Saturday, January 05, 2019
The art of flat assertion
From another piece of the Integrity dump, a document called 'Discernment Paper'.
First paragraph:
The flat background-like assertion of "attempted murder by nerve-agent poisoning" is the first thing that a discerning observer would want to check. What's the evidence of poisoning? What's the evidence that the poisoning was by Russian Novichok?
And the answer, after sorting out all available sources, is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. The only OBSERVATION, outside of the official noise, is that the Skripals were seen on a parkbench looking unconscious. That's ALL.
There are many possible explanations for this. All of the official explanations have been thoroughly disproved and disassembled.
The simplest explanation, the ONLY explanation that fits the uncorrupted evidence with zero contradictions, is that the entire incident was stagecraft. There was no poison, no substance, no chemical, NOTHING. Just a puppet show.
[Incidentally, this Ockham explanation is not among the Russian explanations I've seen. All discussions in RT and Sputnik start with the unproved and highly dubious "fact" that a substance was used. They argue about the type of substance and other details, but they don't peel back the last layer of the false onion.]
= = = = =
Let's take a close look at the flat assertion. This sentence is a classic example, showing how the assertion uses our internal syntax templates to slide past our conscious filters.
In the case of the attempted murder of Sergei and Julia Skripal by nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury, there have already been a minimum of 32 different narratives suggested by the Russian state as possible “explanations”, most of which are absurd and indeed contradictory.
The main clause of the sentence is the narratives suggested by Russia. In ordinary reading you focus on the main clause. This main clause is narrowly true because Russian media have suggested many explanations.
If you're not accustomed to Deepstate's tricks, you'll look at the main clause and say "Yup, that's true", and go on to the next sentence. You'll miss the ASSERTION which is also a sneaky INSERTION into your mind. In the case of the attempted murder is a background subordinate clause, positioned as an already known fact which doesn't need to be checked.
The sentence follows an ordinary and expected pattern.
In the case of houses with shingled roofs, there are a minimum of 32 different techniques suggested by contractors as possible "fixes" for a lifted shingle, most of which are ineffective and costly.
You already know that some houses have shingled roofs and some have tile or metal. This is a background fact that doesn't require skeptical attention. You focus on the techniques so that you can question your contractor about the techniques before paying for roof repair.
A second trick: The sentence focuses on Russia's many explanations and DOESN'T MENTION the UK/US media's many contradictory and false explanations. Those explanations should be the sole target of your discernment.
When you use REAL discernment, you can discern the ASSERTION-INSERTION, and you can also discern that the false explanations suggested by UK/US media are NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
¶ 3:02 AM 
In face-to-face conversation and debate we learn cues for assessing the reliability of someone's argument, though often this knowledge is acquired intuitively through life experience rather than through formal education. If we encounter someone shouting out bizarre accusations or disjointed phrases in our local market square we typically will ignore them and may well draw conclusions as to the mental health of the person in question. Online, however, we don't have the same context of non-verbal clues that are so crucial to the conclusions we draw about the reliability and authenticity of information. Increasingly we find that visual clues provided by photos as well as video footage are also subject to manipulation. Fake imagery, misleading headlines and captions, and distorted reporting can enable disinformation to take root and spread virally. We need a complementary set of tools to help cultivate visual discernment and provide the public with resources to verify stories (especially the most provocative and compelling) before they are shared.Excellent and insightful. Perfectly accurate. Now the second paragraph. I haven't clipped anything out between the two.
In the case of the attempted murder of Sergei and Julia Skripal by nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury, there have already been a minimum of 32 different narratives suggested by the Russian state as possible “explanations”, most of which are absurd and indeed contradictory.WHIPLASH! Comrade O'Brien would be proud.
The flat background-like assertion of "attempted murder by nerve-agent poisoning" is the first thing that a discerning observer would want to check. What's the evidence of poisoning? What's the evidence that the poisoning was by Russian Novichok?
And the answer, after sorting out all available sources, is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. The only OBSERVATION, outside of the official noise, is that the Skripals were seen on a parkbench looking unconscious. That's ALL.
There are many possible explanations for this. All of the official explanations have been thoroughly disproved and disassembled.
The simplest explanation, the ONLY explanation that fits the uncorrupted evidence with zero contradictions, is that the entire incident was stagecraft. There was no poison, no substance, no chemical, NOTHING. Just a puppet show.
[Incidentally, this Ockham explanation is not among the Russian explanations I've seen. All discussions in RT and Sputnik start with the unproved and highly dubious "fact" that a substance was used. They argue about the type of substance and other details, but they don't peel back the last layer of the false onion.]
= = = = =
Let's take a close look at the flat assertion. This sentence is a classic example, showing how the assertion uses our internal syntax templates to slide past our conscious filters.
In the case of the attempted murder of Sergei and Julia Skripal by nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury, there have already been a minimum of 32 different narratives suggested by the Russian state as possible “explanations”, most of which are absurd and indeed contradictory.
The main clause of the sentence is the narratives suggested by Russia. In ordinary reading you focus on the main clause. This main clause is narrowly true because Russian media have suggested many explanations.
If you're not accustomed to Deepstate's tricks, you'll look at the main clause and say "Yup, that's true", and go on to the next sentence. You'll miss the ASSERTION which is also a sneaky INSERTION into your mind. In the case of the attempted murder is a background subordinate clause, positioned as an already known fact which doesn't need to be checked.
The sentence follows an ordinary and expected pattern.
In the case of houses with shingled roofs, there are a minimum of 32 different techniques suggested by contractors as possible "fixes" for a lifted shingle, most of which are ineffective and costly.
You already know that some houses have shingled roofs and some have tile or metal. This is a background fact that doesn't require skeptical attention. You focus on the techniques so that you can question your contractor about the techniques before paying for roof repair.
A second trick: The sentence focuses on Russia's many explanations and DOESN'T MENTION the UK/US media's many contradictory and false explanations. Those explanations should be the sole target of your discernment.
When you use REAL discernment, you can discern the ASSERTION-INSERTION, and you can also discern that the false explanations suggested by UK/US media are NOT EVEN MENTIONED.
¶ 3:02 AM
