I really trusted George Webb, at first. But his ability to leak so much harmful information does not make sense. I just ran across comments on his videos… as well as tweets to and about him by this woman. Can anyone explain what she's talking about?
https://mobile.twitter.com/Gwenjackmann
view the rest of the comments →
badastrid ago
Always best to listen with all filters intact. GW makes some offhand comments that I don't agree with, that don't ring true. AJ, Cerno, Pieczenik, all these guys are limited hangout on given issues.
NotHereForPizza ago
Look, just because an individual doesn't see eye to eye with you on a given subject doesn't mean that the identity itself should be challenged as a result. This is both irresponsible and irrational.
We need to commend these people for their exposure on the subjects we care about, and stop focusing on the negative ones quite as much. It seems to me people tend to disagree on a lot of subjects, and that's okay, because it's where critical thinking starts. But, if you're going to dilute this situation to, "Person A believes in idea B, therefore I can't trust any other opinions they convey to me." then you are, by all means, failing yourself as well as those around you.
Let's try and work with even just a little logic here.
badastrid ago
What part of "filters" don't you understand?
NotHereForPizza ago
No, I saw that part, but this seems to be a common argument wherein people group the same individuals together under the same premise which is always, "should we really believe these people?" It's ad nauseum at this point and it needs to be brought up.
Frankly, you're helping perpetuate the narrative and whether it's on purpose or not doesn't matter. The fact that you happened to include the same people this time (without david seaman this time, shockingly) really set off flags for me.
Don't get me wrong, I didn't go through your post history and see how many times you've mentioned it, and it's not exactly directed at you. However, you can say, "always be skeptical" every time you bring up this argument, but you're still bringing up this argument.