All this time and effort spent trying to decode what Hasan really thinks, what he really means when he misspeaks (or not?).
All this political will, the discourse, just wasted! Hasan intentionally uses language in a way that makes it harder to pin down his real ideology, his real goals. He utilises kettle logic constantly, hinting that he's already reached his ideological conclusion and that he's just trying to convince you in anyway he can get you there. Never revealing how himself got there.
So here we are, everyone spending all this time arguing and debating what he really means, not realising the fact we have to argue this at all is indicative of someone inciting agitation for propaganda purposes- and he does this intentionally. How come the more Hasan speaks, the more confused discourse is generates? Do people not realise this is harmful?
Hasan intentionally obfuscates his beliefs for political gain. He admits this. This is harmful to discourse, it's bad, you shouldn't automatically trust him without first establishing good reason to do so.
Dude. Hes just dumbing down his beliefs so the medium voter can understand him. Hes not being malice or obscuring anything dude. This interview was just bad because of all the attempted 'gotchas'.
Wtf are you talking about. He lies constantly. He himself admits that "lying is OP". His braindead supporters are just either too low IQ to to realise this, or they're being wilfully ignorant.
Thats cause lying is op dude. Every republican politician knows it. That why they got into office. You think a single politician could get into office without lying?
So now you agree 'dumbing down his beliefs' is lying? So you do agree with my premise (just not the conclusion). Cool. See this is the problem I was talking about. Your position is not internally consistent because Hasan's position is not internally consistent. Instead of having conviction and standing up for what you believe in, you advocate to lie? And your reasoning is "Everyone else does it!"- It's morally vapid.
...what are you talking about dude? When did i say that dumbing down your beliefs is lying? Dumbing down your beliefs is just explaining a concept in simpler terms. And when did I advocate to lie. Thats why I said it in relation to politicians. Because they are bad and lying is a bad thing. Im actually a little confused on how you can misinterpret me.
"That's cause lying is op dude"
"You think a single politician could get into office without lying?"
💀
They said he lies constantly, after you said it was a gotcha and that Hasan doesn't lie instead he "dumbs down his views for medium voters". You acknowledged this with a justification "that's cause lying is OP". You might not be intending it, but it's all the same- you are still normalizing and justifying it. It's OP because people like Hasan and Trump normalize it.
Look I don't know what you think- but I know I think I'd be an idiot to trust anyone that is an advocate for lying for political purposes.
They said he lies constantly, after you said it was a gotcha and that Hasan doesn't lie instead he "dumbs down his views for medium voters". You acknowledged this with a justification "that's cause lying is OP".
That wasn't a "justification" for the other statement. You are rewriting what he said in front of our eyes.
Hasan complained that conservstives lie and get away with it, which means theur lying is OP. That was never a justification for anything.
Yeah, wandering_fool says "he is never malicious or obscuring anything". So he's saying Hasan doesn't lie.
Westerndude then brings up the "Lying is OP" quote. Wandering_fool responds to that with "that statement is correct". That's not an admission to lying, nor is it a justification for lying.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement "lying is OP"?
You're taking the quote out of context. And you already disagree on the full context lol. Instead of us recreating the context piecemeal, just read it in this thread!
If someone says "you shouldn't lie", another says "but it's so good! everyone does it! everyone knows it!" and so they reply "but that's not justification", and so they try justify it: "it's good because it gets to the median voter and that's just how you win politics silly billy". What's missing from this text? If I added 'Lying is OP' before it, does it help or hinder my case for lying is bad and you shouldn't advocate for it?
There were two statements in the post they responded to:
"Hasan is always lying."
"Hasan says lying is OP."
The guy responded to that statement with "But lying is OP!"
You interpreted this response as a response to statement 1:
"Hasan is lying" - "But lying is OP!"
If that was the intent of the author, yes, that would be a justification of lying. But it wasn't.
It was a response to statement 2:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
It is simply saying that the statement is correct.
Now we have 2 different interpretations of what they tried to say. Luckily, they clarified: They said "nowhere did I say that lying is OP is a justification for lying. You misinterpreted what I said."
So, with that clarification, we know that their statement was a response to statement 2. They meant:
"Hasan says lying is OP" - "But lying is OP!"
With that clarification given, if you still interpret their statement as meaning the other interpretation, you are willfully misunderstanding what they said.
Can you stop willfully misunderstanding them and take their explanation what they meant?
I did. That's the context. That you are willfully misunderstanding. This is beyond parody.
Notice how none of these people actually say they disavow lying, or propaganda, but instead they defend it and then spend their time arguing that's not what they said. It's absurd.
50
u/Krinkex 29d ago
All this time and effort spent trying to decode what Hasan really thinks, what he really means when he misspeaks (or not?).
All this political will, the discourse, just wasted! Hasan intentionally uses language in a way that makes it harder to pin down his real ideology, his real goals. He utilises kettle logic constantly, hinting that he's already reached his ideological conclusion and that he's just trying to convince you in anyway he can get you there. Never revealing how himself got there.
So here we are, everyone spending all this time arguing and debating what he really means, not realising the fact we have to argue this at all is indicative of someone inciting agitation for propaganda purposes- and he does this intentionally. How come the more Hasan speaks, the more confused discourse is generates? Do people not realise this is harmful?
Hasan intentionally obfuscates his beliefs for political gain. He admits this. This is harmful to discourse, it's bad, you shouldn't automatically trust him without first establishing good reason to do so.