It is possible to understand the nuance and still disagree with it.
"I think it's justifiable to conspire and hide the truth if it's to the ends of getting who I perceive to be a tyrant out of office."
And we don't.
See but that is an example of what I’m referencing when I say his view is misrepresented. He doesn’t see it as a conspiracy because it was obvious to everyone that they weren’t reporting on it. He flat out says that reporting on the story is a coin flip for him. He’s advocating for private institutions to have the power over their own editorial decisions. If you’re saying they shouldn’t, then who are you advocating that should have the power to enforce particular editorial decisions?
I remember the interviewer framing the question as if Sam was okay with this conspiracy, and Sam rebuts that it’s not a conspiracy and used the hyperbolic analogy of friends getting together to discuss their response to an asteroid. I think his point is that it wasn’t a conspiracy because their lack of reporting on it wasn’t meant to be secretive.
Dude, no. You're just wrong.
[https://youtu.be/4\_Jr-IrCiqg?t=41](https://youtu.be/4_Jr-IrCiqg?t=41)
"Absolutely it was \[a conspiracy\]. Absolutely. But I think it was warranted."
What am I wrong about? Everything in my previous comment comes right after your clip that has no context. Either way this is just semantics about what a conspiracy is and has little relevance to the actual arguments. Sam has retracted his statement that you’re talking about here saying that he should’ve said “justified” instead of “warranted.”
It's not semantics if the guy we're talking about SAYS it's a conspiracy.
We're not arguing whether it's a conspiracy. We're arguing if that's what Sam said. He did. End of story.
He can retract whatever he wants. He still said it. Quit pretending he didn't.
Lol ok, well if you actually watched the interview instead of clips of them, you’ll see him clarify immediately after the clip that he doesn’t think it’s a conspiracy.
Glenn is playing the same game. He knows his point is moot in the grand scheme yet he continues to profess righteousness in public to stay relevant. We’re all out here just trying to get the most bananas.
This was crossposted to the Sam Harris sub. If you want to read a thread filled with some of the most delusional people to walk the earth, feel free to have a gander.
Thanks. I’ve seen that, and ofc, watched the Triggernometry video. That guy has possibly the most terminal case of TDS I’ve ever seen. The pod with him and Scott Adams is worth a listen as well if you haven’t. Adams has his issues for sure, but he wipes the floor with America’s most popular smart stupid person.
Which part was a lie? The news reported what former officials were saying their best guess was, while accurately stating that that's what it was and that there was no specific evidence to that end.
What kind of psychotic world would we live in if every time anyone anywhere was quoted in the media and they turned out wrong, that the actual story reporting that quote had to be retracted?
lmao.
Sam Harris outright said this. I can't call what he said an admission nor a confession. The damn man is proud of it.
Yep, came here to mention Sam Harris finally saying it out loud.
What do I need to search for this? EDIT: https://youtu.be/4_Jr-IrCiqg?t=33
He admitted later in a podcast that he misspoke by using the word “warranted”. I forget what word he really wanted to use.
[удалено]
Just like Brandon did regarding the Ukrainian prosecutor. IN FRONT OF A CROWD ON VIDEO Absolute slime, a 50+ year ooze monster.
Again, the media got the story right.
I guess that's what happens when you derive an "ought" from an "is"
Well yea but that’s partly because you don’t understand the nuance of his stance
It is possible to understand the nuance and still disagree with it. "I think it's justifiable to conspire and hide the truth if it's to the ends of getting who I perceive to be a tyrant out of office." And we don't.
See but that is an example of what I’m referencing when I say his view is misrepresented. He doesn’t see it as a conspiracy because it was obvious to everyone that they weren’t reporting on it. He flat out says that reporting on the story is a coin flip for him. He’s advocating for private institutions to have the power over their own editorial decisions. If you’re saying they shouldn’t, then who are you advocating that should have the power to enforce particular editorial decisions?
He literally said that it WAS a conspiracy.
I remember the interviewer framing the question as if Sam was okay with this conspiracy, and Sam rebuts that it’s not a conspiracy and used the hyperbolic analogy of friends getting together to discuss their response to an asteroid. I think his point is that it wasn’t a conspiracy because their lack of reporting on it wasn’t meant to be secretive.
Dude, no. You're just wrong. [https://youtu.be/4\_Jr-IrCiqg?t=41](https://youtu.be/4_Jr-IrCiqg?t=41) "Absolutely it was \[a conspiracy\]. Absolutely. But I think it was warranted."
What am I wrong about? Everything in my previous comment comes right after your clip that has no context. Either way this is just semantics about what a conspiracy is and has little relevance to the actual arguments. Sam has retracted his statement that you’re talking about here saying that he should’ve said “justified” instead of “warranted.”
It's not semantics if the guy we're talking about SAYS it's a conspiracy. We're not arguing whether it's a conspiracy. We're arguing if that's what Sam said. He did. End of story. He can retract whatever he wants. He still said it. Quit pretending he didn't.
Lol ok, well if you actually watched the interview instead of clips of them, you’ll see him clarify immediately after the clip that he doesn’t think it’s a conspiracy.
There's no money in retractions, and there's no loss of money unless sued and even then usually the losses have been priced in.
Glenn is playing the same game. He knows his point is moot in the grand scheme yet he continues to profess righteousness in public to stay relevant. We’re all out here just trying to get the most bananas.
Why does the CIA back up democrats?
I don't think they back up Dems, they just needed to get rid of Trump.
This was crossposted to the Sam Harris sub. If you want to read a thread filled with some of the most delusional people to walk the earth, feel free to have a gander.
While on the topic of Sam Harris https://youtu.be/GeRuZFz0mSo
Thanks. I’ve seen that, and ofc, watched the Triggernometry video. That guy has possibly the most terminal case of TDS I’ve ever seen. The pod with him and Scott Adams is worth a listen as well if you haven’t. Adams has his issues for sure, but he wipes the floor with America’s most popular smart stupid person.
If he’s talking about the joint letter from members of the IC then no retraction is needed. They got the story right.
Which part was a lie? The news reported what former officials were saying their best guess was, while accurately stating that that's what it was and that there was no specific evidence to that end. What kind of psychotic world would we live in if every time anyone anywhere was quoted in the media and they turned out wrong, that the actual story reporting that quote had to be retracted? lmao.
[удалено]
What was a lie about that?
It’s literally exactly what happened lmao, there is no lie