The people who are behind information war have advocated infiltration and instigation while the creator initially advocated career assassination and family usurpation. Be warned.
The people who are behind information war have advocated infiltration and instigation while the creator initially advocated career assassination and family usurpation. Be warned.
While I may not agree. Up voted for you questioning authority.
Authority? What specifically don't you agree with? I made a statement of facts that can be verified with the references given, I take it you can explain what you meant.
You didn't actually state any facts. Perhaps if you had specific quotes and citations you might be able to make such but your two sentences certainly do not qualify as doing that. @truthforce already answered you. I thought his answer was pretty good.
I'll not play your typical games of you making assumptions about implied things and what people are thinking. Just focus on what they say without letting your imagination add in details of your own that are not there. I don't really care what you can imagine, and what you think was implied. That is called speculation, and is an opinion. All you can really call a FACT is the words someone actually uses, not the additional things you decide to imagine and attach to them.
funny that you were supporting his free speech, and he didnt understand that
I'm sure you could construe my response to validate your opinion of me.
Those aren't facts though.
Steve had no problem admitting to that, and if you read truthforce you'd know he considers infiltration lightly if at all, and no matter how much you deny those facts won't matter.
I guess games is asking direct questions, next time save your breath if you've got bullocks for reasoning behind your opinion
Actually those wouldn't qualify as facts. You couldn't present them in a court or any investigation as facts. They would be your opinion and interpretation. That isn't the same thing as a fact.
Because, YOU believe a thing does not make it a fact. It does make it the TRUTH in your mind, as you truly believe it. Yet in reality truth and facts are not the same thing. Truth is subjectively based upon your knowledge, observation, and interpretation. Facts are the elements that do not have any subjective quality. Such as I am 6 feet tall. Those are facts.
Now you can present facts in written form, but in a debate it is almost impossible to refer to ANY interpretation as a fact. It is too subjective and based upon our own knowledge to be a fact.
So I still state. You didn't state any facts.
You stated your opinion about what you consider to be true.
Actually those wouldn't qualify as facts. You couldn't present them in a court or any investigation as facts. They would be your opinion and interpretation. That isn't the same thing as a fact.
Why is it interpretation and opinion and why isn't it fact that by their actions and words they advocated infiltration and doxing, because the substance is the same regardless of what you call it.
So I take it you have nothing to say when it comes as to why and how your opinion of the facts I presented is correct or specifically why and how those facts: Advocating infiltration and DOXing, are my opinions, especially since one of the people I brought those accusations against has outright admitted to advocating doxing while the other believes that infiltration is in line with truth and love, and so I guess you're ceding the argument and leaving it as a baseless assertion while you have done this numerous times in the past when I've asked you why and or how and you didn't give any reasoning and left it to baseless assertions. Next time, again, keep your opinions to yourself because you have proven to me that your opinions generally are vague, Bullshit assertions and when pressed to give an ineligible explanation you answer without explanation or any logical evident conclusion for the opinionated remarks that like above rely upon nothing other than baseless assertions or implicit dismissal of your non response.
Those aren't facts because they would never be accepted in a court of law, because they are opinions and not facts and interpretation and not fact and because you believe in them to be true that doesn't make it fact because they are opinions and a fact isn't :she was eating, or they advocated doxing and condoned infiltration and colored "pushing " on Bad people with love, peace, the only facts are those that have no subjective quality, because acts such as advocating and condoning are interpretive only, and they aren't facts, she was eating is only my interpretation and without any written proof it's only opinion. Logicfail.
No. Waste of time. If you can't see it, I'm not your eye doctor.
It's my vision not your logical gymnastics that are the problem, you assert that those things aren't facts and assert they are opinions and "truth" based on belief without explaining exactly why it's not condoning infiltration and advocating doxing when the ones who stand accused offered no contentions, only Bullshit lack of reasoning and inconsiderate opinions that like I've remarked many months ago, for them the means justify the ends. Waste of time is your Bullshit that colored my reply which has always been to the point as me playing games and now you're telling me I'm blind because you've explained so clearly why and how it's not advocating doxing especially when the culprit behind that idiotic inconsiderate suggestion has stood up and said Yes and much more.
You're a fake assets intellectual, go play your games elsewhere.
I should invite you to demonstrate why and how, conclusively, an admission and a half isn't based on simple facts: Steve has advocated for Doxing editors in his very first posts which was in series that created informationwar tag and lose association. I've offered the REFERENCE and you can verify these facts, which you claim aren't facts but interpretation and belief as if you try to save the idiot face by giving him some plausible deniability by making me waste my time to quote him and include
his context which he, in this thread had no problem admitting to. Idiots, and fake intellectuals, ain't shit.
Huh? Can you elaborate?
Yes, @truthforce can be seen here https://steemit.com/antifa/@truthforce/steven-crowder-and-jared-infiltrate-antifa-and-find-they-are-weaponizing-and-using-encrypted-communication-systems
@stevescoins in one of the first informationwar formation posts he advocated that people should stalk the editors and expose them for engaging with sex workers/prostitutes, as I recall he said "their children and wife's should know if they're (the editors/reporters/propagandists) using prostitutes".
Once again, I have unmuted Baah to hop in here briefly.
First of all, anyone who reads my post will see there is no advocation of violence, it advocates for undercover journalism in exposing what antifa was doing(which was planning to lure people to a site and shoot them).
Second of all, in the comments on my post I easily refuted what Baah said, because he took what I said out of context and then strawmanned to hell everything I said after that, please read the comments on that post and you will see his mad rantings and ravings.
Third of all, Baah can have great points and at other times he rants and raves nonsensically. His "nickname" on his steemit profile for the longest time has said "Bah FucYou", as his way of showing he likes to troll(which I actually like heh).
I had to block him awhile back because he ultimately ends up wasting a lot of my time and I find it very annoying when people put words in my mouth and take things what I write out of context and add their own to it.
That is all I really have to say, because once you read that post he has above and the comments with me and him back and forth you will see it for yourself.
Why Baah has something against me or for what I still do not know until this day. I have an inkling it was because I sometimes use the Truth tag and he feels he has a right to it or something?And it seemed like everytime I put Truth in the tag he would be in on it commenting a bunch of non-sense.
I post all my work on here publically and am very active in discord and have done 6 or 7 podcasts now and am in voice chat, people know me pretty well by now.
And to further prove my point, I just upvoted his post to the top so that all can see this in the future, so that maybe I don't have to unmute him again and can just easily point to this and be done with it.
You advocated infiltration, the means for you justify the ends. You can say I took it out of context but your refutation is simply baseless, it doesn't matter how many ways you assert that I misconstrued or I put words in your mouth or took them out of context, also didn't see you or anyone else questioning stevescoins in "if they're using prostitutes their kids and wife out to know".
Making a post about someone infiltrating then denying that you'd advocated infiltration. What's the post about again?
Undercover journalism to catch people doing illegal things.
How many times do I have to copy and paste this to you?
"Truth, peace, kindness, understanding, non-violence, facts, logic, context, arguing are tools to give information to people. People are more rational and can make better decisions when they are informed. They need to be informed and understand they cannot just listen to nightly news for the truth and accept it as reality. We are here to push through the truth with our words so that we can avoid physical confrontations and violence."
Infiltrating antifa to get undercover footage. Yes. How many times do I need to say this. It is one of the oldest journalistic techniques and is very useful for getting the Truth on what groups/individuals are really doing.
Since you have such a problem with this, and continue to point it out, explain to me how YOU would get information from secretive groups without going undercover or infiltrating them.
This should be interesting.
Using a lie so as to build an identity in order to infiltrate an organization to report the truth should be questioned an used only if there weren't any other means to report on the information and the target was important enough to be a public concern.
Infiltration simply to get footage is no excuse for calling it undercover journalism. In certain cases the means justify the ends, but not here. How many times did you call it undercover journalism? So infiltrating political parties is undercover journalism? Show me how this relates to actual undercover journalism which is done in places where you cannot get a camera in, and it never involves impromptu infiltration at political rallies.
You are setting arbitrary constraints of "how is it done in places where you cannot get a camera in".
I am not an undercover journalist, I don't know how they do what they do. Why don't you ask one instead of arguing with me.
I support people going undercover, using aliases, infiltrating organizations(and if they have to lie I am for that too).
I do not know how many times I need to say I am for undercover journalists getting the truth out there. What is your problem with undercover journalism that you want to argue with me about?
You don't need to be an undercover journalist to know that there's no comparable example of undercover journalism, something you ought to understand in the least as to what it is and isn't if you claim it is. Calling something arbitrary doesn't mean it is, ethics aren't arbitrary and undercover journalism isn't trolling at political rallies.
I support people going undercover, using aliases, infiltrating organizations(and if they have to lie I am for that too).
And in certain situations that is OK and it can even be truth, love, peace. People infiltrating simply for footage is careless and without merit in helping people.
Undercover journalism to catch people doing illegal things.
That's journalism : trolling at political rallies. Phleaze.
You are strawmanning yet again, I never said anything about trolling about political parties. Stop making up scenarios I never mentioned, and then turning around and acting like I did and dismissing me.
No you didn't understand, I called it trolling at political rallies, not journalism, and not undercover journalism either.
Sounds like BS paranoia.
You can see and judge for yourself, but thanks for your opinion.
The logo they choose is a Freudian slip, they're for truth and liberty and the means justify the ends.
exactly...people who lie should expect to be exposed
people who cheat should expect to be exposed
people who take soroscoin to post disinfo will be exposed
baah trolls because he has been mocked or plainly ignored
I have noticed that what makes baah the most angry is when we discuss how to free ourselves from these people
if this makes baah angry, he should quit pretending to be an anarchist while he defends leftists and globalists
I don't waste my time discussing these things with him anymore; he has proven himself to me to argue in bad faith
Indeed those that lie should think about the consequences, as should cheaters and anyone who does much of anything. On the other hand using the truth to expose people's private affairs as a spectacle, solely as a roundabout way to create controversy for people you deem your enemy isn't logical or clever at all: why do you believe that by chopping at the branches of a tree it will make a lick of difference in attempts at uprooting it?
You want to stop propagandists and you think that I am angry because you want to be free, accusing me of defending globalists? Show me one such example and I will forever bite my tongue on these things!
Using truth to dox people, bad faith 101. Common this is too easy.