Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

GroundControl_1 t1_j6e2ljq wrote

Reply to comment by muffinhead2580 in the last photo of John F. Kennedy (the 35th president of the USA), in a few seconds he will be gone. by MedicalJoseph

No, the CIA on purpose, it's out in the open now.

His nephew: https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1604139690629730304?t=o_XpjbQOFRX9Ogmz9noGPw&s=19

−28

muffinhead2580 t1_j6e75u0 wrote

Using Tucker Carlson as a source of news. That's rich.

19

GroundControl_1 t1_j6ew1eo wrote

Never mind the documentation, never mind the factual evidence. Just use ad-homs because "those people"

That Reddit still considers itself an open minded, tolerant, and evidence-based community is one of the biggest jokes on the Internet, and every one is laughing at it but you. You guys gotta start doing better.

−10

muffinhead2580 t1_j6ewu7g wrote

The trouble you have here is that Tucker Carlson is a joke. He is not a reference for any factual information at all. The real story about the assassination will likely never be known by everyone. There are lots of theories, which the Secret Service is one, but we will likely never know the truth. One thing I would say is that since Carlson says it was the CIA, I believe the CIA had nothing to do with it.

7

GroundControl_1 t1_j6f01xj wrote

Again, you're using an ad-hom and providing no data. Calling someone "a joke" isn't an argument and doesn't support your claims, rather, it tends to indicate that you are not debating from facts. Can you make your case without diminishing the humanity of the people you are debating? It doesn't seem like you can, and that's a problem.

2: there is ample data provided by both RFK and Carlson, but you refuse to review or acknowledge it because "those people." Isn't that classical, textbook wilfull ignorance? How does that differ from the behavior we see e.g. in "To Kill a Mockingbird?"

It doesn't 🤷‍♂️

you're refusing to review information because you hate people.

That's it.

−7

NlXON t1_j6hx57r wrote

I have friends on both sides of the American aisle and I am not targeting you or any base in this comment. This is purely objective.

I watched the video you were referring to. Tucker Carlson is creating a narrative, just as every American news/infotainment company does. The sources being used are unconfirmed and did not confirm that there was involvement, the expressed belief that there was involvement. Two different things.

He is right that conspiracy theory has a certain perceived connotation, mostly because it is a term used to categorize events that are orchestrated by secret but influential organizations. This same term is used for categorizing the Illuminati, alien abductions, ufo sightings and many more events and phenomena that have been claimed, but not confirmed.

The whole segment was wrapped with character descriptives aimed at supporting a narrative and lacked basic support for the claims. This is why Fox News and more specifically Tucker Carlson, and similarly Rachel Maddow on the other side of the spectrum, is negatively perceived outside of the GOP, because there is a narrative being driven to increase viewership for the network.

1

eyeruleall t1_j6hvcn3 wrote

"factual evidence"

Buddy you can't use that line when your blue text is Tucker just saying shit.

1

overkill373 t1_j6e6bz4 wrote

Tucker Carlson....right

15

GroundControl_1 t1_j6ewhf1 wrote

Yep he's got some of the highest ratings in the nation. But let me guess, that's all "those people" and you're smarter and better than them, right?

−19

overkill373 t1_j6f14bu wrote

Considering FOX's own lawyers have claimed in court that noone should take anything Tucker says seriously and he is currently crying about M&Ms not being sexy anymore...yeah I am smarter and better than them

20

GroundControl_1 t1_j6f2quk wrote

Except that neither of those things is really true.

  1. Be really honest with me for a second: did you watch the Tucker piece about M&Ms for yourself, or did some other media property tell you what it said and what conclusions should be drawn about it?

  2. Lawyers? Really? Fox corporate lawyers? I think you would be one of the first people to argue that they are perhaps top 1% full of shit (and I would agree), so they don't really help your case at all.

  3. All of them? You can know this for sure?

−15

Mrrobotico0 t1_j6eht7u wrote

His nephew is just a touch crazy so there’s that.

0

GroundControl_1 t1_j6ewet9 wrote

Never mind the documentation, never mind the factual evidence. Just use ad-homs because "those people"

That Reddit still considers itself an open minded, tolerant, and evidence-based community is one of the biggest jokes on the Internet, and every one is laughing at it but you. You guys gotta start doing better.

−3