I am not going to ask jjj as he is vested in a lie he will not relent on as he knows the tactic of just keeping repeating as true and SOME may believe it.


@Rococo I want to clear up in the event i confused you. What I said was...


"Whether it is Alito or Trump, if they say something directly and its caught on video, and others are denying it, then using Youtube to PROVE they said it directly should not in any way be discounted because 'its youtube'.

Did I in any way confuse you and make you think I was saying anything specific about Alito as opposed to making a generic point about picking any 2 people? As i literally just plucked Alito's name out of the air and i could have said Bill Clinton there just as well.

The only point i was making with that line is 'if Person A says 'X', and someone disputes they said 'X' and it's on video, then using Youtube to show the video and the person saying it first hand is an excellent and reliable way to prove it'.

jjj is going to be desperate to say 'I know what you meant QP. You do not' as he is now committed to this lie, so just ignore him. If I confused you, I need to know and I will apologize for that but i see no way that should confuse anyone. As I was not saying or suggesting anything with regards to 'Trump or Alito' in that point.

Lol at Cuepee’s defense of loltube being potentially useful in some cases being a totally made up hypothetical that would never actually happen.

I have personally used youtube video's to refute the Trumpderps saying 'he never said that', and proved that he did.

So nothing hypothetical about the value in those cases.

QP, I thought your example was dumb, but I understood it to be a hypothetical, not an assertion that you had seen an Alito video on youtube.

In my opinion, this whole debate is silly. No one is contending that information on youtube can be rejected out of hand because of the format. Anyone who relies mostly on algorithmic sources like youtube for their news (and I'm not suggesting that you necessarily are one of those people) is headed in the wrong direction, but that's a different issue.

Good, well I don't really care what jjj will try to assert, but if somehow i made you think that, then I wanted to clarify.

And my argument is simply to the lolyoutubez dismissals we get on this forum as blanket dismissals. Those are every bit as dumb as getting trapped in algorithmic rat holes.

BUt when the essence of my argument is 'other top lawyers support my position of X', which is HOW I USED THE VIDEOS, laughing at me backing my argument with youtube videos of those lawyers expressing their opinion and proving my point, is a very apt usage.

The reason some people, like jjj DO NOT want me to cite youtube video's is then it is easier to claim I am wrong. If I show video proof other lawyers are saying it, suddenly they are the ones wrong. So exclude youtube videos and just try to get the person to say it, and you can dispute forever.

Nothing in your original post quoted above indicates it was hypothetical nor did you magical IF to qualify anything but watching it on CNN or loltubes. Sure, you were clearer,, but not explicit, in the post a week later because you were already caught in an obvious lie.

But it's not you, it's me when you finally admit to what I already know- that you. Lie about your loltubes source material. But CP gonna CP, right?

BS.

The context of the discussion absolutely did suggest it was hypothetical. Also prior to that I gave several examples saying if Person A say X then getting youtube video to substantiate it works. I also said if Trump says 'X' same. Then in our exchange Rococo said this

And no reasonable person would read that exchange and assume I was making a specific claim about Alito or Trump saying anything and in fact I did not. I said "say SOMETHI(NG" or, 'X' .

That you immediately cited that and started to demand I cite 'X' is your sole mistake. No one else is dumb enough to jump to the above being a suggestion of specifics for 'X'.

Since you will never admit to being wrong about anything, despite generally being wrong about everything, is this an example in your fantasy world of you being 'right' or 'super right'?

Right.

As Rococo and any sane reader will acknowledge but since you cannot admit being wrong it will continue.

Rococo is the only other person responding that knows your alleged hypothetical viewing of Alito explaining his decision would never exist. As I saw no other sane readers side with you, I think you should just concede you were super wrong. Again.

I browse these threads just to laugh at your inane points daily.

Thinking your the one on the the sane side after ranting mainly nonsensical nonsense for weeks really cheered me up today so thanks for that.

Honestly, that seems pretty damned efficient.

I was on a memory ward the other day listening to Fox News blaring out of the dementia patients rooms. That may be slightly more efficient but it's more general than youtube. Youtube can get right into your lizard brain and stay here.

You act like you have had anyone agree with your terrible take and guess what, not one single person did.

the entire context of the discussion was 'if Person A says X, and someone denies he said X then using Youtube to prove it is a good thing'.

It was NEVER at any point specifically about anything Trump or Alito had actual said. They were simply place holders for Person A and saying X.

I cannot concede I was super wrong or wrong of any kind as it was my point and thought. You can be wrong in interpreting it, though and you were.

i see covington kid lost all of his lawsuits.. but i'm sure that one that settled gave him 8figures or more like all the republicans think it did..

Looks like a typical Cuepee discussion taking place here

Not sure why the necro bump, but ya a typical one as another person goes nutso and I have to deal with it.

I literally offered a generic example of simply saying 'if a person like Trump or Alitto said something and another person denied it, then showing a Youtube video that proves it is valuable'.

The other poster then demanded I state what Trump and Alitto said, as if that was a part of what I was saying. They made the mistake and then refused to own and blamed me for it.

Seriously, is 2Pac still alive?

You made the error. You deliberately were insulting people with your "generic example" and whine that they point that out. How about When Obama or Biden says something and leftist liars deny it it is useful to prove they are wrong". More honestly phrased than your insult but exactly the same insult. Then you pretend those offended are in the wrong; disgusting.

No error there and don't blame me for calling dumb people dumb.

If i say 'in any instance if you can quote a person like Clinton or Obama to prove Point A' and the person then demands the quote from Obama or Clinton,. that is on them.

That statement IN NO WAY is suggesting i am saying I have a specific quote and only dumb people make that mistake.

Imagine being unable to ever admit you are wrong about anything so you completely fabricate a discussion that casts yourself in the hero role, despite the actual events being just a few pages back in the same thread containing
the fabrications.

All resulting from your hysteria because LB threw some late shade your way.

Loooooloool,, snowflake!

This is the most argumentative internet forum I've ever visited. You guys would argue about whether the sky is blue.

No worries, I read your posts and think "Wow, another narcissistic idiot."

QP and Drumpf are twins?

Satire that perfectly nails what concerns about woke/cancel culture are really about, distracting people from real actually important issues.

For context fuel bills in the UK are going to go off the charts this winter.

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...box=1660213904

(copied from the British Politics thread to avoid the derail ... you can thank me later Tame)

It clearly is and it is gaslighting to deny it.

There is an effort on the left to deny all issues that arise from the left and to attempt to paint a picture of 'only right based issues are bad'.

I do not say that to compare them as one thing is not only bad if it rises to the level of the other (a whatabout) but wokeism is a significant and growing problem that society needs to figure out how to address because the people best able to address it are the moderate left and centre left and they are being increasingly cowed into silence.


Wokeism biggest weapon is the attempted silencing of any dissent or debate on issues the far left deem beyond debate and that the very idea of discussing is a form of violence.

The tool used is the mass pile on individuals who will immediately jump to character assassination tactics (you are racist, sexist, transphobe, hitler, etc) as they bury the actual argument, selectively quote and misrepresent things said, and make it so no other person could reasonably cut throw the pile on and see what the actual argument is, and as Rococo once said 'I am not going to read all of that but I assume the truth lies somewhere in between'.

Wokeism understands that weapon well. Just as the far right does, That if a person is accuses of being a pedophile, even if without foundation, the people around them suddenly will be more careful in not leaving their kids around them. The damage is done even often when 100% repudiated, and especially if they keep piling on the accusations and lies regardless such that normal people have problems discerning what is true.


Who here believes an average every day regular person using their own Facebook account with their identity clearly visible could weigh in earnestly to discussions on trans rights, race issues, or any of the far lefts considered sacred areas, and not face a torrent of near immediate denunciations of the worst kind, if that person, in any way, is going against the far left beliefs on those topics?

I would say anyone who believes that is either gaslighting themselves because they are so vested in the denial or they are hopelessly naive.

And because the moderate and centre left won't call out the far left for this tactic and say 'it is ridiculous, wrong and offensive to accuse that person of being an '...ist' simply because they hold a differing view', and instead they just go silent because USUALLY the subject of that rage is unsympathetic (other 'side'), they are empowered. The right calling them out only fuels them.


So yes not only is wokeism a problem but it is a major one and a growing one. You have a huge swath of society who just won't touch certain issues of conversations even to inject some moderate discussion which then leaves the discussions to only take place between the extreme left and extreme right, and that is harmful to society overall.

When the good and moderate people are increasingly silences on important issues that IS a big problem.