https://twitter.com/Biz_Shrink/status/1740790026802462918
Added: the apology is about her claim that Trump visited the Epstein pedo island once, in 1997.
But when I see this tweet she retweeted its possible she is a Zionist asset.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (149)
sorted by:
This is a nothingburger. She was apologizing for misplaced trust and wanting to acknowledge the truth. The retweet was just information, no "Zionist asset" nameplate to point at.
It may not be relevant to you, but is relevant to a lot of people who are trying to figure out her motives. If you read what was retweeted, it was more than just information, for those who know how to look.
If what is there depends on how you "look" at it, then it is not a message but a Rorschach blot. When has this "how to look" technique ever been verified? It is interesting to me that you imply an understanding of her motives, but find them inexpressible. It is more important and meaningful to me if what she says is truthful.
I am not sure how you do your digging and building up your worldview, but I can tell you how I do it.
I look at every information source as a "raw source". Some raw sources spew sewage and its easy to ignore them. Some raw sources provide info that is over all consistent with the big picture of the world while throwing in some inconsistencies that engages critical thinking in my mind to figure out it fits in with the rest. Do I have to make changes to my existing world view? Is the new info already consistent somehow? Is the new info just disinfo?
For me there is no other way. I cannot take anything anyone says and accept it directly. So, in your words, everything I see, hear or feel is a inkblot and only when I compile it all the rest of the inkblots in my database, the full picture starts becoming clearer.
All that said, I know that I am perhaps only half way or less towards creating the full picture.
The implication is not understanding of her motives, but that there is important info here. Each person who follows here needs to pay attention to this info and compile it into their internal database, and see how the picture changes.
Truth is objective. Truth is infinitely complex. Our mind can only perceive a minute fraction of the Truth and this perception creates our reality. Reality is subjective. My reality is never going to be the same as anybody else's reality, but the more and more truth we can process, the closer and closer all our realities converge and thats the closest we can get to the truth.
If being able to believe any person's every word with the certainty that they are always truthful is important to you, then I sincerely wish you good luck. Simply because in my experience I have found that to be an impossibility.
I'm trained as a scientist and have had a career as an engineer, occupations that rely on close attention to reality. And I have been successful at it.
As for what people say, I take them at their word (and by their actions) unless there is cause not to. Like a court of law. I'm not interested in suspecting everyone of being liars or delusional psychotics (though there are plenty out there). As for this person, you offer lots of words but no "full picture" of anything, so your method is mostly assertion. What "information" is there to be had? You don't have a clue.
Reality can be simple or it can be complex, or anywhere in-between. So it is already a false conception to decide that reality is always complex. The only way we can understand it is to find a way to reduce the complexity, which is what I have done as a system theoretician for nearly 40 years.
As for objective reality, someone's motivations are anything but objective, so don't kid yourself that you are not seeking the butterfly in the blot. The essence of that experiment is that it evokes what you are already thinking about. What if there are no motivations? Does someone need to be "motivated" to simply relate the facts of a matter?
You haven't shown by any means that what she said was untruthful, so what are you working on? Your experience seems to be based on trying to look deeper than something really is, developing theories that are poorly grounded, and being disappointed when you find you are wrong. You might consider that your method is mostly a waste of time.