I guessed and predicted that you based your gaslighting on a fact checker which turned out to be true.
The original exchange was:
"FF : His idea now is to extradite Fauci to Russia, apparently.
Tv: Let me guess ... you got that from a fact checker. "
but then, confusingly, just after, you er attribute fact checkers with the
opposite view:
"The only people rejecting it or denying it is because of the “Snopes Fact Checker”
See what you did there? According to this logic,
whatever I said it would be wrong and evidence of fact checker bias.
In the event you were right in that Snopes shows the story to be false. But I only looked at Snopes after you mentioned it. Also, please example the 'gaslighting' and of whom, pertaining here. But you won't; you just throw terms around without any reason.
Search engines are not fact checkers,
Indeed but it was two fact checkers you came up with. If you can show they were not, then fair enough.
but it’s possible that "an exception" could be made
It is possible too that you say this just off the top of your head - as usual.
And, for the
third time your reasons for accepting the rumour as likely true
(especially given the sources I gave for it) are ... Evasion still noted..
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
but it was two fact checkers you came up with
Nope, you have me confused with someone else.
The bottom line is that regardless of the "other sources" for your gaslighting, they all originated from a fact checker.
The absence of an extradition treaty does not necessarily mean that extradition cannot occur; it might still happen under specific circumstances or through diplomatic negotiations.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3146)
a month ago
The bottom line is that regardless of the "other sources" for your gaslighting, they all originated from a fact checker.
Really? Think about the obvious. If I had used a fact checker (eg Snopes) for my first post, I would not have thought the Fauci story was 'apparently' true, would I ? See how it works? And, by attributing to fact checkers conveniently opposing views at the same time to condemn them, as I showed you did just before, you reveal your bias rather than theirs lol.
For the second time, please show the 'gaslighting' here that you claim. Evasion noted. And, for the fourth time, your reasons for accepting the rumour as likely true are ... Evasion still noted..
The bottom line is that in this instance the Fauci claim is unlikely to be true, due to the source of the original X posting ,see above.
you have me confused with someone else.
Your characteristic alt-Right tropes and solipsistic epistemology mean that you are hard to confuse, my friend. And I remember it as I was amused that any fact checkers were acceptable to you at all.
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
You didn’t need to use a fact checker since all your gaslighting originates from fact checkers one way or the other regardless of source.
You could even serve as your own fact checker since you base everything you think and regurgitate on propaganda.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3146)
a month ago
You didn’t need to use a fact checker
Thank you for admitting that. But why did you ask "Are you sure you didn't get it from a fact checker? Let me guess ... you got that from a fact checker. etc " at the start? Doesn't this new view now make of them non-sequiturs?
all your gaslighting
So you keep saying ... while ignoring request to show it, naturally.
Arguably the only gaslighting here is from those alt-Right posts on X and elsewhere, spuriously attributing to President Felon plans he has not expressed interest in doing.
You could even serve as your own fact checker since you base everything you think and regurgitate on propaganda.
Ironic, since you have yet to give your reasons for accepting the Fauci rumour as likely true are ... Evasion still noted..
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
In the end, your gaslighting originated from a fact checker as usual ... Drones are predictable.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3146)
a month ago
Just so you know (since you never seem to), gaslighting is a type of emotional abuse that involves manipulating someone into doubting their own reality, feelings, and perceptions.
You are trying it on with me by originally saying I asserted the apparent truth of the Fauci claim based on Snopes - when Snopes actually says the opposite. Then suddenly, I don't need fact checkers after all, it seems.
QED.
You have yet to give your reasons for accepting the Fauci rumour as likely true (since you decry those checkers who debunk it) are ... Evasion still noted..
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
My initial post didn't specify "Snopes"; I referenced "a fact checker."
Semantics noted.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3146)
a month ago
"The only people rejecting it or denying it is because of the “Snopes Fact Checker” ..."Not even a Snopes fact checker? " etc
Oh yes; from your second message onwards then. Big difference. In any case, didn't you say that only Snopes was the checker concerned? Semantics, indeed. But whatever the point is the same.
AND
You have yet to give your reasons for accepting the Fauci rumour as likely true (since you decry those checkers who debunk it) are ... Evasion still noted.
Let me know when you have an answer, otherwise that's all from me here.
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
lol, That wasn't my initial post.
Nevertheless, it was a fact checker that propagated the gaslighting to all other sources and you followed along.
BTW, only one other person on this forum insisted and persisted on having their question answered as you just demonstrated ... Skavau.
reply
share
filmflaneur (3146)
a month ago
Bonus double tap:
That wasn't my initial post.
That's why er, I said. just before '
oh yes, from your second message onwards . Big difference' Please read what I actually say it will save embarrassment.
it was a fact checker that propagated the gaslighting to all other sources ..
Since when is debunking a claim made about someone 'gaslighting' ? Shame you think this, since I even defined the term for you, just above. Still awaiting your answer btw. Is there a problem?
Have good day.
reply
share
tvfan (14574)
a month ago
And yet, you quoted a proceeding quote even though it was irrelevant.
Still awaiting your answer. Is there a problem?
Skavau is the only other person on this forum that insisted as much as you for an answer.
How is it possible for two persons to use 99% identical tactics without being the same person?
reply
share