Flashback: Hunter's Laptop Russian Disinformation

[Res Ipsa]

Been following this thread and I commend ajax for conceding the argument. Admittedly I was even duped on some aspects of this story. I am glad that we can have good, honest conversation here to set the facts straight. We need to be more charitable of the other side, especially when they admit they are wrong.

Where did he say he conceded? I saw him admit the possibility he could be wrong this "one time" but then suggested some other conservative who knows more could prove him right.

I don't engage with Ajax with the purpose of getting him to concede. Heck, he's shown me to be wrong on at least one occasion. I don't expect him to concede anything any more than I expect you to concede when I argue with you.

[K Graham]

Where did he say he conceded? I saw him admit the possibility he could be wrong this "one time" but then suggested some other conservative who knows more could prove him right.

I don't engage with Ajax with the purpose of getting him to concede. Heck, he's shown me to be wrong on at least one occasion. I don't expect him to concede anything any more than I expect you to concede when I argue with you.

I never said that's why you engage him. I'm just saying he's being congratulated for conceding when he really hasn't. I mean, yeah, if he were to ever admit Brietbart was wrong about something that would be amazing. But you misread what he actually said. "Maybe" you're right, this "one time" while fretting over the fact that he doesn't know any smarter conservatives so they could rescue his argument, is hardly a concession of anything except his unwillingness to do actual homework.

And why are you dragging me into this as if I don't already have a history of admitting being wrong? Did you forget I was a Mormon apologist for 20 years before admitting I was wrong? Did you forget I was a die hard Conservative and Bush/McCain voter before I admitted being wrong? I know from personal experience what it means to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. And ajax's post ain't it.

[K Graham]

No, you don't get it. Not even close. And, just as in the case of Atlanticmike, you don't get to blame your decision to play the man on something someone else did.

Sure I do. I just did. "Play the man" is a concoction of your own making. Were you playing the ball when you pointed out Brietbart lies to him? I merely agreed with you.

Are you so threatened by some folks having a civil conversation with Ajax that you just have to dive in and ridicule him?

How did I ridicule him? I merely pointed out he didn't concede anything. That was what you chose to read into his comments, which amounts to wishful thinking more than anything.

And I'm hardly the only person here to lambast him over his devotion to Brietbart. In my view, if you start a thread copying a bogus site while using it to trash the "Left" the "media" or whatever, then you deserve much more than a soft, "no you're wrong."

[Res Ipsa]

I don't engage with Ajax with the purpose of getting him to concede. Heck, he's shown me to be wrong on at least one occasion. I don't expect him to concede anything any more than I expect you to concede when I argue with you.

I never said that's why you engage him. I'm just saying he's being congratulated for conceding when he really hasn't. I mean, yeah, if he were to ever admit Brietbart was wrong about something that would be amazing. But you misread what he actually said. "Maybe" you're right, this "one time" while fretting over the fact that he doesn't know any smarter conservatives so they could rescue his argument, is hardly a concession of anything except his willingness to do actual homework.

And why are you dragging me into this as if I don't already have a history of admitting being wrong? Did you forget I was a Mormon apologist for 20 years before admitting I was wrong? Did you forget I was a die hard Conservative and Bush/McCain voter before I admitted being wrong? I know from personal experience what it means to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. And ajax's post ain't it.

I didn't drag you into anything, Kevin. You injected yourself into a discussion that was basically completed with a comment that ridiculed and disparaged Ajax. I didn't misread Ajax, and I didn't congratulate him for conceding. I thanked him for having a civil conversation with me on a political issue, which, given how far apart we are on politics, is rare these days. We've had a few of those and I hope we can have more.

I'm addressing your conduct right here, right now, and I really don't give a rip about the fact that you changed your mind about religion and politics in the past. If you treated your past "opponents" the way you currently treat Ajax, then the fact that you changed teams doesn't represent much of a change, in my opinion.

[Kukulkan]

Did you forget I was a Mormon apologist for 20 years before admitting I was wrong?

According to your own words it took you two whole decades to change your views on deeply held beliefs. Why can't you extend some charity to someone else? Nobody here is saying that ajax is a 'changed man'. What people are surprised and positive about is the fact that someone who rarely if ever has acknowledged the possibility they may be wrong, admitted they might be wrong. You should know it best that admitting even that possibility when it comes to dealing with religious or political belief is a HUGE step forward.

It would be like getting someone who was a rabid racist that finally acknowledge maybe not all black people are bad. Is it still terrible they believe that most black people are bad? Yes! But their new stance is leaps and bounds further ahead from the point they were at previously. This is how deeply held dogmatic beliefs are changed, incrementally and in small movements. I think the reaction you are seeing from other posters is an indication that even though it is a small step, in the bigger picture, ajax being able to admit he even might be wrong is a huge step.

[K Graham]

I never said that's why you engage him. I'm just saying he's being congratulated for conceding when he really hasn't. I mean, yeah, if he were to ever admit Brietbart was wrong about something that would be amazing. But you misread what he actually said. "Maybe" you're right, this "one time" while fretting over the fact that he doesn't know any smarter conservatives so they could rescue his argument, is hardly a concession of anything except his willingness to do actual homework.

And why are you dragging me into this as if I don't already have a history of admitting being wrong? Did you forget I was a Mormon apologist for 20 years before admitting I was wrong? Did you forget I was a die hard Conservative and Bush/McCain voter before I admitted being wrong? I know from personal experience what it means to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong. And ajax's post ain't it.

I didn't drag you into anything, Kevin. You injected yourself into a discussion that was basically completed with a comment that ridiculed and disparaged Ajax. I didn't misread Ajax, and I didn't congratulate him for conceding. I thanked him for having a civil conversation with me on a political issue, which, given how far apart we are on politics, is rare these days. We've had a few of those and I hope we can have more.

You're right, I conflated your response with those of others. Apologies. But the problem with Ajax has never been one of civility. It has been his dishonesty. I mean do you really believe he doesn't know Brietbart is lying to him? We've proven it numerous times, but like a broken record, he only wants to use them to whine about how the Left is constantly lying, suppressing stories, etc.

I'm addressing your conduct right here, right now, and I really don't give a rip about the fact that you changed your mind about religion and politics in the past. If you treated your past "opponents" the way you currently treat Ajax, then the fact that you changed teams doesn't represent much of a change, in my opinion.

Well, you said you don't expect me to concede being wrong on anything we argue about (I just did above, by the way), which suggests you think I'm just as pig-headed as ajax. And it's weird you would think my "conduct" here is any different from any other thread he starts, or any different from what others have pointed out. Calling him out for being disingenuous in his use of sources, again, is hardly something new here, either from me or a half dozen other posters.

[Res Ipsa]

No, you don't get it. Not even close. And, just as in the case of Atlanticmike, you don't get to blame your decision to play the man on something someone else did.

Sure I do. I just did. "Play the man" is a concoction of your own making. Were you playing the ball when you pointed out Brietbart lies to him? I merely agreed with you.

Are you so threatened by some folks having a civil conversation with Ajax that you just have to dive in and ridicule him?

How did I ridicule him? I merely pointed out he didn't concede anything. That was what you chose to read into his comments, which amounts to wishful thinking more than anything.

And I'm hardly the only person here to lambast him over his devotion to Brietbart. In my view, if you start a thread copying a bogus site while using it to trash the "Left" the "media" or whatever, then you deserve much more than a soft, "no you're wrong."

So, you agree with Atlantic Mike that his behavior is justified by yours? You playing the man instead of the ball is not a concoction of my own making. You do it all the time, but you justify it by claiming that your target "deserves it."

I have no idea whether you are actually blind to your own conduct or whether you've just grown accustomed to rationalizing it. But go back and reread your post. You didn't "merely" point out anything. You described his conduct as "hilarious," which is ridicule.

And your defense? (1) someone else did it too; and (2) you've decided whatever that he deserves whatever treatment you dish out. Does that sound familiar to you at all? It should.

[K Graham]

Did you forget I was a Mormon apologist for 20 years before admitting I was wrong?

According to your own words it took you two whole decades to change your views on deeply held beliefs.

Not really. I wasn't even exposed to a legit counter-point until well after my conversion, my mission, and well after I had joined FAIR. All it really took was one honest debate with Brent Metcalfe over the KEP to nail the coffin shut for me. My change over politics entailed me moving to Brazil which gave me a different anthropological perspective on human society, and going back to school for a degree in economics probably played a huge role in that too.

Why can't you extend some charity to someone else?

I do all the time, but ajax isn't someone who argues in good faith. Ever. It isn't charity to misrepresent what he said as an admission of being wrong.

What people are surprised and positive about is the fact that someone who rarely if ever has acknowledged the possibility they may be wrong, admitted they might be wrong. You should know it best that admitting even that possibility when it comes to dealing with religious or political belief is a HUGE step forward.

As I already said, this is only because he's already set the bar so low it seems like a tremendous accomplishment. To suggest he could "possibly" be wrong. But I'm not so easily impressed because I read what he actually said. And yes, it is difficult having "charity" towards a vile person who has said the horrific things he's said in the past. I admit. I judge people. I disassociate with people I believe are toxic all the time. I know that makes me the bad guy in the eyes of some people, but take a wild guess how much I care about that.

It would be like getting someone who was a rabid racist that finally acknowledge maybe not all black people are bad. Is it still terrible they believe that most black people are bad? Yes! But their new stance is leaps and bounds further ahead from the point they were at previously.

Ajax made it clear his remarks were driven by a his deep respect for Honorentheus. If it had anything to do with him genuinely coming to a realization that he's been wrong all this time, that would be one thing. Ajax is an elderly guy whose held terrible beliefs about minorities all his life. For him, anyone who votes Democrat is a pink commie. Anyone who is black has a moral defect. There is no evidence he's had a change of heart.

This is how deeply held dogmatic beliefs are changed, incrementally and in small movements. I think the reaction you are seeing from other posters is an indication that even though it is a small step, in the bigger picture, ajax being able to admit he even might be wrong is a huge step.

And I get that, I just don't see any evidence he's taken a step worth celebrating. We can agree to disagree on this. As I said to Res Ipsa, civility was never the issue with ajax. It was his refusal to acknowledge his preferred sources were lying to him, all the while spending all his time attacking minorities and relying on those same sources that lie to him.

[canpakes]

I don't think anything Parnas says is going to be sufficient to move me off the ordinary explanation that relatives of powerful people get hired because people think they are buying influence. Exhibit A: Ginny Thomas.

That’s how I looked at it. It’s not as if Hunter Biden was well-versed in that business. And this sort of ‘board’ selection process occurs often enough elsewhere. Celebrity seats aren’t a new thing.

But if folks then want to claim that shenanigans must have occurred because Biden may have been chosen because of his perceived connections, it would be helpful for them to have something to show for those accusations.

[K Graham]

So, you agree with Atlantic Mike that his behavior is justified by yours?

Nah, I was just being a smart ass. I just don't see a need to "justify" anything.

You playing the man instead of the ball is not a concoction of my own making. You do it all the time, but you justify it by claiming that your target "deserves it."

Well obviously I wouldn't do it unless I thought they deserved it.

I have no idea whether you are actually blind to your own conduct or whether you've just grown accustomed to rationalizing it. But go back and reread your post. You didn't "merely" point out anything. You described his conduct as "hilarious," which is ridicule.

Maybe if I just come out and say that when I feel attacked, "I GO NUCLEAR ON THEIR ASS" then maybe I could earn your respect. I mean, that worked for DocCam

And your defense? (1) someone else did it too

Someone else did what too? Go back and read what I actually said was hilarious.