OP said Scott was disingenuous. The OP posted what is on his mind. Scott did not have to read OP’s mind. Scott read the OP’s tweet.
-
-
Replying to @SurvivorRules @ScottAdamsSays and
Selective use of quotes, which Scott did in his article (leaving off “on both sides” to make his point) is certainly evidence of being disingenuous, at least to the same level as Scott’s accusation. Either you accept “tells” as arguments, or you don’t. Just, be consistent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @m3anderthal @ScottAdamsSays and
Where would put “on both sides” in the article? It wouldn’t make a difference. Scott quoted “fine people” in the article to describe Trump’s full statement.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @SurvivorRules @ScottAdamsSays and
His full statement was: “You also had some very fine people on both sides,” and he deflected from accusations of alt-right violence by inventing the word “alt-left” to describe folks protesting open racists. Leaving those points out, as Scott did, is a “tell” for disingenuous.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @m3anderthal @SurvivorRules and
Antifa didn't invent itself just to fight the tiki torch guys. Your context is broken. And "both sides" means both sides of the statue debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @SurvivorRules and
So now you’re reading Trump’s mind about what he meant to say? He didn’t say “in the debate,” so your continued defense of this baseless point is pretty clearly disingenuous.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @m3anderthal @SurvivorRules and
No mind-reading needed for reading comprehension. My interpretation is normal and consistent with everything he has said before and after. Your interpretation is that he threw his own family under the bus in public, came out as a public racist, and Israel didn't notice.
1 reply 1 retweet 12 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, please. I have a starter list of those hoaxes but looking for more for a chapter I am writing about confirmation bias. I might be missing a few. So far I have the Animals hoax, Charlottesville hoax, Shithole hoax, Judge Curiel hoax and "They're raprists" hoax. Missing any?
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @MikeTruk1 and
You’re writing a chapter on confirmation bias, while preemptively labeling anything you disagree with as a “hoax.” That’s a truly staggering level of cognitive dissonance, especially for one who claims to be an expert.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It's only cognitive dissonance if you don't know what you are doing and why. I know the word is provocative, and I know you'll debate it. That's why I use it. Read Win Bigly for context.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.