rwhitisissle

Not gonna lie, I expected you to double down and say that Assange's comments don't actually suggest he was insinuating Seth Rich was killed for leaking information to Wikileaks. So, have an upvote I guess.

From the wikipedia article:

Unbidden, Assange brought up the case of Seth Rich. When asked directly whether Rich was a source, Assange said "we don't comment on who our sources are"

From the interview in question, Assange said (and this is a direct quote): "Wikileaks never sits on material. Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often at very significant risk. There's a 27 year old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back - murdered - just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

Then, the interviewer asks Assange: "what are you suggesting?"

Assange replies, "I am suggesting that our sources take risks..."

Like, you don't have to be a fucking Mensa member to draw a logical inference about what Assange is suggesting in regards to Sith Rich. You say "the rumors of it being Sith Rich were propagated by the long list of bad actors." One of those bad actors was Julian Assange.

busting

Very different use of busting from my perspective.

That’s just from people intentionally reading into things that weren’t there and tricking idiots into believing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#WikiLeaks_statements

Every American should go to a Bucees at least once in their lifetime. It's like a distillation of the intersection of what people in Europe think America is and how Americans also perceive their own nation.

I dunno, I guess that depends. Do they actively and publicly fuel a conspiracy theory that Trump had someone murdered like they did with the Clintons and Seth Rich?

Hillary Clinton is a corporate shill, but you have to be fucking born yesterday to think wikileaks doesn't play realpolitik or perform political favors.

The wikileaks thing is highly suspect, though. Like, wikileaks intentionally disclosed a lot of publicly damaging dirt on Clinton and the Dems at a very sensitive time in the election while not releasing ANYTHING on the GOP, even though they supposedly had that information.

I know what 2 girls 1 cup is but I don't understand what else is being referenced in this image.

You're getting caught up on phrasing and nothing else. Let it go. "Intelligent design" as an ideology and describing something as "intelligently designed" are not the same thing. The core similarity is what I've already described. You want me to mean something beyond what I've stated because you're incapable of accepting what you read at face value. I have no interest in speaking further with someone without the intelligence to do something basic as understand the words they read.

Is this a change I'm too "command line" to care about?

The theory of simulation does not address intelligence. Intelligence abstractly is something that exists inside the simulation, it may value nothing outside the simulation. You thesis is lacking evidence.

I think you mean "it may value nothing inside the simulation." Because what you wrote doesn't make any sense as it's written. In either case, my "thesis" is not a thesis. It's an observation of similarity. Both beliefs presume some kind of external motive force behind the universe's existence. I never made any argument about the intent or abstract values of whatever that thing may or may not be or how it perceives the universe it "created." I think the only thing lacking here is your reading comprehension skills, as you're clearly adding unfounded assumptions onto my observation independent of what was actually stated. Also, I posted that like a fucking month ago. Either you're necroing dead threads looking to pick a fight or whatever instance you're posting to fucked up its syncing with its federation.