Cross posted from Discuit

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Of course it’s plausible. The point is that it’s most likely not true.

      Plausibility is incredibly useful way to introduce falsehood.

      • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        So, basically we know it’s a falsehood because it’s plausible. Saying something plausible is precisely what a liar would do!

            • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              Despite your stance/tone I’ll answer this in good faith and assume you’re genuinely asking even if I think you’re not.

              The best lies/misinformation attempts are couched in 1) truths and/or 2) plausible things that can’t be dismissed as impossible.

              It is plausible [insert any JFK assassination conspiracy]. Should they all be equally weighted? Is each equally plausible? No, yet dozens persist because they’re at all plausible. I say this as someone who says the least plausible scenario was lone gunman who was killed by some rando. I think it was a conspiracy. But it doesn’t mean I treat each conspiracy theory as equally plausible. Unfortunately it’s hard to 100% disprove basically anything, so even the worst ideas remain sticky if people want them to be true.

              • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                36 minutes ago

                Thanks ❤️

                In any case, all this is very little proof that the story is a falsehood. Obviously, by default everything you read online falls to the category “this may have happened”, but that’s all we really have.

                • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  12 minutes ago

                  The burden of proof squarely lies with OP. You didn’t ask me to prove it’s false. You asked me to explain my previous comment.

                  • Tuukka R@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    13 minutes ago

                    Yup, because the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim. But that only allows us to say the text is not necessarily true.

                    When you say the op is lying, that’s a new claim, where the burden of proof is on you.