running away from the facts and from the deliberate deceptions by the House Managers.

Also, this has the be the one of the most masterful displays of projection I've seen in a long, long time.

This entire thread is one big attempt to throw a smoke screen over what Trump did, as I outlined above. And if there were any 'deliberate deceptions' by the impeachment managers, ( and I don't believe there were) it is so outshone by the three month long campaign to undermine the election and the resulting insurrection as to be the proverbial swatting at gnats while swallowing camels.

[Gondwanaland]

This entire thread is one big attempt to throw a smoke screen over what Trump did, as I outlined above. And if there were any 'deliberate deceptions' by the impeachment managers, ( and I don't believe there were) it is so outshone by the three month long campaign to undermine the election and the resulting insurrection as to be the proverbial swatting at gnats while swallowing camels.

Um, no. The entire thread is about the deliberate lies and deceptions that the impeachment managers used to try to impeach someone who wasn't even in office anymore. I'm sorry your OMB-fevered brain is too swollen to let you grasp that.

[Cow Poke]

This entire thread is one big attempt to throw a smoke screen over what Trump did, as I outlined above.

A) You're full of crap - and you have "outlined" no such thing.
2) If there really were a case for impeachment, the dishonest Democrats wouldn't have to put on a sham impeachment
C) You were complaining about 'being dragged into this', and said you could fix that -- we all knew you couldn't.
D) by accusing me of starting this tread as "one big attempt to throw a smoke screen", you're basically calling me a liar.

And if there were any 'deliberate deceptions' by the impeachment managers, ( and I don't believe there were)

Of course you don't because you can't even look at the evidence without your extreme OMB bias.

it is so outshone by the three month long campaign to undermine the election and the resulting insurrection as to be the proverbial swatting at gnats while swallowing camels.

"outshone"? "swatting at gnats"? I'm dealing with the lies associated with the manner in which the Democrats purposely used the death of Officer Sicknick as a pawn in their little impeachment game.

That's not "gnats" - that's deadly serious. But, hey, you spent pretty much the last 6 months talking about the federal officers like they were jack-booted thugs.

A) Officer Sicknick gets "the Rotunda Special" for having a stroke due to a blood clot -- he's a HERO because OMB
2) Federal officers called in to quell the actual ("mostly peaceful") RIOTS - they're jackbooted thugs - because OMB.

Anybody else see the rank hypocrisy?

[Cow Poke]

This is amusing -- our good friends at Snopes can't quite bring themselves to admit the rumors of Sicknick's death by "bludgeoning" are false.

Did U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Die After Hit With a Fire Extinguisher?

Even though they report...

CNN additionally reported:

According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.

Sicknick’s brother, Ken Sicknick, told the non-profit news outlet ProPublica that Brian Sicknick’s family had been informed the officer had suffered a stroke resulting from a blood clot. (The term “stroke” means an event in which blood flow to the brain is interrupted, resulting in brain cell death.) Ken Sicknick also said his brother told him in a text message sent before he collapsed that he had been hit with bear spray wielded by rioters.

They don't have the integrity to report the obvious fact - he was absolutely NOT bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher....

There isn’t enough information from official sources available at this time to state either way what the cause and manner of Sicknick’s death was, or what mechanisms contributed to it. We will update this story with further information when it becomes available.

Anybody wanna bet this gets updated with a "FALSE" label any time soon?

[Cow Poke]

So, all it takes in LiberalLand for something to be true is...

A) A rumor by unnamed sources
2) an inability to absolutely prove the rumor false
C) even when it is determined that the 'unnamed sources' 'may not have provided accurate information'
D) it is therefore incumbent on others to prove the rumor by unnamed sources false (prove a negative)

And, note, it can't simply be "an unnamed law enforcement source" --- it has to be TWO --- that makes it truerererer.

Citing two unnamed law enforcement sources, the Times initially reported Sicknick “was struck with a fire extinguisher,” but on Feb. 16, 2021, the Times updated the story to note that those sources may not have provided accurate information, reporting:

Law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit. Medical experts have said he did not die of blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.

The "anonymous sources" (BOTH of them) "may not have provided accurate information"

How PROUD they must be of their investigative reporting. It sounded "true" because OMB, and it can't simply be retracted because OMB.

How do people actually buy this crap?

[Terraceth]

It more than serves to demonstrate their knee-jerk reaction and wouldn't have been corrected if there hadn't been such an outraged response.

And I notice you didn't address the other example I provided.

What other example? Here was your post I responded to:

Like this?

And there have been more instances like that than you likely are aware of. There also have been numerous cases of conservatives being censored for quoting something outrageous that was said by a liberal while the person who originally said it had no action taken against them.

What other example did you provide that I didn't address? There was no other example in the post. The only other thing you said was the second paragraph which contains no examples. Your post immediately preceding the quoted one contained no examples either, just general statements.

I'm not even trying to argue that Facebook doesn't censor anything, I'm merely objecting to the example you gave. If you have other examples you want to share to people, by all means do so. Those should be the examples you use, not the Declaration of Independence thing.

[oxmixmudd]

A) You're full of crap - and you have "outlined" no such thing.

This was my outline of the things that happened that day any one of which could have taken the place of sicknick's death in the articles of impeachment, and that you are saying I did not create:

Source: oxmixmudd

It is absolutely ridiculous to be focused on this element given what happened that day. Sicknick's death was one of 5 thought to be related to the insurrection and the only death where there is doubt as to whether it was directly caused by the insurrection. There were 140 other officers injured - some very seriously. One may lose an eye is my understanding. We have clear video of a brutal attack on one officer with a flag pole and a hockey stick. Another of an officer crushed in a door by the crowd. We have video of people in the capitol shouting to find and kill Pelosi and hang mike pence. An officer fired on the protestors to stop them from breaching an area as congressman and senators were being moved to safety just a short distance away, killing a female protestor.

© Copyright Original Source

2) If there really were a case for impeachment, the dishonest Democrats wouldn't have to put on a sham impeachment

This is assuming what you want to prove. They did not put on a sham impeachment, the presented the evidence that produced a majority vote to convict and which may well result in additional criminal or civil consequences for Trump.

C) You were complaining about 'being dragged into this', and said you could fix that -- we all knew you couldn't.

The illogic of the arguments presented here is so over the top that I both know that rational thinking can never persuade it otherwise and am compelled to try. I am torn between my obligation to speak out against such foolishness and the utter hopelessness that exists wrt actually breaching the madness that drives it.

D) by accusing me of starting this tread as "one big attempt to throw a smoke screen", you're basically calling me a liar.

That is absurd. I acknowledge fully that you believe that this topic is more important than what Trump did and somehow reveals deception by the Democrats.

So I'm not calling you a liar CP, I'm saying you are wrong to believe that.

The idea the Democrats purposefully tried to deceive people about sicknick is a smoke screen designed to take attention away from what Trump did and try to turn the anger against him into anger against the democrats. That is what smokescreens do, they hide what is on the other side of the smoke. But whatever moral culpability exists for creating the case in the first place would be owned by the authors of the article you quoted in the OP, not the people that believe it makes sense and repeat it.

Of course you don't because you can't even look at the evidence without your extreme OMB bias.

The only 'extreme' bias here is the bias that is so extreme it can motivate people to excuse a President that would incite an insurrection to keep power.

"outshone"? "swatting at gnats"? I'm dealing with the lies associated with the manner in which the Democrats purposely used the death of Officer Sicknick as a pawn in their little impeachment game.

That's not "gnats" - that's deadly serious. But, hey, you spent pretty much the last 6 months talking about the federal officers like they were jack-booted thugs.

Simply not true CP. I have done no such thing. There is a huge difference between overly aggressive and racist officers like the one that killed George Floyd and the officers that put their lives on the line every day for the safety of others. And while I agree with you that the rhetoric there gets unbalanced because there is so much emotion involved, and while I acknowledge that I - along with many others - was concerned about the secretive forces Trump was using during the riots, there is no possible way that my posts on those topics can be legitimately summed up as 'you spent pretty much the last 6 months talking about the federal officers like they were jack-booted thugs'.

A) Officer Sicknick gets "the Rotunda Special" for having a stroke due to a blood clot -- he's a HERO because OMB

He's a hero because he was/is thought to have lost his life defending the innocent people in the capitol that day. If that Insurrection was not actually the cause of death, so be it - but given the proximity of the Stroke to the trauma of the day, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. He was there defending those people in the capitol that day. He was attacked by the crowd and had the stress of that entire day on him. People have had strokes due to far less.

2) Federal officers called in to quell the actual ("mostly peaceful") RIOTS - they're jackbooted thugs - because OMB.

Again you overgeneralize, and I never once used that phrase. But It does seem you are referring to the secretive forces Trump was sending in without them being requested and who did not on at least several occasions inform the local authorities they were coming nor were they invited. So there was a lot of confusion about them, and there were a lot of well founded (especially well founded in light of his actions between the election and Jan 6) concern about them. And yes, we do have enough history in the 20th century of men intent on taking control and actually gaining control through secretive forces that there is legitimate reason to be concerned about any force that just shows up without being invited and without clear identification of who they are and why they are there. Since you don't seem to understand why that is a problem, I have to conclude you simply are ignorant of that history, or unaware of the real implications of it in terms of what sorts of things we must be vigilant about in order to keep that history from repeating itself.

[Cow Poke]

There is SO much wrong in what you posted that I don't have time to deal with all of it tonight, so I'll just pick this one for now...

He's a hero because he was/is thought to have lost his life defending the innocent people in the capitol that day.

That's not how it works -- there were supposedly anonymous sources that said he was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher, absent any evidence, testimony, eye witness account, or even any statement from him. He managed to text that he had been bear-sprayed --- you'd think if he'd been clobbered by a fire extinguisher, he would have mentioned that.
As a matter of fact, the "bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher" has been totally abandoned by all but the House Managers still citing it as part of their prosecution, even though it was absolutely blatantly false.

It was absolutely shoddy 'journalism' that had to be walked back by those who published it - that's how much it stunk.

People do not receive the high honor of lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda because they had a stroke.

If that Insurrection was not actually the cause of death,

IF????? No blunt force trauma - no evidence of any impact - no evidence of any bodily damage other than, perhaps, bear spray irritation, which is, admittedly, no picnic.

Again - you totally don't get the concept of such high honors --- they are NEVER doled out based on rumor or speculation.

so be it - but given the proximity of the Stroke to the trauma of the day, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Of course you are! No proof whatsoever, based only on rumor that was retracted, but your obsession with OMB causes you to want so badly to believe this you care about the facts.
And, besides OMB, on what basis would you "give it the benefit of the doubt"?

He was there defending those people in the capitol that day.

As were MANY other people, some of whom were wounded worse than he was. This is a kick in the teeth to them.
They were doing the job they get paid to do.

He was attacked by the crowd and had the stress of that entire day on him.

"That entire day"? How long did the riot last, Jim? See what you're doing? You are grossly exaggerating everything in order to TRY to make a case that simply does not exist.

People have had strokes due to far less.

Wow --- so, assuming his stroke (which we know was caused by a blood clot) was aggravated by (and that's REALLY stretching it) his action at the Capitol that day - that's cause for him to be recognized above ALL OTHERS who defended the Capitol that day?

Jim - seriously, you accuse others of irrational thought - -- that's about as irrational as you can get!

Again you overgeneralize, and I never once used that phrase.

Might as well, have, you blasted them for half the year!

But It does seem you are referring to the secretive forces Trump was sending in without them being requested and who did not on at least several occasions inform the local authorities they were coming nor were they invited.

So, here you go, again ---- in the case of Sicknick, you make every allowance possible, no matter how irrational, and make him a hero, where you villainized the federal officers who were protecting, among other things, federal property. And "Secretive"? You're still going with THAT?!?!? What "secret police" actually wear their unit patches on their shoulders?

All you're doing is proving my claim ---
A) you go through all kinds of hoops and hurdles STILL trying to make Sicknick a hero, when that has been exposed as a sham foisted by the Democrats for political purposes.
2) you go through all kinds of hoops and hurdles trying to defend all of your attacks on OTHER federal officers because OMB.

[Cow Poke]

One more item, then I need to get to bed - some of us get up early and go to work.

... They did not put on a sham impeachment, the presented the evidence that produced a majority vote to convict and which may well result in additional criminal or civil consequences for Trump....

You and I both know that "a majority" was not the standard for conviction, and pretty much everybody in the world knew that a conviction was not in the cards.
Perhaps they swallowed their own lies that Sicknick was "murdered" by the crowd, but that quickly crashed and burned.

It would be GREAT if they did try Trump for the murder of Officer Sicknick, because that would call for evidence, motions for discovery, exposing the rumors and lies for what they were, and it would blow up in the face of the prosecution. Even they're not that stupid, I would think. They're really really hoping the issue of Sicknick just goes away.

[oxmixmudd]

One more item, then I need to get to bed - some of us get up early and go to work.



You and I both know that "a majority" was not the standard for conviction, and pretty much everybody in the world knew that a conviction was not in the cards.

And that is exaclty why I said 'majority vote to convict' rather than 'convict'. Why would I choose some less accurate phrase?

Perhaps they swallowed their own lies that Sicknick was "murdered" by the crowd, but that quickly crashed and burned.

As is often pointed out here on tweb, a belief or an opinion is not a lie. I believe sicknick died in the line of duty. I believe that his stroke was a consequence of that day. And I am glad they honored him as they did. And I am not lying.

It would be GREAT if they did try Trump for the murder of Officer Sicknick, because that would call for evidence, motions for discovery, exposing the rumors and lies for what they were, and it would blow up in the face of the prosecution. Even they're not that stupid, I would think. They're really really hoping the issue of Sicknick just goes away.

Trump's legal jeopardy could perhaps include the death of Sicknick, but because it likely can't be proven the stress of that day was the definitive cause of the stroke, i would think that unlikely.

His legal troubles will come from his dereliction of duty, abandonment of his oath of office and his culpability in inciting the insurrection. His culpability for the beatings and trauma that are provably consequences of that day- the 140 officers, the danger the congressman and senators were in. It will come from his attempts to coerce election fraud in GA, and from other issues related to his taxes and his hush money payments to Daniel's.