Just a reminder that Posobiec once interviewed the founder of "q-anon" and tried to discredit the whole movement, so his bullshit should be a little suspicious at all times because he's controlled.
His role in this whole situation is to agitate conservatives and make them as angry as possible - most of his posts turn out to be BS.
I prefer for the content of what is being presented be disproved with alternate facts on the subject. I choose to discern for myself the truth of a statement without polluting with bias about who said it. Discernment.
Believing: confidence and trust in information received to the end it is acted upon. It also implies a trust in the source.
Sources are everything. Listening in spite of who you know the source is MD how much credibility that you assign is one thing. Listening and validating a source afterwards, not very critical. You can know a source and still evaluate info. The problem is discounting it automatically because of the source. Sometimes truth comes from unlikely places. every piece of info needs the source validated, and it should never be discounted without checking just because someone was wrong before.
So, if Hillary said that same thing you'd give it a fair shake and pay attention instead of dismissing it outright because the person saying it is poisoned?
My tendency nowadays is to already know whether HRC statement contains TRUTH or lies based upon the research I have already done. I would be able to clearly articulate what might be motivating the comment, which would be far more useful information, imho.
Just a reminder that Posobiec once interviewed the founder of "q-anon" and tried to discredit the whole movement, so his bullshit should be a little suspicious at all times because he's controlled.
His role in this whole situation is to agitate conservatives and make them as angry as possible - most of his posts turn out to be BS.
Underrated comment
I prefer for the content of what is being presented be disproved with alternate facts on the subject. I choose to discern for myself the truth of a statement without polluting with bias about who said it. Discernment.
Believing: confidence and trust in information received to the end it is acted upon. It also implies a trust in the source.
Sources are everything. Listening in spite of who you know the source is MD how much credibility that you assign is one thing. Listening and validating a source afterwards, not very critical. You can know a source and still evaluate info. The problem is discounting it automatically because of the source. Sometimes truth comes from unlikely places. every piece of info needs the source validated, and it should never be discounted without checking just because someone was wrong before.
Amen.
So, if Hillary said that same thing you'd give it a fair shake and pay attention instead of dismissing it outright because the person saying it is poisoned?
My tendency nowadays is to already know whether HRC statement contains TRUTH or lies based upon the research I have already done. I would be able to clearly articulate what might be motivating the comment, which would be far more useful information, imho.
So then you would take heavily into account who is speaking ... interesting.