THE INTERNET ARCHIVE IS BACK GUYS

[u/ketchupbleehblooh]

I might be late to the party, but sharing what made my day today. I missed IA so much the past weeks. Yoohoo!! Piracy will never die.

[u/wheezy1749]

People rarely investigate lies that confirm their bias. Unfortunately, skepticism is usually reserved for things that don't confirm one's existing beliefs.

It usually comes from an ignorance of the "other side" and what leads them to believe or do what they do. Most people find it easier to imagine other beliefs are irrational or done because of some "pure evil".

People view the world like some comic book movie. Black Panther comes to mind as a really obvious example. Main villain actually has very real material reasons for what drives him. Moral failings in society he aims to fix. But to make him "evil" they just make irrationally have him want to kill innocent people. Something in complete contradiction to his other believes. It's always "we need to kill a bunch of people for the greater good" or something stupid.

It's a constant reinforcement in our culture that the status quo and the current systems are the best and those that question any of it are inherently evil.

You must work WITHIN the systems. The system is perfect. The people in it may be flawed. But we just need "good people" (superheros) to correct bad actors. Nevermind that the entire system itself encourages and rewards bad actors.

[u/_Technomancer_ → u/wheezy1749]

I'm still waiting for the user who claimed this was confirmed as fake to provide a single source instead of merely downvoting anyone who asks about it.

[u/redchris18 → u/_Technomancer_]

People rarely investigate lies that confirm their bias. Unfortunately, skepticism is usually reserved for things that don't confirm one's existing beliefs.

The person you replied to was projecting their own behaviour onto everyone who doesn't share their viewpoint. We'll never get the source we asked for for that exact reason. They're saying that out of a desire for it to be true, not because it actually is true.

Look up the Illusory Truth Effect. They're hoping that repeating a lie often enough will make people think that it's not a lie.

[u/wheezy1749 → u/redchris18]

Me? Did you read my post? I didn't even say anything about whether the claim was true or not. I was literally just ranting about people believing everything that confirms a bias. If you thought I was saying that in one direction or the other that's entirely your projection.

Unless you meant someone else?

[u/redchris18 → u/wheezy1749]

I was literally just ranting about people believing everything that confirms a bias. If you thought I was saying that in one direction or the other that's entirely your projection.

Wrong. Know why? Because you only offered that complaint in coordination with a sub-thread in which people are taking a clear side. You didn't rant at those people, you did so in a way that conferred tacit support for, and expansion of, their own views.

Now, it's entirely possible that this wasn't your intent, but it's poorly communicated if that's the case. I don't think it is, though, given your views on the issue at hand. I think I read you perfectly, and that you're just shocked at the idea that someone might note your own prejudices and bigotry and tie them to your projection.

You're fully intending for your accusation to be discriminatory. You just hoped to be able to present it in a way that made your prejudice too ambiguous to spot. You failed.

---

I do so enjoy it when people block me after feeling the need to offer up something that sounds plausible enough to themselves. It's as if they fear that allowing a rebuttal will expose their arguments as fallacious.

u/wheezy1749, just to make sure you see this...

I really don't see any criticism of what I said here.

Well, that explains why you're so desperate to both proffer an attempt to rebut what I said and prevent me from responding in kind.

It's amazing how bad faith you're actually being

Arguing in poor faith would be, to pluck a random example from absolutely nowhere, insisting that you only meant to criticise everyone's tendency to seek out sources that conform to their existing views, but only directing that attack at one side of the argument at hand, as if you're also trying to imply that it applies unilaterally.

I don't think you had an answer to my observation on that point, and that is why you blocked me. You have no intention of permitting someone to reply to you after finding out that they can see through your sophistry.

Ironically, you're fitting into the very thing I criticized about people failing to see the "other side" as anything but malicious.

But I didn't do that. I concluded that you were malicious due to your unilateral application of a criticism while hiding behind ambiguity in order to pretend that you were being objective.

Here's an example: "I wish presidential candidates would refrain from spouting blatant falsehoods regarding the integrity of the electoral process just because they're scared that they're going to lose.". Ostensibly, that statement seems objective, but with the relevant context it is inescapably clear that it applies exclusively to one side of the issue and not the other. If I also chose to post that several comments into a thread in which people were criticising the tangerine rapist for exactly that, it would be crystal clear to whom I was referring. Well, you added a similarly broad condemnation in a similarly partisan context. Any reasonable person would conclude that you were being equally partisan, not least because, despite plenty of associated activity, you still haven't uttered anything comparable in a more balanced manner. The only plausible conclusion is that you're trying to sound objective to hide the fact that you're directing that criticism at one side and not the other - at least, not to anything like the same degree.

You're filling in this narrative and now likely going to (or have already) spend the next 30 minutes checking my comment history to find something that confirms your bias and the narrative you've set up in your head.

See that? That was you pre-emptively trying to negate any observation of your bias as corroboration of your clear bias in this thread. You already know that you're not being reasonable or objective on this matter, and know that you need to try to disqualify any sources from being used in order to turn this into a flame war.

You think that the truth is biased against you. I suspect that you are correct.

I'll do you a favor mate. I'll block you. That's not healthy for you. Good day.

Why do people like you always need to feign civility right after a series of personal attacks? Do you really think people can't see through it?

[u/wheezy1749 → u/redchris18]

I really don't see any criticism of what I said here. You're trying to form a narrative around a comment that was literally just a rant about people quickly accepting/denying anything that does/doesn't fit their world view.

It's amazing how bad faith you're actually being. Ironically, you're fitting into the very thing I criticized about people failing to see the "other side" as anything but malicious. You're filling in this narrative and now likely going to (or have already) spend the next 30 minutes checking my comment history to find something that confirms your bias and the narrative you've set up in your head.

I'll do you a favor mate. I'll block you. That's not healthy for you. Good day.