a reply to: Aazadan
Well, as you stated yourself, rumours and anonymous sources are distrusted generally. There is a very good reason for that, which is that they cannot
be substantiated, because the source cannot be checked in the case of anonymous persons, and because rumour, by definition, is often either totally
incorrect, or worse, issues from a Chinese whisper scenario, where an utterly innocuous statement, is muddled and conflated with something else.
Someone mishears something, passes on the version they think they heard, or just straight up embellishes the message. Before long, you get a novel out
of something the length of a Tweet, people act on false narratives and no one ends up being able to access the truth.
I can totally appreciate that this is your opinion and that you have a right to have one and voice it, but it is vital that when you do so, you make
clear at every possible stage, that what you are saying is an opinion based on your feelings or intuition, rather than a hypothesis or a prediction
based on observation and calculation. I know it may seem pedantic to say so, but its actually vital to make that clear. The reason I say this is as
Predictions based on solid data, have a high degree of probability of being proven accurate. For example, many moons ago, before Snowden, before any
of the leaks about mass surveillance in the digital age were made, a great number of people were concerned about it. Why? Because they had noted small
details about how the internet was running, weird coincidences,and so on, all of which added up, to an understanding that someone MUST have an
unprecedented access to the private information of citizens, in violation of the Constitution, among other articles of law and trust between the
people and the powers which are wielded over them. That observation of tangible phenomena, allowed people to form reasonable hypotheses about what
would be necessary to make those phenomena possible, and because they went about their ruminations in a near scientific manner, the predictions they
made about what was at the root of what they were seeing, were accurate.
Predictions based on rumour and supposition however, are rarely proven accurate. You can look to the idea that FEMA was preparing for an
extermination doctrine to be enacted, just because it had a number of body bags and low cost coffins on hand. Never mind the fact that proper
containment of bodies during a disaster, can prevent the spread of lethal diseases, which in turn prevents unnecessary death amongst survivors. Never
mind the fact that FEMA as an organisation has EVERY reason to have these things on hand, bearing in mind their mission profile. There were hundreds
of better explanations for FEMA having these things on hand, than the ones people seemed to prefer to believe, but none the less, people distrusted
the hell out of FEMA because someones opinion traveled further and faster than the reality of the situation.
We need to keep misunderstandings to a minimum in the post truth age, because if there is one thing this site needs to be a bastion of, its the
truth. While I accept that it is true that your opinion is that Trump is under the control of forces outside of himself, unless that opinion is based
on a large amount of solid information, keep people abreast of where it falls on the spectrum, between information backed hypothesis, and speculation
based on questionable data!