The public can access the material, they just have to request it. It isn’t being withheld from people, or locked behind paywalls. The author of the thread pushed people to go and check it out by doing so. It’s a bit odd to say I’m insistent on getting the last word, when you continue to reply and continue to make claims and ask questions.
Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days agoDear god, a twitter link? how quaint
Do… you ever actually read your sources?
It had to be given to the author of that thread by the lead researcher, it isn’t available to the public.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
In general, I make it a point to not run away when pressed. That way, if anyone does continue to read on, it gives my points more legitimacy. I think by this point it’s pretty clear that you and I disagree on what constitutes “publicly available,” I consider anything to be available to the public to go and get to be publicly available, while you take the more extreme view that for something to be publicly available, it must have no steps required to get it, a simple link to a download or viewing must be the shortest distance. I disagree, but I don’t honestly think this disagreement is worth calling either of us liars.
To that end, I suppose I got carried away and returned your energy. Once you declared me a liar and untrustworthy, I wanted to flip that on its head. You called it a “no u” argument, but my point was always clear, you and I both have different views on what publicly available means. The data itself that I referenced and the points I made based on them are widely available from people like the person I linked, so it’s not like the validity of the data is seriously in question.
As for not taking it to DMs, it’s because I know neither of us are likely to be convinced, so the only utility it could possibly have to either of us is being in the open. I don’t really expect to convince you in particular, but discussing things openly has convinced many bystanders to my various points over the years, so it’s keeping true to that.
Just my 2 cents.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 21 hours ago
The simple truth is that anyone can go and apply for it, and the data is already being spread around. I’m not arguing “in favor” of this system, just that this isn’t some tight-locked info. It’s not that I cannot get it, I already explained that I don’t want to give my personal info to a NATO official’s org.
Secondly, I never implied that the data was representative of anything other than perceptions, I included that in the first comment I referenced it in. I just added that it’s indicative of a strong, comprehensive democracy that perceptions are so high. This isn’t dishonest in the slightest.
I already admitted fault to calling you a liar, when it’s clear that we both aren’t. Not sure why you’re still doing this, it’s pretty clear that the definition bit is the one where we disagree, and you’re insistent that disagreement means I’m a liar. There’s nothing for you to really do.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I don’t think anyone is following this conversation anymore, buddy, so it’s all you. And no, I never lied, but you did.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I did not misrepresent the study, and I read the relevant bits. You proceeded to become a debate pervert about what you personally consider to be the definition of “publicly accessible,” even though the public absolutely can and does access it. It’s just silly and terminally online.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
(Okay your insistence on getting the last word is becoming concerning. Do you wanna take this to DMs? Otherwise it’s gonna start getting silly.)
“I can’t give out my email to a NATO run organization” has gotta be the lamest… they already have it. Come on with this, you have to know how transparent that excuse is.
“Publicly available” means available to the the public. It isn’t - you can’t get it, and you’re the public. The author of your twitter thread had to be given it. It’s not publicly available. This isn’t some abstract definition like you’re trying to imply, it’s just what the words themselves mean. Ya did a shit thing buddy, and then piled lies and lame excuses up on top to cover for it instead of just admitting to a single mistake. It’s sad.
(also lmao, got banned from five dead comms by one butthurt mod, and a bunch of comma by automod that was promptly reversed, you really got me there. Let’s just take a look at your moderation his-- oh dear god.)
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Why are you continuing this? I don’t want to provide my email to an org run by a NATO official. That doesn’t mean people cannot get access to it, and your insistence that this means it is not available to the public is silly. I never said it was “publicly available without requesting it,” you have an extreme fixation on your specific interpretation of what publicly available means. It’s no wonder you were banned from many communities for being a troll/sealion.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Oo hey comment depth!
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml How cute you’re still trying this. Anyways, if it’s publicly available, please go download and read it. Until then, I mean… guess you’re not part of the public? Seems preeetty clear u liar.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
It did not have to be given to the author, and as the thread states at the end, it’s free to download after requesting it.
If you want to read the report yourself in its entirety - and I highly encourage you to - here’s the link: allianceofdemocracies.org/de…
This is silly on your part.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
Specifically I’m curious about what drives someone to be so invested, why you’d care so much. My earlier antics really make it clear there’s something more complex going on here for you to keep responding in earnest. Seriously, anyone should have just ignored me from there. So why didn’t you? What about this is so important as to be worth putting up with that?
It should be clear by now that your continuing denials or attempts to flip the narrative or just pleasant jibes aren’t landing, but you persist. If you really believe nobody is reading and you genuinely dont care, why not just take it to DMs? Why keep doing this performative thing? What are you getting from this?
(Someone downvoted your last comment and it wasn’t me, and there’s been people bopping through occasionally to up/down vote things. Not tons but there are clearly people watching, if only to read the drama I presume.)
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
I guess I’m curious why you’re still replying too, why is this interesting? I already explained how you pretended “publicly available” has an extremely specific meaning that doesn’t mean accessible to the public.
Either way, though, I don’t see the other people here, so not sure what you mean there.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
Honestly I thought the same thing but there’s several people still following this.
I’ve made clear why I’m still here - this is genuinely very interesting for me. But what are you getting out of it? You’re not exactly trying, you just tried to “no u” the argument and that’s at the level of emjoi taunts. I can’t imagine this is fun for you, so again like… why keep it up?
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
Sigh. I know you have no choice but to deny it, but you really could be the bigger person and walk away. I dislike unrepentant liars, but there’s no real hard feelings here - and it’s not going to damage your reputation if you just leave. You’re giving me the power to dictate this by demonstrating how very important it is to you.
Seriously, why do you care so much about getting the last word and being right? Is “losing” a comment thread even really a concept outside of reddit?
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
Sure, but I think I’ve well established my claims - you misrepresented a study you’d never read, lied about it and then had to save face when I called you out. I’m just reiterating those points.
Seriously, I’ve already demonstrated that I can say essentially whatever and you’ll still come back at me with denials, deflection and straight lies (if the public can’t access something, it’s not publicly accessible. Just go access it yourself - it’s that simple). I openly did a sing-song voice with emoji and you still came back, treating it like it was worth your time.
You’ve dignified that slop with your responses. While it’s well established that you’ve lied and are trying to take it back, and yet you’re still here, doing this.
I’ve given you multiple opportunities to leave with most of your dignity intact and yet you don’t take them, and that’s perplexing. Why are you still here? What do you gain from this?
I could be all smug and go on about this being fun for me or whatever, but dropping the act for a second: it’s genuinely interesting to watch you doing this. I seriously don’t know why you’re persisting. One person accusing you of being a liar that misrepresented a source once isn’t going to harm you to just… leave alone.
But… you’ll still be coming back.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml
I’m confused - my whole point is that it’s not available for the public to go and get. You yourself can’t go and get it, nor can anyone else in this thread that lacks persuasive credentials. So, and I swear to god I’m sincerely asking, how does something with a selective application process meet your idea of publicly available? It’s quite literally bourgeoisie control of information.
And… yes. Perhaps calling you an outright liar was wrong - but you have knowingly misrepresented multiple aspects of this, and stooped to truly dishonest argumentative techniques while doing it. The initial criticism was of you implying a survey was a reflection of the functioning of various governments, not people’s opinions on them. You then went on to insist that your interpretation is within the scope of the study - but you cannot have any idea if that’s true, because you have not read the portion of the study where the scope is explained. You even briefly attempted to reject the very idea of caring about the authors interpretations instead of the data itself, but then later admitted your interpretations are themselves based on some other peoples interpretations of the data anyways.
You came into this like it’s a fight - and it’s stayed that way. You cannot admit to ghe initial fault, and you can’t let someone else have the last word, because the goal is to give your arguments the appearance of legitimacy. This is all a considered act, and that’s… Gotta be a little hollow.
Have you ever accepted fault, or is (seriously) the concern of de-legitimizing your arguments in the eyes of the bystanders truly the entire point for you?