Lies that became Truths

[jross]

4 minutes ago, red viking said:

those have all been proven false. 

Okay, let's go one by one, starting at the top.  I will kick us off and await your rebuttal that this is proven false.

 

Border Security Concerns (2019–2022)
Claims of uncontrolled borders were labeled xenophobic, but 2022 data showed record crossings, prompting policy shifts.

 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

[jross]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Did it. So, the choices that people have are to a) believe your (coming from a right-wing extremist) cherry-picked examples as the overall, universal trend, or they can read an actual scientific paper from a scientific study. 

Right wing extremist that voted for democrats in the past and maybe will again when the party becomes moderate and rational again.

Below is what I'm talking about.  This shows a normal post, followed by a copy/paste from the internet that is hard to consume.

------------

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, jross said:

Right wing extremist that voted for democrats in the past and maybe will again when the party becomes moderate and rational again.

Below is what I'm talking about.  This shows a normal post, followed by a copy/paste from the internet that is hard to consume.

------------

Well, that article is SOOOOO dang long. It's Trump's fault, for having so many whack job conspiracy theories 

[jross]

43 minutes ago, red viking said:

wikipedia...

The request is to list narratives initially dismissed that later gained acceptance.

The wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump starts off by stating "This article contains a list of conspiracy theories, many of them deceptive or disproven."  That is not what is asked... but the wiki does provide a few examples that fit:

• Biden laptop
• Obama spying
• Deep state working to undermine Trump

Edited 5 hours ago by jross

[red viking]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

The request is to list narratives initially dismissed that later gained acceptance.

The wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories_promoted_by_Donald_Trump starts off by stating "This article contains a list of conspiracy theories, many of them deceptive or disproven."  That is not what is asked... but the wiki does provide a few examples that fit:

• Biden laptop
• Obama spying
• Deep state working to undermine Trump

That's dumb because just about any belief out there you can say was dismissed by some people at first and then accepted later on. There's zero science, objectivity or point in anything that you're saying. 

Edited 5 hours ago by red viking

[fishbane]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Did it. So, the choices that people have are to a) believe your (coming from a right-wing extremist) cherry-picked examples as the overall, universal trend, or they can read an actual scientific paper from a scientific study. 

I'm not reading it with that formatting.

[jross]

52 minutes ago, red viking said:

That's dumb because just about any belief out there you can say was dismissed by some people at first and then accepted later on. There's zero science, objectivity or point in anything that you're saying. 

 Let's focus on the beliefs used in this forum and MSM to label people idiots and sheep.  "Nuh uh, I read on MSM... Owned you."

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, jross said:

 Let's focus on the beliefs used in this forum and MSM to label people idiots and sheep.  "Nuh uh, I read on MSM... Owned you."

Read the scientific journal article. I provided the link to it. Literally anybody can find misinformation or beliefs that turned out to be incorrect from both sides of the political spectrum. Seriously, what you provided was 100% meaningless. 

[Scouts Honor]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

I took a quick look and it looks to me that everything you listed are cherry-picked situations where at least some later facts supported the beliefs that some Republicans had. 

The implication, therefore, appears to be that misinformation is always stacked against the Republicans. Like always, it's the victim mentality. 

what really happened is

leftists saw an opportunity to try to score points

and RAN without any facts

and were later proved wrong 

[jross]

My hope is that we internalize skepticism, critical thinking, and openness to rational thinking about new information.

[red viking]

2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

what really happened is

leftists saw an opportunity to try to score points

and RAN without any facts

and were later proved wrong 

So wingers don't misrepresent the facts? See the article I posted. Virtually endless list of examples just from one person, the President. 

Democrats so it, but the scientific study I posted PROVES that the wingers do it MUCH MORE!!

Edited 4 hours ago by red viking

[red viking]

1 minute ago, jross said:

My hope is that we internalize skepticism, critical thinking, and openness to rational thinking about new information.

If you want critical thinking, look to an actual scientific study on the subject. Not cherry picked examples that are for your side. 

[wrestlingguy]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234

How about some actual science? 

Correct me if I am wrong but the data was collected by a single source? Yougov back in 2019. I am part of the Yougov platform and there is nothing scientific about their biased questions. They are left leaning so of course the results would say republicans are more prone to misperception. 

[jross]

Regarding the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, it’s too early to definitively assert that he is or was involved with MS-13.

It’s unreasonable to dismiss that media and tech companies influenced the flow of information in a way that highly favored Biden during the 2020 election.

It’s unwarranted to argue that the Georgia ballot inspection case, given confirmed errors, poses no significant concern for claims about election integrity.

[red viking]

27 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

Correct me if I am wrong but the data was collected by a single source? Yougov back in 2019. I am part of the Yougov platform and there is nothing scientific about their biased questions. They are left leaning so of course the results would say republicans are more prone to misperception. 

The data itself is rigged. Sounds familiar 

[jross]

28 minutes ago, red viking said:

So wingers don't misrepresent the facts? See the article I posted. Virtually endless list of examples just from one person, the President. 

Democrats so it, but the scientific study I posted PROVES that the wingers do it MUCH MORE!!

Wingers do misrepresent facts.  Now please, I'm twiddling my thumbs in anticipation of examples on this forum and MSM where wingers labeled something as misinformation, where it was later verified to be true.

It is interesting that using AI to research, the AI itself keeps giving me an unbalanced list of Republican vindication compared to Democrat vindication.  This is remarkably unusual as AI has always shown me a large bias for Democrat ideologies...

These are the prompts I gave AI.

• Give me ten examples were each of republican and democrat claims a narrative as misinformation, and the narrative was later vindicated as true.  
• Why are all the examples making the Republicans look good?
• okay can can you give many more examples where democrats claims were vindicated?
• That longer list still makes republicans look better. Why is it so one sided, this seems crazy?
• I want the Democrat claims to be vindicated

This is response I was battling.

• In recent years, the public discourse around "misinformation" has often involved Democrats or aligned institutions (e.g., media, tech platforms) more prominently flagging content, especially during COVID-19, elections, or cultural debates. This dynamic makes it easier to find cases where Republican-raised concerns were dismissed and later validated, as they were often challenging dominant narratives. Conversely, Republican dismissals of claims as misinformation are less frequently documented in a way that aligns with later proof of truth.

I kept fighting the battle and eventually did get examples to share.

[wrestlingguy]

13 minutes ago, red viking said:

The data itself is rigged. Sounds familiar 

It's single sourced and biased. Not rigged. Not that you would ever admit it, but sign up and see for yourself that the way they frame questions is slanted. That isn't science.

Edited 2 hours ago by wrestlingguy

[jross]

Russian Interference in 2016 Election (2016–2019)
Democrats’ claims of Russian hacking and disinformation were labeled a hoax by Republicans, but the 2019 Mueller Report confirmed coordinated Russian efforts on Clinton's emails.

Systemic Racism in Policing (2018–2023)
Claims of systemic bias in policing were dismissed as exaggerated, but 2023 DOJ reports and 2021 Stanford studies confirmed racial disparities.

Trump’s Business Conflicts of Interest (2016–2021)
Democrats’ concerns about Trump’s business dealings were labeled partisan, but 2021 CREW reports documented foreign payments to his properties.

Voter Suppression Tactics (2018–2022)
Claims of minority voter suppression were called misinformation, but 2022 Brennan Center studies showed restrictive laws disproportionately impacted minorities.

COVID-19 Public Health Measures’ Efficacy (2020–2022)
Democrats’ support for masks and distancing was dismissed as ineffective, but 2021 CDC studies confirmed reduced transmission rates.

Economic Risks of Tax Cuts for the Wealthy (2017–2023)
Warnings of deficit spikes from Trump’s tax cuts were labeled misinformation, but 2020 CBO reports showed a $1.9 trillion deficit increase.

Gun Violence and Background Checks (2010s–2021)
Claims that background checks reduce gun violence were called futile, but 2020 RAND studies linked stricter checks to lower homicide rates.

Opioid Crisis and Sackler Family Role (2010s–2020)
Democrats’ claims against Purdue Pharma were dismissed as overstated, but 2020 DOJ settlements confirmed misleading OxyContin marketing.

Immigration Detention Conditions (2018–2020)
Concerns about inhumane ICE facilities were labeled exaggerated, but 2019 DHS reports documented overcrowding and neglect.

PFAS Chemical Regulations (2010s–2023)
Democrats’ push for PFAS regulations was called alarmist, but 2020 EPA studies linked the chemicals to cancer and immune issues.

Trump’s Ukraine Call and Impeachment (2019–2020)
Claims of Trump’s improper Ukraine call were labeled a witch hunt, but the 2019 call transcript confirmed pressure for political investigations.