It seems unfortunately at the moment, Rule 4 on Townhall doesn't apply to saying someone's said something they did not. In the case of that Townhall thread, the claim was made that Donald Trump says that white supremacists who are shooting up Walmarts are "very fine people", >>>/townhall/2252
This is naturally, as we can see objectively with the information within this video, not factually accurate. It strikes me as the exact thing that Rule 4 is meant to stop.
Dangerous misinformation leads to dangerous results. Spreading that misinformation as though they are facts leads to some believing these mischaracterizations are true.
Something, surely, as clear-cut as this ought to be pointed at and stated as such. If you want to claim Donald Trump is friendly with White Nationalists, that's one thing. But, claiming he says White Nationalists are 'very fine people' as was done in >>>/townhall/2252
is simply factually inaccurate.
We have evidence of this being factually inaccurate, taken from the very place the original claimed statement was made.
Despite this, Moony says in >>>/townhall/2293
that direct evidence with the man himself flat out saying, clearly and distinctly, that he is expressly not talking about white supremacists or neonazis, and not only that, actively says they should be condemned entirely, is "arguable".
I ask you then, if that's arguable, what isn't arguable?
I mean, I've certainly seen a lot better arguments for the Holocaust being fake than something along the lines of the assumption that ONLY white supremacists were present, which is of course not true anyway.
You can call the event a white supremacist rally, and that's perfectly understandable I would say. But others were there. This is who Trump was referring to. In the video I've linked here, he specifically speaks of this. Should we assume he's lying?
If that's the case, why can't I assume any of you are lying?
What's the reasoning for me not claiming, for instance, Moony's lying when he clarifies something immediately after saying it?
What's the point of the rule if it doesn't apply to objective facts?Post too long. Click here to view the full text.