No, better would be the claim that someone went behind JD Vance and collected the "samples" from the couch he was using.
No, better would be the claim that someone went behind JD Vance and collected the "samples" from the couch he was using.
I would have used the word overblown instead of hoax. Words aren't Phoenixmgs strong suitIt's not a hoax. A hoax would mean that it didn't happen at all. It did happen, the pictures are verified to have come from a Trump rally, and the pictures are confirmed to not be modified or AI generated.
Tricking people into revealing themselves to be weird and dumb doesn't mean that what happened is a hoax. If they weren't weird and dumb they wouldn't have gone along with it in the first place. They manufactured a way for the people at that Trump rally to show that they are weird.
You could call it entrapment, but it's not a hoax.
I misread what you described as a hoax in your post. I'd say getting people to hold something and take a picture falls into being a hoax if what you claim is this group of people are doing XYZ stupid thing. Even Snopes used the word "hoax" to describe it, "Snopes identified several red flags suggesting they may have been part of a hoax". The pictures are not confirmed to not be modified as Snopes says they do not appear to be manipulated (so they could be manipulated). Someone could've game people like money to pose for the photos (if they are real) so why not take free money? It's obviously not a thing that republicans are doing so why was it even posted here to begin with? And the user that posted it IIRC referred to these people as the "the worst people in the world" as well.It's not a hoax. A hoax would mean that it didn't happen at all. It did happen, the pictures are verified to have come from a Trump rally, and the pictures are confirmed to not be modified or AI generated.
Tricking people into revealing themselves to be weird and dumb doesn't mean that what happened is a hoax. If they weren't weird and dumb they wouldn't have gone along with it in the first place. They manufactured a way for the people at that Trump rally to show that they are weird.
You could call it entrapment, but it's not a hoax.
Snopes is using the word "hoax" as well...I would have used the word overblown instead of hoax. Words aren't Phoenixmgs strong suit
Overblown is pretty synonymous with the media. Complaints about Walz's National Guard career for example. I wouldn't call that a hoax either. Definitely overblown
Snopes didn't describe it as a hoax. They said that prior to their investigation the viral content had the hallmarks of a hoax. Their final conclusion was that the idea it was a hoax was unproven.I misread what you described as a hoax in your post. I'd say getting people to hold something and take a picture falls into being a hoax if what you claim is this group of people are doing XYZ stupid thing. Even Snopes used the word "hoax" to describe it, "Snopes identified several red flags suggesting they may have been part of a hoax". The pictures are not confirmed to not be modified as Snopes says they do not appear to be manipulated (so they could be manipulated). Someone could've game people like money to pose for the photos (if they are real) so why not take free money? It's obviously not a thing that republicans are doing so why was it even posted here to begin with? And the user that posted it IIRC referred to these people as the "the worst people in the world" as well.
Snopes is using the word "hoax" as well...
And, again, we have to go back to someone not understanding wordsSnopes didn't describe it as a hoax. They said that prior to their investigation the viral content had the hallmarks of a hoax. Their final conclusion was that the idea it was a hoax was unproven.
He understands the words that he thinks prove him right. His problem is that he never looks at any of the words around them.And, again, we have to go back to someone not understanding words
I probably shouldn't say word. It's more like picking a term they approve of out of a paragraph... or a whole article... and deleting the rest of the context surrounding itHe understands the words that he thinks prove him right. His problem is that he never looks at any of the words around them.
Yes, so it can be a hoax still, it's unproven either way...Snopes didn't describe it as a hoax. They said that prior to their investigation the viral content had the hallmarks of a hoax. Their final conclusion was that the idea it was a hoax was unproven.
Literally from Snopes:And, again, we have to go back to someone not understanding words
Yes, we know. You read the word hoax, ignore the rest of the sentences and blame everyone for creating a hoax. You didn't need to bring the proofLiterally from Snopes:
While the photos did not appear to be manipulated, Snopes identified several red flags suggesting they may have been part of a hoax. However, we could not arrive at a true or false determination based on the available, inconclusive evidence.
They could not determine if hoax or not, hence it could possibly be a hoax.Yes, we know. You read the word hoax, ignore the rest of the sentences and blame everyone for creating a hoax. You didn't need to bring the proof
There are people in this world who might claim bees cause cancer, then when queried on this assertion supply a scientific paper called "Bees definitely do not cause cancer", and select out one sentence saying "Bees have been hypothesised to cause cancer" whilst ignoring all the scientific work in the rest of the paper conclusively demonstrating that bees do not cause cancer. Then when this inconsistency is pointed out, say something about how the paper was rubbish and here's Fred Blogg's Health Blog showing a correlation of local bee population and cancer rates therefore QED bees cause cancer.I probably shouldn't say word. It's more like picking a term they approve of out of a paragraph... or a whole article... and deleting the rest of the context surrounding it
There is a possibility. It's also now been three weeks and the evidence showing it was a hoax hasn't arrived yet. I'll wait for it to arriveThey could not determine if hoax or not, hence it could possibly be a hoax.
I remember reading an economist who was director of a non-partisan economic think tank, and he departed it by mutual consent because he would write opinion pieces in the media, and those opinion pieces were highly critical of government policy, even if not put across in a partisan fashion. The think tank was concerned that the director's articles damaged the perceived neutrality of the think tank. The director accepted this, and out of respect for the think tank's reputation, amicably departed for pastures new.snip
That is a kinder assessment than I would grant it.Elon Musk, however, owning what he would have us believe is an absolute free speech town square, appears to have no sense whatsoever of this sort of responsibility.
It's important to remember that Musk's definition of "free speech" is when everyone is free to voice his opinions.Elon Musk, however, owning what he would have us believe is an absolute free speech town square, appears to have no sense whatsoever of this sort of responsibility.
As I read somewhere, there is possibly a public reluctance to recognise what some people may be up to.That is a kinder assessment than I would grant it.
The fact that there's no posting of this on republican social media pretty much says it all. If this was a thing republicans were doing, how is it not on their social medias?There is a possibility. It's also now been three weeks and the evidence showing it was a hoax hasn't arrived yet. I'll wait for it to arrive
You implied that Snopes claim was more virelent than from Hipsters point of view, even though you both quoted the exact same words.