Originally Posted by James2001:
“Have you seen the posts on this forum recently? You can never assume people will know you're joking with the amount of rabid Trump & Farage admirers here.”
Originally Posted by stoatie:
“Yeah, fair point.”
Yes it's always other people isn't it?
I don't know how self aware you are, but it wasn't rabid Trump and Farage admirers who didn't get the sarcasm behind your joke, its was a few critics of Trump and Russia on this very thread.
Any casual observer might reasonably feel that there might be a bit of projection going on there.
And you just let that fly by and say "Yeah, fair point",
But it's not as if it's any different from the mindset which just believes that Russia affected the outcome of the election and were definitely the culprits behind what is described as the hacking.
It's just believed, without any requirement of factual proof. Just a belief in the opinions of other people who you happen to prefer over other people.
Of course it's perfectly fine to say that you 'think' it was Russian hackers, or it could have been, or even that you believe that there is a high chance that it was. But no, it's a cast iron solidified belief that it definitely was.
But rather than ask questions about what you're being presented with it's far easier to try to undermine the people who disagree with the approach of believing something in blind faith without putting the theory under scrutiny.
To some there is some reassurance to be gained by accusing people who don't share their opinion as being rabid. It feels better than trying to seek the truth, despite the fact that many of these people are quite open to new information and updating their opinion based on what can be confirmed.
The irony is that you would probably describe somebody who refuses to change their beliefs and sticks to them like glue and is hostile to anybody who questions them as being rabid, and there won't be many people who believe that Russians definitely didn't engage in any hacking activities. They just believe that it's very important to be informed by what is objectively factual and true. To not do so would be making the very same mistake many people made leading up to the last war in Iraq.
Speaking personally I have never even said that Russia weren't involved. I've always maintained that they might have been. I've said that I just don't know. I just require proof when somebody makes a claim such as the one being made here. Nothing which has come out in public has been said in a way which strikes me with confidence when they're using language like there's a high probability, or our assessments or judgments suggest. They can either confirm information or they can't. If they can't or don't and just make allusions then I can't have confidence in their claims until proven otherwise.