There is no burden of proof in the court of public opinion. This is just a smear campaign although I do suspect there may be some small truths to some of it.
It is a principle well-known to both expert liars and expert lie-detectors that a big bald-faced lie, said with a straight face, will always leave behind this poisonous residue.
Most people are a tiny bit corrupt, in some
small way; they themselves can comprehend, sometimes even identify with the telling of
small lies. Thus, they know that small lies happen. Whereas no ordinary person can really believe deep in his heart that somebody could tell a
huge lie. The mind may know of such things, in the manner of book-learning; but emotions and conscience refuse to grasp the existence of such a monstrosity.
The understanding of big lies is a thing unto the opposing realms of philosophers, hardened criminals, and forensic psychologists.
Protip: If you want to really smear someone, tell a lie so bold that nobody can believe you just made it up. Repeat it over and again. Then repeat the whole process tomorrow, with a new lie.
Quickseller explained in three sentences.
When I look around I see people making claims, blatantly lying about things but as long as you have enough sheep believing you it becomes the "truth", at least for a certain portion of the population. I did say "smear campaign" did I not? i.e. "a plan to discredit a public figure by making false or dubious accusations". Don't need any proof when that's your plan.
Bingo.
It should not be difficult to find evidence yourself though. Just pick one person who has added lauda to their trust list; there is a ~1 in 9 chance of it being a clearly purchased account, and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
No, not under the
inquisitorial system. The accusatorial system has an accuser. The inquisitorial system has a _______.
You make a pretty shitty case if you can't provide such, and instead tell people to find it themselves.
In the quote of Quickseller to which you replied, he wasn’t even telling people to find proof. He was telling people to start with what
he alleges to be a randomized “~1 in 9 chance” of an account upon whom to throw suspicion. This is followed by, “...and from there it should not be difficult to find the rest.” Otherwise stated: “it should not be difficult to find
what you are looking for.” Neat psych-out of idiots who will happily stare at the clouds until they see faces in them.
This is how you present proof. /thread