How can people entertain/believe the idea that Trump's COVID-19 infection is a hoax?

[Patooka]

No, it didn't.

Yes, it did. And it is unbelievable you think otherwise.

And of course, there is actually evidence for this: if it was based on belief, like it seems most of Metaphor's positions are, people who held that position would not have changed their positions.

As it was based on skepticism, people who held that position quickly abandoned it because skepticism requires verification and testing.

We tested out positions of skepticism, a skepticism borne from the reality of the administration's constant lies and a potential angle that such lies could serve, and found that in the face of later revelations (Trump's wheezing, struggling to breath, oxygen feeds, the potemkin shot of him signing blank papers from a hospital room, and now the steroids), the skeptical view of his infection lost viability.

The question is, how could someone be so blind of the past as to NOT doubt the claims of the administration?

I'm just curious as to who the "many journalists" Metaphor originally alluded to at the thread are. Or how he knows to people who view anything Trump says with skepticism secretly believe that it is a hoax when they say they're skeptical. He was never clear on that bit.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it didn't.

Yes, it did. And it is unbelievable you think otherwise.

No, it didn't. My initial post was very careful in its wording. I covered people who really believed it to people who "entertained"/ were sceptical.

 

[Metaphor]

And of course, there is actually evidence for this: if it was based on belief, like it seems most of Metaphor's positions are, people who held that position would not have changed their positions.

Absolutely ludicrous. Beliefs can change over time.

Don't base your understanding of the world on the fact that you've never changed your mind.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it didn't.

Yes, it did. And it is unbelievable you think otherwise.

No, it didn't. My initial post was very careful in its wording. I covered people who really believed it to people who "entertained"/ were sceptical.

The relevant part of the OP reads

Many people on Twitter, including "journalists", have entertained the idea that the timing of Trump's infection was 'convenient' and possibly a hoax. Some of these people are re-framing their willingness to believe conspiracy theories as 'skepticism'.

Putting skepticism in quotes indicates your disbelief in that skepticism.

But I admit I was wrong: it is believable that you believe you did not confuse their initial skepticism with belief.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it didn't. My initial post was very careful in its wording. I covered people who really believed it to people who "entertained"/ were sceptical.

The relevant part of the OP reads

Many people on Twitter, including "journalists", have entertained the idea that the timing of Trump's infection was 'convenient' and possibly a hoax. Some of these people are re-framing their willingness to believe conspiracy theories as 'skepticism'.

Putting skepticism in quotes indicates your disbelief in that skepticism.

But I admit I was wrong: it is believable that you believe you did not confuse their initial skepticism with belief.

The fact that you quoted me saying "possibly a hoax" but still believe I believed that all expressions of skepticism were expressions of unassailable belief is evidence you don't actually care what I wrote or what I meant.

I put skepticism in quotes because I think "skepticism" was too kind a word to describe the kind of reflexive, irrational thoughts expressed by the "Trump might not have COVID" "skeptics".

 

[Patooka]

I put skepticism in quotes because I think "skepticism" was too kind a word to describe the kind of reflexive, irrational thoughts expressed by the "Trump might not have COVID" "skeptics".

Seeing as you get really upset at being "quoted out of context"*, maybe you need to be quite clear as to who you are referring to. Who are the people who showed they had irrational reflexive thoughts with regards to your OP? Who, specifically? And if you can't be specific, my advice is not to be upset when people take your generalizations exactly how they were intended.

*I put "quoted out of context" in quotes because I think it's too kind a phrase to describe your reaction when people quite easily poke holes into your poorly conceived arguments.

 

[Metaphor]

Seeing as you get really upset at being "quoted out of context"*, maybe you need to be quite clear as to who you are referring to. Who are the people who showed they had irrational reflexive thoughts with regards to your OP? Who, specifically? And if you can't be specific, my advice is not to be upset when people take your generalizations exactly how they were intended.

You asked me for examples in the second post and I answered in the third post. When the first thing that occurs to you, upon hearing that Trump has COVID-19, is to go on to Twitter to express doubt publically, then you are the kind of person who had a reflexive 'skepticism' of the president's condition. It takes a few seconds to compose a Tweet. A few seconds where you might realise that a president faking COVID-19 would be a stupid thing to do and impossible to pull off at any rate.

*I put "quoted out of context" in quotes because I think it's too kind a phrase to describe your reaction when people quite easily poke holes into your poorly conceived arguments.

I wasn't quoted out of context. laughing dog produced my exact quote and then proceeded to imagine it meant something other than it plainly meant.

 

[Patooka]

Seeing as you get really upset at being "quoted out of context"*, maybe you need to be quite clear as to who you are referring to. Who are the people who showed they had irrational reflexive thoughts with regards to your OP? Who, specifically? And if you can't be specific, my advice is not to be upset when people take your generalizations exactly how they were intended.

You asked me for examples in the second post and I answered in the third post.

Okay, I'm asking for more examples. 3 tweets doesn't constitute "many, including journalists", as you initially posted.

When the first thing that occurs to you, upon hearing that Trump has COVID-19, is to go on to Twitter to express doubt publically, then you are the kind of person who had a reflexive 'skepticism' of the president's condition. It takes a few seconds to compose a Tweet. A few seconds where you might realise that a president faking COVID-19 would be a stupid thing to do and impossible to pull off at any rate.

Nope. Trump is shameless in his dishonesty and certainly has the chutzpah to pull it off. Anything he says should be met with initial skepticism. That's just common fucking sense. Just admit you are ignorant with regards to Trump's track record with the truth. The cunt doesn't care if he caught out in a lie and will just do it anyway.

I've gotta say this thread is very enlightening. It highlights a phenomenon that there are still some people in the world who would give Trump the benefit of the doubt on anything he says without verification. Simply astonishing.

 

[Metaphor]

Okay, I'm asking for more examples. 3 tweets doesn't constitute "many, including journalists", as you initially posted.

Stop moving the goalposts. You wanted an example of what I was talking about and I gave you them. If you want to see the tweets that other people have put up, do a search on Twitter. Or have a look at the examples gathered here. "Trump's COVID diagnosis as hoax" was an idea put out by many people and retweeted or shared thousands and thousands of times.

Nope. Trump is shameless in his dishonesty and certainly has the chutzpah to pull it off. Anything he says should be met with initial skepticism. That's just common fucking sense. Just admit you are ignorant with regards to Trump's track record with the truth. The cunt doesn't care if he caught out in a lie and will just do it anyway.

It beggars belief that you are indeed justifying people's initial 'it's a hoax' reactions. Except it doesn't beggar belief.

I've gotta say this thread is very enlightening. It highlights a phenomenon that there are still some people in the world who would give Trump the benefit of the doubt on anything he says without verification. Simply astonishing.

What's simply astonishing is that Trump derangement syndrome has reached such fever pitch that you think the above paragraph reads like something measured and normal.

 

[Patooka]

Clearly I'm in the wrong believing Trump is a pathological liar and don't trust anything he says at face value. And thank you for reposting the link I've already given you that shows the amount of genuine "It's a hoax" tweets pale in comparison to copypasta tactics, right wing conspiracy tweets about Biden and his coughing, hydroxychloroquine and Qanon.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly I'm in the wrong believing Trump is a pathological liar and don't trust anything he says at face value.

You are clearly in the wrong to not trust every single thing he utters just because he has uttered it. That is madness. You have a brain. You can evaluate evidence. If you entertained the idea that Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis was a hoax, you did not use your brain.

And thank you for reposting the link I've already given you that shows the amount of genuine "It's a hoax" tweets pale in comparison to copypasta tactics,

So, you already had evidence that many people believed it, and yet you asked it from me?

Any number of original tweets pales in comparison to the likes and retweets. That's how Twitter works. Are you now suggesting that likes and retweets somehow invalidate the existence of the original tweets? Or that not a single like or retweet indicates agreement with the sentiment that the announcement was a hoax?

right wing conspiracy tweets about Biden and his coughing, hydroxychloroquine and Qanon.

If you wish to discuss these other conspiracy theories, please feel free to start your own thread.

 

[laughing dog]

The relevant part of the OP reads
Putting skepticism in quotes indicates your disbelief in that skepticism.

But I admit I was wrong: it is believable that you believe you did not confuse their initial skepticism with belief.

The fact that you quoted me saying "possibly a hoax" but still believe I believed that all expressions of skepticism were expressions of unassailable belief is evidence you don't actually care what I wrote or what I meant.

I presented a plain interpretation that flows directly from your post, It does not require an idiosyncratic explanation like your one below.

I put skepticism in quotes because I think "skepticism" was too kind a word to describe the kind of reflexive, irrational thoughts expressed by the "Trump might not have COVID" "skeptics".

Your "convincing and logical explanation" is consistent with your history of contorting the conventions of the English language to disguise your "intended meaning" to the general reader.

 

[Metaphor]

I presented a plain interpretation that flows directly from your post, It does not require an idiosyncratic explanation like your one below.

I put skepticism in quotes because I think "skepticism" was too kind a word to describe the kind of reflexive, irrational thoughts expressed by the "Trump might not have COVID" "skeptics".

Your "convincing and logical explanation" is consistent with your history of contorting the conventions of the English language to disguise your "intended meaning" to the general reader.

You're the one who interpreted "possibly a hoax" as "unassailable belief that it's a hoax". Those are the facts.

 

[laughing dog]

I presented a plain interpretation that flows directly from your post, It does not require an idiosyncratic explanation like your one below.

I put skepticism in quotes because I think "skepticism" was too kind a word to describe the kind of reflexive, irrational thoughts expressed by the "Trump might not have COVID" "skeptics".

Your "convincing and logical explanation" is consistent with your history of contorting the conventions of the English language to disguise your "intended meaning" to the general reader.

You're the one who interpreted "possibly a hoax" as "unassailable belief that it's a hoax". Those are the facts.

I agree that it is fact your interpretation is bullshit. I have no illusions that will stop your Goebbels practice of repeating a falsehood in the hopes of getting it accepted as fact.

 

[LoAmmo]

You are clearly in the wrong to not trust every single thing he utters just because he has uttered it. That is madness. You have a brain. You can evaluate evidence. If you entertained the idea that Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis was a hoax, you did not use your brain.

Hold up, though. I mean...

Remembering that "entertained the idea" is a far lower bar than "Committed whole hog to the "faking it" conspiracy," and "doubling down on it," how can you persuasively argue that Trump's credibility is such that a reasonable person could not possibly put it past him to lie for personal gain?

Put another way, is there another single topic on which you'd claim that Trump has never lied, unflinchingly stuck to the truth, never offered a version that demonstrably clashed with reality, when expediency favored a lie or disortion?

The man lies about...everything. Why on Earth would he get a free pass on a Covid diagnosis--again, early on, before going to Walter Reed, etc. ?
?

 

[Metaphor]

You're the one who interpreted "possibly a hoax" as "unassailable belief that it's a hoax". Those are the facts.

I agree that it is fact your interpretation is bullshit. I have no illusions that will stop your Goebbels practice of repeating a falsehood in the hopes of getting it accepted as fact.

You usually don't Godwin threads. Did it feel good?

 

[Metaphor]

Remembering that "entertained the idea" is a far lower bar than "Committed whole hog to the "faking it" conspiracy," and "doubling down on it," how can you persuasively argue that Trump's credibility is such that a reasonable person could not possibly put it past him to lie for personal gain?

But I never said he wouldn't lie, or lie for personal gain, or lie for any reason whatsoever. The point is not whether he is trustworthy. His trustworthiness is beside the point. The point is that if you are President of the United States, you can't fake a COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, and Trump would know it.

Even if someone entertained the idea it was a hoax, they might have counted to ten, calmed the raging, frothing, febrile, visceral Trump hatred that permeates their being, and thought about it during that count to ten. Thought about the absolute insanity of trying to fake COVID-19 to an audience of 7 billion.

Put another way, is there another single topic on which you'd claim that Trump has never, unflinchingly stuck to the truth, never offered a version that demonstrably clashed with reality, when expediency favored a lie or disortion?

The man lies about...everything. Why on Earth would he get a free pass on a Covid diagnosis--again, early on, before going to Walter Reed, etc. ?
?

If Trump said "I farted in bed last night" there'd be people Tweeting "pressing X to doubt".

 

[Patooka]

Remembering that "entertained the idea" is a far lower bar than "Committed whole hog to the "faking it" conspiracy," and "doubling down on it," how can you persuasively argue that Trump's credibility is such that a reasonable person could not possibly put it past him to lie for personal gain?

But I never said he wouldn't lie, or lie for personal gain, or lie for any reason whatsoever. The point is not whether he is trustworthy. His trustworthiness is beside the point. The point is that if you are President of the United States, you can't fake a COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, and Trump would know it.

Even if someone entertained the idea it was a hoax, they might have counted to ten, calmed the raging, frothing, febrile, visceral Trump hatred that permeates their being, and thought about it during that count to ten. Thought about the absolute insanity of trying to fake COVID-19 to an audience of 7 billion.

Put another way, is there another single topic on which you'd claim that Trump has never, unflinchingly stuck to the truth, never offered a version that demonstrably clashed with reality, when expediency favored a lie or disortion?

The man lies about...everything. Why on Earth would he get a free pass on a Covid diagnosis--again, early on, before going to Walter Reed, etc. ?
?

If Trump said "I farted in bed last night" there'd be people Tweeting "pressing X to doubt".

When did Trump get Covid? Where did he get it?

 

[Metaphor]

But I never said he wouldn't lie, or lie for personal gain, or lie for any reason whatsoever. The point is not whether he is trustworthy. His trustworthiness is beside the point. The point is that if you are President of the United States, you can't fake a COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and recovery, and Trump would know it.

Even if someone entertained the idea it was a hoax, they might have counted to ten, calmed the raging, frothing, febrile, visceral Trump hatred that permeates their being, and thought about it during that count to ten. Thought about the absolute insanity of trying to fake COVID-19 to an audience of 7 billion.



If Trump said "I farted in bed last night" there'd be people Tweeting "pressing X to doubt".

When did Trump get Covid? Where did he get it?

The circumstances of Trump's diagnosis have been widely covered in the media.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, i get it.
Metaphor somewhy needs the biggest gripes about Trump to be from unbalanced hatred, not, you know, "paying attention for the last twenty years." Therefore THE MOST POWERFUL MAN idiot IN THE WEST, who spent three years getting total control of The Word coming out around him, cannot even consider staging a hoax, because he would be the one with the rational estimation of his chance for success.

Therefore, any argument must proceed from the same hatred, the same desire to somehow 'catch' the draft'dodger cheating, like with his taxes, or his SATs, or on every woman in his life.

Therefore, irrational to have even wondered, at any point, if this might be his October Surprise, pity play, or an attempt to promote HQC a bit more.