“Have you ever been to Prague?”
This was in a grab-bag of clean up questions.
He said no, and further volunteered that he had never been to the Czech Republic.
Two things I would suggest:
1. It’s a really good idea to get into the habit of checking source material yourself when it is available, instead of having strangers (including me) describe it. It’s a good way to avoid being manipulated.
2. When layers upon layers of twists and turns are required to keep building scaffolding to preserve the “truth” of something that can’t be proven, but you want to believe anyway, then that thing might not be true.
One way to discredit a true story is to propagate an exaggerated or extreme version of it, or to provide fake evidence for it.
The Texas Air National Giard Memo effectively shit down discussion of just wtf did W do during Vietnam. It did that because people wanted to believe it, were predisposed to believe it, and accepted it at face value without any really good idea of just where it came from.
It is an effective and powerful tactic. 9/11 trutherism was marvelously effective at channeling disgust at the W administration’s utter failure to focus on actual security risks, and subsequent use of that event to pursue a disastrous agenda, into nonsense about fake planes, fake victims, hidden explosives and and endless hall of mirrors constructed of bullshit. That was political energy which COULD have been directed to ensuring he was not re-elected, instead of drawing the gullible off into Ron Paul cuckoo land.
Confirmation bias is a thing.
I can’t fucking stand Donald Trump. For that reason, I tend to be careful about that “silver bullet” story that is going to rid us of him. Because hucksters feed on other people’s hopes.
= new reply since forum marked as read