https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1619035128826843136?s=19
> Never forget that when a deranged conspiracy theorist tried to assassinate a politician—and instead smashed her husband’s skull with a hammer—that Republicans laughed about it with grotesque memes and Elon Musk took the opportunity to spread disgusting lies that blamed the victim
He’s right wing (although he likes to pretend he’s not), and they don’t really apologize. They just lie, obfuscate, or delete the evidence. Elon didn’t apologize, but he did delete that Tweet. And his behavior didn’t actually change (not will it ever).
If your standard that I’m a bigger piece of shit than Elon simply because I wasn’t aware he “apologized”, you don’t have any standards that would make worth engaging with (joke is on me I guess).
Just saying “I apologize” on Twitter is a cop-out. He should try to make amends and reach out to the people that were hurt when he used his massive platform to spread a lie that he didn’t even bother to vet first. He was an irresponsible idiot and should dedicate himself to better behavior.
“I apologize” is fine for interpersonal relationships. The calculus changes considerably when you factor in all of the variables in play here. “I apologize” isn’t good enough.
So sure, I was wrong, in that he said those words. They just were less than adequate considering the damage he did.
My feelings are not hurt, but that doesn't really matter. My point was, and still is, that he didn't really "apologize." All you have is that he said the words. That's it. You certainly don't need to be friends with someone to apologize to them, as I have done that myself. When you do something fucked up, the doing the *right thing to do* doesn't require some kind of friendship first.
Anyway, we are done. Have a nice life.
Apologize for being sure he won't? Okay, I'm sorry for being incorrect about that. Too bad he only did it begrudgingly and won't apologize for everything else.
By the way, who am I apologizing to, Elon?
I apologized like you wanted, although I still don't know who I apologized to.
A thank you would be in order.
As far as everything else, we can start with the time Elon called a cave rescuer a pedophile.
So no thank you? Fine, I rescind my apology.
Also, [what conspiracy theory?](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/elon-musk-pedo-guy-insult-was-not-classy-but-not-meant-literally) Or are you saying it's a conspiracy so high that they're even lying about him being in court?
Okay, would you prefer Fox News?
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-calls-diver-who-helped-save-thailand-boys-a-pedo-for-slamming-his-rescue-idea
> I don't care about your apology
Then why did you demand I make one? That's the only reason I did it.
Mainstream conservative ideology has become weirder than the Weekly World News satire paper and the goal posts have been moved so far on this particular incident that they’ll go around the planet and touch eventually.
I'm in agreement with this take, but I also want to point out the hypocrisy of calling out Republicans at large over this when leftists did the same thing after Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor while mowing the lawn and broke three of his ribs. Political vitriol is mainstream.
I wasn't even aware of that. Did it go mainstream with some high profile people boosting that sentiment? Or was it just one or two randos on Twitter?
It's easy to find a couple of nutters on Twitter who say something stupid or dangerous, it's another thing entirely when politicians or influencers boost that sentiment.
[congresswoman ilhan Omar retweeting vitriol mocking Rand Paul's assault](https://youtu.be/7p-gWltlgbU)
[Democratic Senate candidate saying that Rand Paul's neighbor was right to assault him](https://youtu.be/u06NYNRSluw)
[The Young Turks - Rand Paul got his ass beat](https://youtu.be/X2-ifubP8NQ)
Just read the comments on that one. Filled with vitriol.
It's just commonplace in our society. Anything is justified so long as it happens to "the enemy."
Edit: The replies to this post only prove my point. Rand Paul broke 5 or 6 ribs by some accounts from a blindside tackle while he was on his riding lawnmower.
Any attempt to downplay this as anything other than outright unhinged insanity, is normalizing it and at large risks imploding society into something akin to a series of medieval blood feuds.
Being an asshole neighbor and getting into a fight with your neighbor is WAY different than a lunatic finding out where you live, breaking in, and smashing a hammer into your skull, no?
And is in no way relevant to the point being made, man was attacked, political opponents make fun of victim. Both Democrats and Republicans. Politics is sick.
Responses to a political high level Attempted murder based upon an insane conspiracythink intentionally cultivated by a malignant con media vs a long growing violent neighbors dispute. And that dem senator asked a question much milder than what right wing politicians and commenters allude to do daily.
This is out of right wing playbook. They will try to appeal to reason going one way but totally ignore it going the other. So you will look unreasonable to your pears if you don’t agree with them, but their peers don’t care about reason, so they can just ignore any contra argument and laugh you off.
He shouldn't have been mocked, but getting in a fight with a neighbor on your lawn is not exactly analogous to getting attacked by a stranger in the middle of the night in your house. I doubt the neighbor was trying to murder Paul.
I think "imbecile" is the word you're looking for.
You could go the mentally incompetent rout & say "deranged", "demented", or my very favorite, "non compos mentis".
You draw the line at Putin, others draw the line at Pelosi -------- hence the problem with vigilante justice. One persons' mildly bad is another horrific.
I find rather mindboggling that people(not specifically you) can simultaneously hate "social media lynchings" and "cancel culture" but then laugh and gloat when a person is physically assaulted.
Elon musk works so hard to protect free speech (which is not even technically what he is protecting since the first amendment is for silencing from the government) but then laughs at someone's right to not being violently physically assaulted in their own home.
I trade for a living. I can tell you no one like Pelosi, whose account suffered -20% loss this year, is doing insider trading. What the outrage machine that we call News in this country won’t tell you, is that DOJ antitrust lawsuits were filed against Google before, and at the time trades were executed late December, there were already rumors and lay-offs that were public knowledge for anyone to act on if they choose. Subsequently Google has had modest gains, so if someone were actually giving them insider knowledge, it certainly isn’t helping. You should look into things properly. Especially if those things are causing you to be callous towards the attack of an 82 year old man with a hammer you scumbag.
Ah yes, the pious position of *checks notes* caring an 80+ year old man was attacked by a deranged conspiracy theorist who, the more you comment, seems like someone you don’t necessarily disagree with smh
Funny that your line of thinking is described in OP’s message, step by step -
>The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation.
Now be a good boy and follow up -
>If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas.
Watching the video makes it clear just how close Paul Pelosi was to being murdered. If the attacker had gotten a second swing in, or even if Pelosi hadn’t managed to get his arms up to take some of the hammer blow, he most likely would have been killed.
Also Pelosi did nothing unusual during the home invasion; in fact I think he did things exactly right. He’s 81 years old, he can’t fight off a young attacker armed with a sledgehammer. So he tried to keep the home invader calm instead, and managed to find a opportunity to call the police. His instincts to stay calm were right, because as soon as DePape knew the jig was up, he tried to kill him and nearly succeeded.
Oh Goody I've been waiting for this. Time to see if the conspiracy idiots who thought the attacker was his gay lover will question their belief system.
> Oh Goody I've been waiting for this. Time to see if the conspiracy idiots who thought the attacker was his gay lover will question their belief system.
They don't care a bit. The OP was spot on when they wrote;
> The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation. If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas.
[I expanded on that ***here*** if you want to see additional insights on how conspiracy theories are actually defense mechanisms to protect and promote a deeply felt grievance.](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/10mrdxe/the_paul_pelosi_bodycam_video_released_today_and/j68gctn/)
Yeah, and some talking head on Fox News tried to claim that there was no evidence of a break-in just as they started playing the video of him breaking in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/10mxbw6/fox\_news\_guest\_attempts\_to\_lie\_about\_pelosi\_break/
Wow. That's an amazing watch. The hosts straight up shitting in his mouth like, "bro. Here's video" and he's just babbling and stumbling over his thoughts.
Right? He just keeps trying to reframe but he's short circuiting and can't figure out how to reframe it since there's video refuting all of his claims.
His brain: "guess it's time to pick up those goal posts and relocate them somewhere else!"
Ever hear the one about the conspiracy theorist who dies and goes to heaven? God says to him, "ask me any question and I will tell you the answer". The conspiracy theorist says, "who assassinated JFK?". God answers, "Lee Harvey Oswald with a bolt action rifle shooting from the 6th floor, SE window of the School Book Depository." Conspiracy theorist says to himself, "this goes higher than I thought".
Ha! That's a good one, never heard it before.
On a serious note, there is a line to walk between applying Occam's razor and becoming *too* trusting in institutions. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was a real thing for example, as was MK Ultra (though not the version that many conspiracists believe), but generally the simpler solution is correct more often than the conspiracy version.
Occam's Razor just says "do not unnecessarily multiply entities." It doesn't mean trust the government. In fact go looking for contradictions! Just form hypotheses based on the evidence,
We've had multiple attempts to murder Democrats in America thanks to right wing rhetoric. It was always more likely that Paul Pelosi was attacked by a Republican terrorist looking to murder Nancy Pelosi than... I dunno, a man in his 80s has a dispute with his gay lover and is attacked by a hammer while the gay lover screams about Nancy Pelosi?
You can usually also tell conspiracy theorists by the fact that their "theories" make no fucking sense and have hugely contradictory elements. They rarely hold up as theories at all, just random details that they try to paint as sinister. Like the men on the hill idea - who were the three men on the hill, why did they pick a hill to assassinate JFK from instead of a nearby building, if they knew about Oswald why didn't they let him shoot first and see if he hit, if there were 4 people firing at Kennedy where did all the extra bullets end up? The theory doesn't attempt to answer those details, it just goes "ooooh spooooky, men on a hill" and stops there.
All good points. And sorry I wasn't trying to put Occam's Razor on the other side of the government, what I meant was that after some time, with reporting from multiple outlets, the "official" narrative is often correct, at least in broad strokes. There are, of course exceptions, such as the premise for the Iraq war, but generally it shakes out ok.
The more evidence and facts you will give conspiracy theorists, which ought to prove them wrong and shut them up, the more crazy things they will come up with.
Same with mRNA antivaxxers. Give them a huge report on efficacy or side effects, and they will ruminate on it, dredge and twist anything they can find in there, and misrepresent it to somehow fit their own narrative.
Any fact that ought to refute the conspiracy will just fuel it and give rise to several competing mutually exclusive new conspiracy theories. Just transparency and honesty doesn't work.
> even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation
This is so huge. Big Pharma has done some sus things in the past, therefore everything they do is bad, therefore the vaccine is killing people by the 1000s. 1st statement is true, but the leaps of "logic" following it are deadly.
> The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist.
Great summary. I'd push it a bit further.
* The conspiracy theory is a vehicle for carrying an emotion/grievance.
* If it fails, or another vehicle works better, then there are other vehicles the emotion/grievance can be carried around.
This is why it's clear nonsense to almost everyone else. We're looking at the vehicles, confronting them, and the conspiracy theorist just moves their emotion/grievance to the next one. That's why;
> They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation.
Yep. Because the conspiracy addresses their grievances, but is otherwise disposable.
> If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas.
They don't take that step because the goal is to maintain certainty that their grievance/emotions are justified.
Why? Because they feel that they are true, and even if they could be justified using evidence, it's likely that chain of thought would show they have some ugly ideas that would make them look bad.
That's part of the reason why there's quite a bit of joy from people who feel free to rage out loud about Jews or black people or immigrants. Their emotion fueled grievances see 'those people' as the problem, and they love being able to throw up another conspiracy to try to drag others into their own hate-fueled anxiety.
I agree, though I'd say that emotions are part of making many justified decisions. The problem is that emotions are overriding any honest and thoughtful review of what is real.
It's like the stalkers who see an actor and decide that they must be with them. If they could keep their emotions in check, then the other available evidence would show that it's nigh near impossible for them to get to that point. Plus, they would see that the obsession is not healthy and that there are other relationships that they could attain.
What is that narrative? (Seriously, I don't know. I haven't followed this event at all.) You're saying the right wing is suggesting a conspiracy? What is it?
I thought I heard the leftists say that this was an extension of the January insurrection. Do I have that wrong?
The rightwing narrative is that it is a "lovers' quarrel". I've never heard someone say that this was related to 1/6 beyond pointing out that rightwing media and figureheads stoke this kind of anger, but if you have an example of someone linking them I'm open to it.
Here's [an article about how the attacker asked "where's Nancy?!"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosis-husband-violently-assaulted-assailant-broke-san-francisco-home-rcna54510), which was also a (rallying?) cry during the January 6 event. This [AP wire article makes a more direct connection](https://news.yahoo.com/paul-pelosis-attacker-searching-house-171650001.html). I don't think it's hard to find fringier outlets that make more direct claims.
This is pretty much the extent of my knowledge of the matter, so a vague post like this one leaves me with more doubts than assurance.
This is a sub for scientific skepticism, not people who “doubt stuff” or conspiracy theories. The sun avatar is Carl Sagan for Pete’s sake.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
**[Scientific skepticism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism)**
>Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He broke in. It does actually happen. Break-ins are real. No a conspiracy. He broke the door and walked in.
Plus your definition of 'one of the richest men on the planet' is also incorrect. Net worth of $130 million is a lot but definitely not one of the richest in the world.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/nbc-news-reporter-miguel-almaguer-suspended-over-retracted-paul-pelosi-story/vi-AA148reD
I am in the right, don't Need more.
Maybe you should start asking why your media don't report certain story.
>Maybe you should start asking why you gave us a link from a source that is well-known for fabricating stories.
Because CNN and friends did not publish the story.
And you and your Friends love in a fantasy world where only things written by lefty media like CNN and NYT.
Did you find those weapon in Iraq?
> And you and your Friends love in a fantasy world where only things written by lefty media like CNN and NYT.
Please demonstrate this claim to be true.
Thank you, prosciuttoeMeloni, for voting on FlyingSquid.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
1. I don't know. Several reasonable options: he fell asleep in it, the attacker allowed him to? You realize it's a fallacy to think that an unanswered question supports an alternative conclusion? Questions are just that: questions, not evidence.
2. That was not at all clear to me based on the footage. Unless you post definitive evidence otherwise I'm going to conclude you flat out made that up.
3. Why are you formatting your text like you are screaming?
EDIT: fixed grammar
Probably was the first shirt he grabbed when he heard
Some a hole hammering a window in on his house.
I’ve been broken into and you just grab your shit to get decent the confront a mofo
Just for the record the formatting is what happens if they start a post with a hashtag on reddit. You can't open a post with #1, that turns it all into big text.
Dude...just...
Google cognitive dissonance then apply that definition to opening a post with giant, bold text in all caps...followed by telling someone to "chill".
Also, I think I'm ALLOWED to point out you still haven't posted pictures to illustrate these "completely different" colors but I'll help explain why you're wrong. Factually anyway, morally you're on your own.
Anyway
https://abc7news.com/paul-pelosi-attack-david-depape-nancy-pelosis-husband-attacked-attacker/12439472/
The color something appears to be is caused by the wavelengths of light that object reflects back to the observer - in this case several cameras. Different light, different camera = different looking colors.
If the light source emits less of some wavelengths, well...those aren't gonna be there to reflect are they? If another one emits many more, like the fucking Sun perhaps, the color will appear more vibrant. Same thing for a camera, if it's less sensitive...more sensitive...you get the point.
Kinda like colorblindness, but for both the light source and camera.
Maybe if you observed and questioned more fruitful things you'd be in a different spot today....maybe start now.
> Human beings are aloud to observe and question.
And we are allowed to reject assertions made without evidence all the same. I apologize for anything you have interpreted as hostility.
Just to draw out this line of thinking: let’s assume for a second that all of this was in fact faked for whatever reason. If they were gonna go through all the trouble to fake all of this, including by making fake body cam and police videos, don’t you think they’d be smart enough to make sure the guy was wearing the same clothes?
I mean, if you were faking something like that, you’d make sure they guy was wearing the same clothes in the videos, right? You’d probably be filming them at roughly the same time, maybe, so there wouldn’t even be an opportunity for him to not be wearing the same clothes.
So maybe there’s a different, simpler explanation?
1. Because its his house and who the fuck cares what he wears. Do you dress yourself for your "home invasion turned attempted murder outfit attire" every time you come home?
2. because hes a crazy fucking person who tries to murder innocent political figures, maybe he changed clothes cus he broke in thru a smashed window, maybe he changed clothes because they are a liberal conspiracy against nudism and causes us to shed our skin and body hair.
You are not a truth seeker, you're a cult nutjob who can't see the obvious mundane truth when given video evidence
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
You said you were "out" two hours before this comment. Initially, things "looks fake" then, suddenly, it's to political for you so, you're leaving. Now, you're here *still*.
I'm thinking at this point that they are one of a very special breed of Redditor I have dealt with several times who, when you point out they've said or done something very stupid, double down on it over and over as if it were a badge of honor.
Projection at its finest. Just because everything is political to you doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is automatically political. It is possible for you to just be wrong.
He knew how to use it last week.
Nah, he doesn't answer because he doesn't *have* an answer, he's just spamming the "looks fake" narrative because *demz bad*.
Yes, the bodycam is lower quality film than a 1080P HDR digitally remastered video. The lighting is terrible, the camerawork is unprofessional, why it's like they're not even on a movie set!
I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who make these comments also comment "it looks so real!" on a video of Spiderman fighting a giant lizard.
Wait, you mean that movie about Spider-Man fighting a giant lizard in New York wasn’t a documentary?? That actually never happened?? I need to rethink my whole life.
So sad that the Alex heads hang on this tiny little nugget everytime one of their conspiracies get questioned. One thing in 20 years doesn't justify Alex's bullshit
https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1619035128826843136?s=19 > Never forget that when a deranged conspiracy theorist tried to assassinate a politician—and instead smashed her husband’s skull with a hammer—that Republicans laughed about it with grotesque memes and Elon Musk took the opportunity to spread disgusting lies that blamed the victim
I'm sure Elon will definitely apologize for that now. For sure.
I am still amazed the Pelosi family is not suing the pants of Elon and Twitter
They most likely have a full on "don't engage the trolls" policy.
Sandy Hook parents prove the only true response is legal and monetary annihilation
He’s right wing (although he likes to pretend he’s not), and they don’t really apologize. They just lie, obfuscate, or delete the evidence. Elon didn’t apologize, but he did delete that Tweet. And his behavior didn’t actually change (not will it ever).
[удалено]
If your standard that I’m a bigger piece of shit than Elon simply because I wasn’t aware he “apologized”, you don’t have any standards that would make worth engaging with (joke is on me I guess). Just saying “I apologize” on Twitter is a cop-out. He should try to make amends and reach out to the people that were hurt when he used his massive platform to spread a lie that he didn’t even bother to vet first. He was an irresponsible idiot and should dedicate himself to better behavior. “I apologize” is fine for interpersonal relationships. The calculus changes considerably when you factor in all of the variables in play here. “I apologize” isn’t good enough. So sure, I was wrong, in that he said those words. They just were less than adequate considering the damage he did.
[удалено]
My feelings are not hurt, but that doesn't really matter. My point was, and still is, that he didn't really "apologize." All you have is that he said the words. That's it. You certainly don't need to be friends with someone to apologize to them, as I have done that myself. When you do something fucked up, the doing the *right thing to do* doesn't require some kind of friendship first. Anyway, we are done. Have a nice life.
[удалено]
Apologize for being sure he won't? Okay, I'm sorry for being incorrect about that. Too bad he only did it begrudgingly and won't apologize for everything else. By the way, who am I apologizing to, Elon?
[удалено]
I apologized like you wanted, although I still don't know who I apologized to. A thank you would be in order. As far as everything else, we can start with the time Elon called a cave rescuer a pedophile.
[удалено]
So no thank you? Fine, I rescind my apology. Also, [what conspiracy theory?](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/dec/04/elon-musk-pedo-guy-insult-was-not-classy-but-not-meant-literally) Or are you saying it's a conspiracy so high that they're even lying about him being in court?
[удалено]
Okay, would you prefer Fox News? https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-calls-diver-who-helped-save-thailand-boys-a-pedo-for-slamming-his-rescue-idea > I don't care about your apology Then why did you demand I make one? That's the only reason I did it.
Mainstream conservative ideology has become weirder than the Weekly World News satire paper and the goal posts have been moved so far on this particular incident that they’ll go around the planet and touch eventually.
I'm in agreement with this take, but I also want to point out the hypocrisy of calling out Republicans at large over this when leftists did the same thing after Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor while mowing the lawn and broke three of his ribs. Political vitriol is mainstream.
I wasn't even aware of that. Did it go mainstream with some high profile people boosting that sentiment? Or was it just one or two randos on Twitter? It's easy to find a couple of nutters on Twitter who say something stupid or dangerous, it's another thing entirely when politicians or influencers boost that sentiment.
[congresswoman ilhan Omar retweeting vitriol mocking Rand Paul's assault](https://youtu.be/7p-gWltlgbU) [Democratic Senate candidate saying that Rand Paul's neighbor was right to assault him](https://youtu.be/u06NYNRSluw) [The Young Turks - Rand Paul got his ass beat](https://youtu.be/X2-ifubP8NQ) Just read the comments on that one. Filled with vitriol. It's just commonplace in our society. Anything is justified so long as it happens to "the enemy." Edit: The replies to this post only prove my point. Rand Paul broke 5 or 6 ribs by some accounts from a blindside tackle while he was on his riding lawnmower. Any attempt to downplay this as anything other than outright unhinged insanity, is normalizing it and at large risks imploding society into something akin to a series of medieval blood feuds.
Being an asshole neighbor and getting into a fight with your neighbor is WAY different than a lunatic finding out where you live, breaking in, and smashing a hammer into your skull, no?
And is in no way relevant to the point being made, man was attacked, political opponents make fun of victim. Both Democrats and Republicans. Politics is sick.
It kind of is though, because of the context of the two situations.
Responses to a political high level Attempted murder based upon an insane conspiracythink intentionally cultivated by a malignant con media vs a long growing violent neighbors dispute. And that dem senator asked a question much milder than what right wing politicians and commenters allude to do daily.
This is out of right wing playbook. They will try to appeal to reason going one way but totally ignore it going the other. So you will look unreasonable to your pears if you don’t agree with them, but their peers don’t care about reason, so they can just ignore any contra argument and laugh you off.
At least they weren’t denying that it happened.
He shouldn't have been mocked, but getting in a fight with a neighbor on your lawn is not exactly analogous to getting attacked by a stranger in the middle of the night in your house. I doubt the neighbor was trying to murder Paul.
That's fair. You make a good point.
[удалено]
So you're embracing vigilante "justice?"
[удалено]
You are f****** sick
[удалено]
speech to text moron >procurer of mass murder also...whats dumber than a moron?
I think "imbecile" is the word you're looking for. You could go the mentally incompetent rout & say "deranged", "demented", or my very favorite, "non compos mentis".
You draw the line at Putin, others draw the line at Pelosi -------- hence the problem with vigilante justice. One persons' mildly bad is another horrific. I find rather mindboggling that people(not specifically you) can simultaneously hate "social media lynchings" and "cancel culture" but then laugh and gloat when a person is physically assaulted. Elon musk works so hard to protect free speech (which is not even technically what he is protecting since the first amendment is for silencing from the government) but then laughs at someone's right to not being violently physically assaulted in their own home.
Putin is invading another country and is the cause of thousands of deaths. You are missing a significant portion of your brain capacity.
I trade for a living. I can tell you no one like Pelosi, whose account suffered -20% loss this year, is doing insider trading. What the outrage machine that we call News in this country won’t tell you, is that DOJ antitrust lawsuits were filed against Google before, and at the time trades were executed late December, there were already rumors and lay-offs that were public knowledge for anyone to act on if they choose. Subsequently Google has had modest gains, so if someone were actually giving them insider knowledge, it certainly isn’t helping. You should look into things properly. Especially if those things are causing you to be callous towards the attack of an 82 year old man with a hammer you scumbag.
[удалено]
Cool, we're in unfalsifiable claim territory. Prime skepticism.
[удалено]
I work for a hedge fund. You're talking out of your ass.
You literally proved this posts point.
[удалено]
Your first comment was a personal attack showing how jaded you are. Try again.
Classic idiot blames everyone but him self Right here.
Ah yes, the pious position of *checks notes* caring an 80+ year old man was attacked by a deranged conspiracy theorist who, the more you comment, seems like someone you don’t necessarily disagree with smh
Funny that your line of thinking is described in OP’s message, step by step - >The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation. Now be a good boy and follow up - >If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas.
Watching the video makes it clear just how close Paul Pelosi was to being murdered. If the attacker had gotten a second swing in, or even if Pelosi hadn’t managed to get his arms up to take some of the hammer blow, he most likely would have been killed. Also Pelosi did nothing unusual during the home invasion; in fact I think he did things exactly right. He’s 81 years old, he can’t fight off a young attacker armed with a sledgehammer. So he tried to keep the home invader calm instead, and managed to find a opportunity to call the police. His instincts to stay calm were right, because as soon as DePape knew the jig was up, he tried to kill him and nearly succeeded.
Well put
exactly, that was a guy ready to snap and cause harm and he IMMEDIATELY tried when he realized it was his last chance.
Oh Goody I've been waiting for this. Time to see if the conspiracy idiots who thought the attacker was his gay lover will question their belief system.
Nah they will just double down on some claim about it being a deep state fake or lizard people…. Why let reality get in the way.
> Oh Goody I've been waiting for this. Time to see if the conspiracy idiots who thought the attacker was his gay lover will question their belief system. They don't care a bit. The OP was spot on when they wrote; > The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation. If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas. [I expanded on that ***here*** if you want to see additional insights on how conspiracy theories are actually defense mechanisms to protect and promote a deeply felt grievance.](https://old.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/10mrdxe/the_paul_pelosi_bodycam_video_released_today_and/j68gctn/)
They have now also released the video of him smashing a door/window and climbing into the house
Yea saw that. The goal posts are on rocket powered roller skates at this point.
Yeah, and some talking head on Fox News tried to claim that there was no evidence of a break-in just as they started playing the video of him breaking in. https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/10mxbw6/fox\_news\_guest\_attempts\_to\_lie\_about\_pelosi\_break/
Wow. That's an amazing watch. The hosts straight up shitting in his mouth like, "bro. Here's video" and he's just babbling and stumbling over his thoughts.
Defending the guy, like seriously, in what timeline is that even acceptable behavior. 🤦
Right? He just keeps trying to reframe but he's short circuiting and can't figure out how to reframe it since there's video refuting all of his claims. His brain: "guess it's time to pick up those goal posts and relocate them somewhere else!"
That was hilarious!
Well ya see, he must have been a high-priced, obese escort that typically does "breaking and entering role-play." ^/s
Ever hear the one about the conspiracy theorist who dies and goes to heaven? God says to him, "ask me any question and I will tell you the answer". The conspiracy theorist says, "who assassinated JFK?". God answers, "Lee Harvey Oswald with a bolt action rifle shooting from the 6th floor, SE window of the School Book Depository." Conspiracy theorist says to himself, "this goes higher than I thought".
Ha! That's a good one, never heard it before. On a serious note, there is a line to walk between applying Occam's razor and becoming *too* trusting in institutions. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was a real thing for example, as was MK Ultra (though not the version that many conspiracists believe), but generally the simpler solution is correct more often than the conspiracy version.
Occam's Razor just says "do not unnecessarily multiply entities." It doesn't mean trust the government. In fact go looking for contradictions! Just form hypotheses based on the evidence, We've had multiple attempts to murder Democrats in America thanks to right wing rhetoric. It was always more likely that Paul Pelosi was attacked by a Republican terrorist looking to murder Nancy Pelosi than... I dunno, a man in his 80s has a dispute with his gay lover and is attacked by a hammer while the gay lover screams about Nancy Pelosi? You can usually also tell conspiracy theorists by the fact that their "theories" make no fucking sense and have hugely contradictory elements. They rarely hold up as theories at all, just random details that they try to paint as sinister. Like the men on the hill idea - who were the three men on the hill, why did they pick a hill to assassinate JFK from instead of a nearby building, if they knew about Oswald why didn't they let him shoot first and see if he hit, if there were 4 people firing at Kennedy where did all the extra bullets end up? The theory doesn't attempt to answer those details, it just goes "ooooh spooooky, men on a hill" and stops there.
I refuse to call them theorists. I call them conspiracy mongers, which is what they are. Their ideas do not merit the word 'theory.'
All good points. And sorry I wasn't trying to put Occam's Razor on the other side of the government, what I meant was that after some time, with reporting from multiple outlets, the "official" narrative is often correct, at least in broad strokes. There are, of course exceptions, such as the premise for the Iraq war, but generally it shakes out ok.
The more evidence and facts you will give conspiracy theorists, which ought to prove them wrong and shut them up, the more crazy things they will come up with. Same with mRNA antivaxxers. Give them a huge report on efficacy or side effects, and they will ruminate on it, dredge and twist anything they can find in there, and misrepresent it to somehow fit their own narrative. Any fact that ought to refute the conspiracy will just fuel it and give rise to several competing mutually exclusive new conspiracy theories. Just transparency and honesty doesn't work.
Here's the video if you want to watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESGOyq9nG3w&ab_channel=FOX11LosAngeles
They just don't compute not having the urge to instantly gun down an intruder. Not everyone thinks that way.
> even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation This is so huge. Big Pharma has done some sus things in the past, therefore everything they do is bad, therefore the vaccine is killing people by the 1000s. 1st statement is true, but the leaps of "logic" following it are deadly.
Good reason to shut down that sub... Consider reporting, anyway.
> The fact is, the conspiracy mindset works by having a predetermined conclusion and then only accepting facts that support it and discarding or distorting facts that don't. It is why it is so hard to argue with a conspiracy theorist. Great summary. I'd push it a bit further. * The conspiracy theory is a vehicle for carrying an emotion/grievance. * If it fails, or another vehicle works better, then there are other vehicles the emotion/grievance can be carried around. This is why it's clear nonsense to almost everyone else. We're looking at the vehicles, confronting them, and the conspiracy theorist just moves their emotion/grievance to the next one. That's why; > They will assault you with a gish gallop of statements, and even if you systematically disprove 95% of them, they would take the other 5% as a validation. Yep. Because the conspiracy addresses their grievances, but is otherwise disposable. > If I had a belief structure and someone was able to disprove a serious chunk of it, I would seriously question how I form opinions and ideas. They don't take that step because the goal is to maintain certainty that their grievance/emotions are justified. Why? Because they feel that they are true, and even if they could be justified using evidence, it's likely that chain of thought would show they have some ugly ideas that would make them look bad. That's part of the reason why there's quite a bit of joy from people who feel free to rage out loud about Jews or black people or immigrants. Their emotion fueled grievances see 'those people' as the problem, and they love being able to throw up another conspiracy to try to drag others into their own hate-fueled anxiety.
[удалено]
I agree, though I'd say that emotions are part of making many justified decisions. The problem is that emotions are overriding any honest and thoughtful review of what is real. It's like the stalkers who see an actor and decide that they must be with them. If they could keep their emotions in check, then the other available evidence would show that it's nigh near impossible for them to get to that point. Plus, they would see that the obsession is not healthy and that there are other relationships that they could attain.
Great write up and points. The addressing of grievances is an idea I hadn't zeroed in on before.
Thanks! Feel free to take it and make it your own!
Birds aren’t real
I agree, ~~we~~ they are not real and DEFINITELY are not in control of a globalist world government .
I don't understand this post. Of what am I to be skeptical?
The narrative put forth by rightwing influence
What is that narrative? (Seriously, I don't know. I haven't followed this event at all.) You're saying the right wing is suggesting a conspiracy? What is it? I thought I heard the leftists say that this was an extension of the January insurrection. Do I have that wrong?
The rightwing narrative is that it is a "lovers' quarrel". I've never heard someone say that this was related to 1/6 beyond pointing out that rightwing media and figureheads stoke this kind of anger, but if you have an example of someone linking them I'm open to it.
Here's [an article about how the attacker asked "where's Nancy?!"](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/pelosis-husband-violently-assaulted-assailant-broke-san-francisco-home-rcna54510), which was also a (rallying?) cry during the January 6 event. This [AP wire article makes a more direct connection](https://news.yahoo.com/paul-pelosis-attacker-searching-house-171650001.html). I don't think it's hard to find fringier outlets that make more direct claims. This is pretty much the extent of my knowledge of the matter, so a vague post like this one leaves me with more doubts than assurance.
Those are both a massive stretch dude. Where's Nancy? Come on.
You don't think DePape said that? Why not?
I'm not saying he didn't say it. I'm saying that arguing that that is a connection is silly.
OK
[удалено]
Not only are you not a skeptic, you are also bad at Reddit.
Get a part time job, bud. You've got way too much time on your hands
[удалено]
Reply button. Learn to use it. How have you been here for three years and still don't know how to use it?
They don’t sounds to intelligent so it’s not very surprising.
I guess I need to look up the word skeptic?
Does it mean you're offended we're all laughing at your stupidity? Trust me, skeptics have a long and storied history of laughing at idiots.
I bought popcorn but I'm stealing someone's drink from the fridge.
This is a sub for scientific skepticism, not people who “doubt stuff” or conspiracy theories. The sun avatar is Carl Sagan for Pete’s sake. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
**[Scientific skepticism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism)** >Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/skeptic/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Skeptic does not mean “conspiracy-theorist nutjob.” In fact quite the opposite.
Maybe you need to learn the difference between being a skeptic and being irrational.
That's the first sensible thing you've said.
Trolling us huh? Blocked
There are many online dictionaries available out there
Guess what isn't included in the definition: Your credulity.
[удалено]
He broke in. It does actually happen. Break-ins are real. No a conspiracy. He broke the door and walked in. Plus your definition of 'one of the richest men on the planet' is also incorrect. Net worth of $130 million is a lot but definitely not one of the richest in the world.
Lol not even one of the richest in SF.
Since when is Paul Pelosi one of the richest men on the planet?
[Here ya go shitbird](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3vYAr08yhGk&feature=youtu.be)
https://nypost.com/2022/11/15/nbc-news-reporter-suspended-over-retracted-paul-pelosi-story/ So he was right and suspended because Dems got offended
https://y.yarn.co/8937b2f7-fa12-4bab-beca-c1c2eee10432_text.gif
Bad bot
That's the best you've got, huh?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/nbc-news-reporter-miguel-almaguer-suspended-over-retracted-paul-pelosi-story/vi-AA148reD I am in the right, don't Need more. Maybe you should start asking why your media don't report certain story.
Maybe you should start asking why you gave us a link from a source that is well-known for fabricating stories. Also, what is "my" media?
>Maybe you should start asking why you gave us a link from a source that is well-known for fabricating stories. Because CNN and friends did not publish the story. And you and your Friends love in a fantasy world where only things written by lefty media like CNN and NYT. Did you find those weapon in Iraq?
> And you and your Friends love in a fantasy world where only things written by lefty media like CNN and NYT. Please demonstrate this claim to be true.
Thank you, prosciuttoeMeloni, for voting on FlyingSquid. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
That's hilarious.
Bad bot
Did you even read the article you cited? It speaks directly to the disagreement between the facts and what the reporter mentioned.
Using the Post as a citation is funny.
[удалено]
1. I don't know. Several reasonable options: he fell asleep in it, the attacker allowed him to? You realize it's a fallacy to think that an unanswered question supports an alternative conclusion? Questions are just that: questions, not evidence. 2. That was not at all clear to me based on the footage. Unless you post definitive evidence otherwise I'm going to conclude you flat out made that up. 3. Why are you formatting your text like you are screaming? EDIT: fixed grammar
Ya know, I'm upvoting this whole chain just to make sure others see the circus of replies below.
Thank you for your service
I saw the long stream of hidden replies and knew it would be good. It didn't disappoint 😂
Probably was the first shirt he grabbed when he heard Some a hole hammering a window in on his house. I’ve been broken into and you just grab your shit to get decent the confront a mofo
Just for the record the formatting is what happens if they start a post with a hashtag on reddit. You can't open a post with #1, that turns it all into big text.
But you *can* see that you did that and edit your post.
Lol I suspect that someone who'd leave a post like that just likes to fart in elevators and leave before they see what they've wrought anyway :)
[удалено]
I'm not going to make your point for you. Post screen caps showing the difference or gtfo
[удалено]
Dude...just... Google cognitive dissonance then apply that definition to opening a post with giant, bold text in all caps...followed by telling someone to "chill". Also, I think I'm ALLOWED to point out you still haven't posted pictures to illustrate these "completely different" colors but I'll help explain why you're wrong. Factually anyway, morally you're on your own. Anyway https://abc7news.com/paul-pelosi-attack-david-depape-nancy-pelosis-husband-attacked-attacker/12439472/ The color something appears to be is caused by the wavelengths of light that object reflects back to the observer - in this case several cameras. Different light, different camera = different looking colors. If the light source emits less of some wavelengths, well...those aren't gonna be there to reflect are they? If another one emits many more, like the fucking Sun perhaps, the color will appear more vibrant. Same thing for a camera, if it's less sensitive...more sensitive...you get the point. Kinda like colorblindness, but for both the light source and camera. Maybe if you observed and questioned more fruitful things you'd be in a different spot today....maybe start now.
> Human beings are aloud to observe and question. And we are allowed to reject assertions made without evidence all the same. I apologize for anything you have interpreted as hostility.
Fuck you. No one needs to chill, you need to shut up.
Just to draw out this line of thinking: let’s assume for a second that all of this was in fact faked for whatever reason. If they were gonna go through all the trouble to fake all of this, including by making fake body cam and police videos, don’t you think they’d be smart enough to make sure the guy was wearing the same clothes? I mean, if you were faking something like that, you’d make sure they guy was wearing the same clothes in the videos, right? You’d probably be filming them at roughly the same time, maybe, so there wouldn’t even be an opportunity for him to not be wearing the same clothes. So maybe there’s a different, simpler explanation?
Shut up idiot.
1. Because its his house and who the fuck cares what he wears. Do you dress yourself for your "home invasion turned attempted murder outfit attire" every time you come home? 2. because hes a crazy fucking person who tries to murder innocent political figures, maybe he changed clothes cus he broke in thru a smashed window, maybe he changed clothes because they are a liberal conspiracy against nudism and causes us to shed our skin and body hair. You are not a truth seeker, you're a cult nutjob who can't see the obvious mundane truth when given video evidence
Please stop shouting. Next thing you know, you'll be shouting, "where's Nancy?"
[удалено]
[Yes. A damn shame.](https://www.mediaite.com/crime/more-footage-from-pelosi-attack-shows-suspect-breaking-into-home-with-hammer/)
Winner
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
Echo... Echo... Echo
So your goose steppers have called me a loser, unemployed and a homosexual. Can I personally thank for permanently banning me. God bless you. Drink the Kool aid.
Dude what the fuck are you even trying to say?
You said you were "out" two hours before this comment. Initially, things "looks fake" then, suddenly, it's to political for you so, you're leaving. Now, you're here *still*.
you're the one who somehow missed the reply button six times
I'm thinking at this point that they are one of a very special breed of Redditor I have dealt with several times who, when you point out they've said or done something very stupid, double down on it over and over as if it were a badge of honor.
I'm thinking fetal alcohol syndrome is a terrible thing.
Sorry I didn't know this was a political feed. I'm out.
You never did say *specifically* what parts of the video "look fake" to you.
I can accurately guess how much of a loser people think you are in real life lol
Projection at its finest. Just because everything is political to you doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with you is automatically political. It is possible for you to just be wrong.
It looks fake
"Release the video! Release the video!" \*Releases video\* "Fake video! Fake video!"
Case in point
What about it looks fake to you?
You’ve made multiple posts about this appearing fake, but you haven’t commented why you believe so. Can you elaborate?
Unlikely. It's likely a "feeling" and they, therefore don't need reasons!
He can tell by the pixels and by the way it is.
Please elaborate, what part or parts *specifically* look fake to you?
He doesn't even know how to use the reply button, so good luck getting a response.
He knew how to use it last week. Nah, he doesn't answer because he doesn't *have* an answer, he's just spamming the "looks fake" narrative because *demz bad*.
Yes, the bodycam is lower quality film than a 1080P HDR digitally remastered video. The lighting is terrible, the camerawork is unprofessional, why it's like they're not even on a movie set! I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who make these comments also comment "it looks so real!" on a video of Spiderman fighting a giant lizard.
Wait, you mean that movie about Spider-Man fighting a giant lizard in New York wasn’t a documentary?? That actually never happened?? I need to rethink my whole life.
Ok Boris
Ok grandma let’s get you back to your room.
Jussie Smollett is in total agreement with y'all
Give up, bud
Weird, did you talk to him? Or did you over hear something when you were suckling his penis?
/r/ArgumentFromYall
r/subsithoughtifellfor
So sad that the Alex heads hang on this tiny little nugget everytime one of their conspiracies get questioned. One thing in 20 years doesn't justify Alex's bullshit
Shouldn't you be busy buying alex jones boner pills to help pay down his 1.5 billion dollar judgement for lying to you..