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

[Jimmy Higgins]

This has to be the stupidest thread ever.

I was going to point out the time Self-Mutation said that there were life forms that were sub-atomic in size, and for an example offered "ants." But that was more of an aside, not a whole thread. But if it had been, it would be a close call.

Sounds more like a Keith&Co wiseass response to boss.

Boss: What happened?
Keith&Co: Computer malfunction.
Boss: What caused it?
Keith&Co: First guess would be sub-atomic ants.
Boss: Second guess?
Keith&Co: Something smaller.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This has to be the stupidest thread ever.

I was going to point out the time Self-Mutation said that there were life forms that were sub-atomic in size, and for an example offered "ants." But that was more of an aside, not a whole thread. But if it had been, it would be a close call.

Sounds more like a Keith&Co wiseass response to boss.

Boss: What happened?
Keith&Co: Computer malfunction.
Boss: What caused it?
Keith&Co: First guess would be sub-atomic ants.
Boss: Second guess?
Keith&Co: Something smaller.

Sounds like, yeah. But there's a difference between incredibly good wiseass performance art and Dunning-Kruger debate.

 

[Metaphor]

I need to be honest? The fuck are you asking for here other than charity? What exactly do any of your links ask for other than charity?

Try rereading my post again. Trump called the virus a hoax.

No, he didn't.

Correct. Trump did not call the virus a Hoax, he called it the common flu.

No, he didn't. He called it 'kung flu'.

 

[Metaphor]

Providing evidence that one person out of over 7 billion is not evidence that "many" people believe it.

I provided evidence that thousands believed it.

Yes, but whenever anyone presented reasons, you dismissed them which suggests your were not interested in the "why".

I disagreed that the reasons were sufficient to make the doubt rational, yes. Perhaps there was no more to it than I originally thought: true conspiracists whose brain is just wired like that, and virtue-signallers.

That is illogical. It is rational to initially disbelieve every single utterance made by a persistent liar until there is evidence to support an utterance.

No, it isn't. If 40% of every statement Trump uttered was false, you'd be wrong 60% of the time to disbelieve everything.

It does matter what you say because words have meaning. Because you are a pedant, posters expect you to come close to the standards you use to excoriate and ridicule others. For some reason, you continually blame others for misunderstanding your posts, even calling them "liars" and "dishonest" for taking your posts literally.

At some point, even a minimally self-aware and honest respondent would come to understand that such an abundance of misunderstandings from a wide range of readers is not caused by the audience's poor reading comprehension on but unclear or poor writing.

laughing dog, you accused me of saying every single person who doubted Trump's diagnosis had an unassailable belief that he was lying about it. Then you quoted text that exonerated me from that accusation, as if it supported your accusation!

 

[Metaphor]

Looks like I'm going to have to use baby steps to walk a certain individual through this.

Your post provided 3 tweets. Three fucking tweets will never ever be considered "many" by anyone who is arguing in good faith.

I gave three examples. Remember when you asked for examples in post #2? I used the word 'many' because I did not build up my opinion that it was many based only on the examples, but on following threads on Twitter that talked about the diagnosis, and looking at the tweets, retweets, and the comments of support/derision on tweets that expressed doubt about the diagnosis.

So let's walk through these tweets that have convinced you that many believe Trump catching corona was a hoax.
Tweet 1:
[tweet]1311880493776896001[/tweet]

No mention of Trump testing positive, no mention of a hoax, just the very sensible observation that no sane human being would consider this administration to be trustworthy.

Oy gevalt. You certainly are taking baby steps, because you have the reading level of a primary schooler.

When somebody says some timing is 'convenient', in inverted commas, they do not believe the timing to be an accident. They are suggesting that somebody is setting something up.

Evidence that many people believe that this is a hoax - fail

31.8k people 'liked' the post. At the very minimum, even if you don't think the post indicates Midler pressing x to doubt (though it does indicate that), those 31.8k likes are certainly endorsement of the post's contents, are they not?

Tweet 2:
[tweet]1311896144285376512[/tweet]

No mention of a hoax. Just some healthy skepticism with regards to anything Trump says

Evidence that many people believe that this is a hoax - fail

Sorry, you are looking for the word 'hoax' to be used?!?

When somebody writes 'does anybody believe him', what do you think that implies?

Tweet 3:
[tweet]1311917350065635328[/tweet]

Again basically I can't take Trump at his word. No mention of a hoax

Evidence that many people believe that this is a hoax - fail

I can see this was fruitless from the beginning. If you think Caro directly questioning the truthfulness of the diagnosis and suggesting it could be bullshit isn't raising the possibility of a hoax, I don't know what to tell you.

This is all the evidence you have provided that "Many people on Twitter, including "journalists"," think this may be a hoax. I have provided more example and proof why your premise is absolutely asinine.

Firstly, if it isn't important, why are you making it a hill to die on when you haven't proven it to be the case? And secondly, yes it does fucking matter; it's twitter for fucks suck. You will find a handful of posts about anything on that platform. How many people believe it determines how seriously you should take it. 3 confirmed tweets mean not a lot.

You asked for examples, presumably to evidence that people had said things like it. Then you switched focus to the word 'many'. The three examples are not every tweet that discusses it, they were examples.

Fuck off pal. You made it very clear that you dismissed their opinions by asserting "Some of these people are re-framing their willingness to believe conspiracy theories as 'skepticism'." and that people can only come to such an opinion because of their "visceral Trump hatred". You have no intention in exploring why such people hold such an attitude, and believe anyone with an opinion contrary to your own "beggars belief".

Yes, that was my hypothesis as to why people made the posts they did.

Oh good, we're back to ambiguous words like "some".

"Some" is not ambiguous". It means "some".

Wonderful. Tell me, who is virtue signalling and how do you know this? How many people people this? What is the ratio between people who "expressed the belief" and people who "entertained the possibility"? I assumed you stated it was because you are psychic, but if you have proof, by all means share.

I don't know who truly believed it and who was virtue signalling, any more than I knew which people at Mass were true believers and which people were there for community show. But I knew both types existed.

 

[Metaphor]

To the point:

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

a) Most of Trump's statements are lies, and most of what aren't lies are exaggerations.
b) Trump said he had tested positive for COVID-19

QED

This has to be the stupidest thread ever.

What is your evidence for a)?

Has somebody conducted a study of every utterance Trump has made over 24 hours, say, and divided it into truthful, not-truthful, and other?

 

[Metaphor]

Postscript: I thought that I should nip this on the bud as well. When Metaphor originally posted the clip of these three tweets that prove conclusively that many people believe this, I was skeptical because of the source; a well known Australian right-wing conspiracy theorist. Metaphor's response was:

I don't know who Rowan Dean is. Either the Tweets are real or they are not. (They're real)

And he is 100% correct. They are real. If you watch the video he provided (which I don't recommend, Rowan Dean is a dishonest cunt), you will notice the the dates and times of each tweet was cropped out.

There is a reason for this. Bette Midler's tweet was posted before anyone knew Trump has coronavirus (by at least 45 minutes). So not only does Metaphor know when someone is being genuine in their skepticism or are just virtue signalling because of his psychic powers, Bette Midler is a fucking time traveller.

And yes metaphor, who you are using as a source does matter. Many people, particularly journalists know that.

No, Bette Midler is not a time traveller. The announcement that somebody in Trump's inner circle tested positive invites speculation that Trump might test positive. That's fine. Midler did not say 'Trump might have COVID-19'. She said the timing was 'convenient' if he announced he had it.

 

[laughing dog]

I provided evidence that thousands believed it.

Really - where in post 3 (which is what you claimed)?

I disagreed that the reasons were sufficient to make the doubt rational, yes. Perhaps there was no more to it than I originally thought: true conspiracists whose brain is just wired like that, and virtue-signallers.

Thank you for admitting you had no interest in actual answers to your question.

No, it isn't. If 40% of every statement Trump uttered was false, you'd be wrong 60% of the time to disbelieve everything.

If you had actually read my response of "It is rational to initially disbelieve every single utterance made by a persistent liar until there is evidence to support an utterance. " , you'd see how non-responsive your statement is.

laughing dog, you accused me of saying every single person who doubted Trump's diagnosis had an unassailable belief that he was lying about it.

No, I did not. That is false.

Then you quoted text that exonerated me from that accusation, as if it supported your accusation!

That is false. Not only did your text not exonerate you, your "exoneration" response confirmed my interpretation.

 

[Metaphor]

Really - where in post 3 (which is what you claimed)?

Post 3 has links to examples.

My evidence that many people had similar sentiments to the examples came later. You can find it if you care to.

Thank you for admitting you had no interest in actual answers to your question.

But I was interested. It's simply that I didn't find any actual answers.

If you had actually read my response of "It is rational to initially disbelieve every single utterance made by a persistent liar until there is evidence to support an utterance. " , you'd see how non-responsive your statement is.

And you'd be wrong, as I said, 60% of the time, to have initially disbelieved Trump.

That is false. Not only did your text not exonerate you, your "exoneration" response confirmed my interpretation.

Alright luv.

 

[laughing dog]

But I was interested. It's simply that I didn't find any actual answers.

That is false. There were plenty of answers. You dismissed each one of them with a handwave. Your question was in bad faith.

And you'd be wrong, as I said, 60% of the time, to have initially disbelieved Trump.

You did not say initially in your response, so the "as I said" is yet another example of false claim.

 

[Rhea]

If someone is known to lie 40% of the time, you can bet that the 40% of the time he does it is when something is happening that benefits him and harms you. So the prudent action is to assume this is one of the 40% and if you’re wrong then it was something inconsequential.

So yah, just assume everything he says is a lie - and you will be safer.

 

[Metaphor]

That is false. There were plenty of answers. You dismissed each one of them with a handwave. Your question was in bad faith.

It isn't a handwave to say I did not find any rational explanation. It means I did not find a rational explanation. If somebody had offered one I'd have considered it.

You did not say initially in your response, so the "as I said" is yet another example of false claim.

Of course I didn't say initially, you introduced that word. What did you imagine I was talking about when I said it is irrational to disbelieve every Trump utterance just because Trump uttered it? It is irrational even if you later revise your beliefs. That's why you introduced the word 'initially' as opposed to a revised belief. You think it's rational to discount every utterance until proof of truthfulness is produced. I believe it is irrational to do so for all kinds of reasons, whether you later revise your belief or not.

 

[Metaphor]

If someone is known to lie 40% of the time, you can bet that the 40% of the time he does it is when something is happening that benefits him and harms you. So the prudent action is to assume this is one of the 40% and if you’re wrong then it was something inconsequential.

So yah, just assume everything he says is a lie - and you will be safer.

I don't know what percentage of Trump utterances are factual versus counterfactual. I don't assume everything anybody says is a lie, though sometimes I will reserve judgment.

 

[ZiprHead]

A list of Trumps lies from his rally last night.

Anyone who takes what trump says at face value without confirmation is a fool. But hey, that's what metaphor wants us to do.

 

[Metaphor]

A list of Trumps lies from his rally last night.

Anyone who takes what trump says at face value without confirmation is a fool. But hey, that's what metaphor wants us to do.

No, anyone who believes Trump would fake having COVID-19 when he didn't is a fool.

In that link you sent me, the first fact-check was Trump talking about taxes. I did not believe Trump when he says something as absurd and hyper-exaggerated as 'Biden wants to quadruple your taxes'. It's obvious nonsense. And how do I know it's nonsense? Not because I believe everything Trump says, but because of the nature of the claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If someone is known to lie 40% of the time, you can bet that the 40% of the time he does it is when something is happening that benefits him and harms you. So the prudent action is to assume this is one of the 40% and if you’re wrong then it was something inconsequential.

So yah, just assume everything he says is a lie - and you will be safer.

Someone lies to me 20,000+ times in 4 years, i think it's plain self-defense to treat every utterance is a lie as an initial, working hypothesis.

 

[ZiprHead]

A list of Trumps lies from his rally last night.

Anyone who takes what trump says at face value without confirmation is a fool. But hey, that's what metaphor wants us to do.

No, anyone who believes Trump would fake having COVID-19 when he didn't is a fool.

No, it means you have more trust in Trump than others. I suggest you give him a big sloppy kiss. Trump said he wanted it at his rally.

 

[Patooka]

Let's see if I've got this thread right.

An unspecified people (let's call them "many") "believe" that a known liar and political opportunist would fake his own illness and that would be an "irrational belief" less than 48 hours after his announcement
Apparently this is a phenomenon because Twitter is a reliable windsock for what people think.

People are willing to make this a hill to die on.

Wow.

 

[Patooka]

though sometimes I will reserve judgment.

Anyone other than a moron would call that skepticism

 

[braces_for_impact]

I ask this about the masks "debate". There wasn't a single blip on the radar for masks in surgery, the ER, or any other medical function for the last hundred years. Now they don't work suddenly? Now they cause CO2 buildup? Lower immune resistance, etc? FFS!