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 →
equineluvr ago
About a year ago, Webb promoted "GamerGate." That turned out to be 100% BS.
Now he is pushing "MangoGate." LOL
He also promotes "Abel Danger," which is a PROVEN DISINFO outfit.
Believe that bullcrap at your own risk, especially the stuff that cannot be independently verified or refuted.
DarkMath ago
How familiar are you with logical fallacies?
This is a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question":
"About a year ago, Webb promoted "GamerGate." That turned out to be 100% BS. Now he is pushing "MangoGate." LOL"
Your logic is because George was wrong about GamerGate he is now wrong about MangoGate.
You can't do that. You actually have to prove WHY he's wrong. You're being intellectually lazy.
;-)
Death2Masons ago
Yes, but no. Because he is wrong about one thing does not mean he is wrong about a different thing. But if the feeling is that he intentionally misled, he can be discredited and not a useful verifier of events or theories.
equineluvr ago
Here, I'll dumb this down so you can grasp it -
Ever set foot in a courtroom?
ANY testimony is ALL about credibility.
Webb is a disseminator of disinfo, ergo he has NO CREDIBILITY..
DarkMath ago
"Webb is a disseminator of disinfo"
What about MangoGate don't you believe?
Are_we_sure ago
That's not "Begging the Question." It's closer to Ad Hominem. And it's not Ad Hominem either if the question is why should I trust George Webb? Then this is completely relevant and nonfallacious evidence.
kekistocrat ago
AreYouShill -- you're back. We've missed you.
Ahem.... @DarkMath has it right. Equally, it could be a composition/division fallacy -- Assuming that what is true about one part of something must be applied to all, or other, parts of it. As well, perhaps the genetic fallacy -- judging something good or bad based solely on where or from whom the information came. Or simply an anecdotal fallacy -- using personal experience or an isolated example instead of a valid argument, especially to dismiss statistics. However, one fallacy it most certainly is not is the Ad Hominem fallacy -- 'against the man,' -- attacking one's character or personal traits in order to discredit or undermine an argument.
Why did you defeat your own argument?
Your handlers aren't giving you the proper care that a shillibasterly cucklefin deserves. You should prepare a lengthy essay explaining why you need better shillifactor training to meet the insatiable needs of your new pay raise.
DarkMath ago
What about MangoGate don't you believe?