Dat subtle nod

From the thumbnail, I thought it was Slobodan Milosevic back from the grave.

...

That interviewer was such a stupid tool.

Do you guys literally have autism? Do you not understand social queues? Ok, disregard the obvious nod. Look at how he answers the questions. He doesn't, he steers the conversation toward.

Hes being asked about the election and whether or not his organization is sitting on additional information that may affect it, he randomly brings up the Seth Rich murder, then he brings up "our sources," then he says they need to be careful. This is called steering a conversation and dropping hints. He can't outright say it because the organization is sworn to conceal it's sources. But if it were confirmed that Seth was a source, and he very well could be considering he handled the type of information released, his already fishy murder would become a whole lot fishier.

AND IT DID, BECAUSE ITS OBVIOUS TO UN-AUTISTS

a non autist would know this aspect of the conversation is already implied as the foundation of it's importance.

I don't think he was conforming him as a source, he was just saying that his sources get nervous when they see someone murdered when they have connections to that kind of thing, and if I'm not mistaken nothing was taken in the robbery?

And then offers a bounty on information about the death.

..suuurrrre

There are at least 2 people (shills or actual autists) that needed it spelled out for them.

Yes Virginia, that is what he SAID, welcome to the thread.

Now, (again, if you are not on the spectrum), look at what he "confirmed by implication".

And I'm not mentioning autism out of meanness, these things will LITERALLY be invisible to you if you have those conditions.

Doesn't make sense because Mr. Rich has no established connection to being connected to "that kind of thing" (leaking).

Jesus man, calm down. If they're putting out a bounty for him, and he was connected to the DNC, it's quite probable that he had connections to wikileak.

By the information you've conformed I'd say you're pretty autistic.

:^)

Blah, blah, blah, we all know he was murdered not robbed. anybody on Holla Forums knows he was murdered to silence him, and any normies that think otherwise despite hearing the information contribute to my continued landslide towards a vote of no confidence in humanity as a whole. the problem is no normies will ever even hear that people were murdered in the first place, Feed them.

...

all the people that've been murdered during this election process:

Victor Thorn
John Ashe
Seth Conrad Rich
Shawn Lucas

(by the clintons)

I think it should also be noted that the info-bounty may or may not have sprung from any ACTUAL conversations with sources, but rather, it serves as a tactic to counter Clinton/DNC operating like a mafia.

Read: They kill a man after he leaks information, sending a message to other would-be leakers.
WikiLeaks puts out the info-bounty to soften this blow, keep information flowing against DNC/Clinton, and ultimately undermine their revenge-killing by exposing it.

You caught me.

Not really. You are typical of the later exodus Holla Forumslacks that think they are smart, but are really stormnigger-tier in reasoning ability by replacing critical thought with insults, probably because you are on the spectrum yourself ("durrrrrr alternate hypotheses and inferences from specific evidence are autism, I'm going to sperg out and write in uppercase letters").

What my post is suggesting is that the inference from a "subtle nod" piece of evidence (E1), doesn't infer the hypothesis you think it does, if over a number of times in the past he does the same behavioral trait (like in video related a few times from July). That means there is alternate explanation for E1 (he nods when people are questioning him). Since this happens, it means you cannot infer any explanation from it, and shouldn't be included in your overall scheme to infer whatever it is you are inferring. This is the nature of drawing inferences from neutral evidence. Go read Thinking and Deciding by the cognitive psychology of reasoning Jonathan Baron with the chapter on neutral evidence.

As to the "disregard the obvious nod", read my post again. Calling me an autist, yet your reading comprehension is like narrowly focused retard. The conditional I set up is exclusively about the the piece of evidence (E1) about behavioural traits under interviews. What I'm saying is that you cannot include that evidence in your argument, while including other evidence is fine. Moreover, by talking about conversational implicature and pragmatic aspects of conversation (that you claim I don't understand), you are committed to what Assange does and acts. Which means, you should be committed to past behavior as well, not just specific behavior in one interview. So really, who is more the autist here? The person that disregards Assange's past behavior in interviews, or a guy that says pragmatic aspects of conversation matter while ignoring the entire space of his conversations in the past? [email protected]/* */ not factoring in this ludicrous piece of self-refuting reasoning and social aspect.

Now, call me an autist again, since you cannot actually discuss the reasoning from that evidence in any critical way. I'll sit here smugly while you write up your low IQ dumb reply.

...

3rd one is Steven Anderson.

see

I agree. The nod is a distraction from actual, contextual confirmation.

Assange playing some 4d chess here. Hes not as good as Trump, but what hes insinuating is obvious to everyone to see.

This will fuel dissent of the establishment.

that third pic is a based preacher in AZ. don't jinx him asshole

what if trump assassinated them as sacrificial pieces in his game of 4d chess?

Yes, and I'm not denying there can be other evidence for what others' suggest. You are right in that there is other information. What I said is to do with a specific piece of evidence another user brought up, but the other retard above flew off the handle uncritically (he'll probably respond in the same manner), which is really autistic in itself.

oh, this is good thinking. assange never said that this person actually was a leaker, so maybe he's just floating the idea bc he has an axe to grind with the DNC.

or, Trump could have done it knowing it would get blamed on the DNC.

Also, has anybody questioned this: what did this Rich guy actually do at the DNC? What information would he have had access to?

Reminder that Assange browses Holla Forums. He could be in this very thread as we speak.

You are an amazing asshole ASSANGE. We love you.

PS. How do I elite haxxor?
PPS. But seriously, if I wanted to develop skills for future use in the information economy, what route should I take? Learn Python? Server Infrastructure? What will be useful for covert ops?

data analyst

Sorry, I mean Data DIRECTOR

Or y'know what? I bet it was Russians.

oh, so he could have had access to a bunch of those DNC leaks. I'm really surprised that the Jewish community has been super-silent about this. It really makes you wonder.

yeah… I don't even know why you would think that.

no it doesnt.

Lol ok bud, tldr

GTFO

Just throwing out ideas in the same caliber as "Assange just has an axe to grind with the DNC" and "Trump could have killed the informant that helped him"

Best to keep all your shit in one pile.

you angel you, doing kek's work.

true. Assange isn't kosher, so technically he betrayed the tribe to the goyim, eh?

I agree with the Trump thing, but to say that Assange doesn't have an axe to grind with the DNC/Obama/Hillary is absolutely pants-on-head retarded, you sniveling fuckwit.

I think he has an axe to grind NOW, since they've killed his fucking source.

However, the DNC/Clintons have tried to push that EVERYTHING Assange does is out of either spite or orders from Russia.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#Personal_life
Just so you know they also threatened to kill his son

Watch your language pls 12 year old frequent this board.

Try this approach of goal directed learning. Ask yourself, what it is that you want to accomplish.

To do that, what prerequisite knowledge will need to have? Then for each prerequisite, recursively chase down the prerequisites you need.

Eventually you'll have a big tree of knowledge to work from, and you start bottom up.

The only reason he is hiding out is bc he thinks Obama will try to extradite him to the US asshole. He definitely has an axe to grind with Obama, or even the US gov't as a whole (going back a long time)

sry. I forgot about the recent cuckchan invasion. my bad

Hi CtR! I can shitpost, too. Care to hire me?

Pretend I said directed acyclic graph (DAG), because trees can't have two parents.

You're a fucking retard.

...

No, I'm educating your ignorance. You were incapable of reasoning, reading, and then responding. You're also a coward for the following reason: I don't think I've ever seen someone like that on Holla Forums in a while, that wrote up a paragraph to my one-liner, then I respond in kind with counter-claims, then you back away with no response. Obviously, you were invested in my original one-liner. Now you aren't. Either you are incapable of doing so, or you are a coward (probably both).

You also don't understand the greater context here: rhetoric and strategy. Understanding the truth of the matter here is important. Leftists will jump on the right's use of the subtle nod with similar reasoning I just said. Building defences (a "wall" if you like) for our arguments is a good thing. It helps us persuade others (the logos in rhetoric), and goes one step ahead of them (the strategy). Everyone here is always talking about Trump playing 4D chess, while you are busy jacking yourself to checkers. This process, while good for us, is obviously not good for you though, as you are indistinguishable from a virtue signalling leftist from reddit or cuckchan. More concerned with yourself, than the right winning.

oh, sorry. forgot who i was replying to. anyway, I'm not a fucking 17 yr old. I don't need to be taught how to learn. I want to know which sorts of skills will be most effective in the future. What is "on the way in" and what is "on the way out" sort of thing. What you literally did was say, "oh, you want to know what skills are important? well, just learn some computer stuff, and then when you see related stuff, then learn that too"

that's not helpful

im out, a couple autists decided to turn everything into a a multi paragraph debate on who is more autistic than who.

Learn concepts, not concrete ideals. Instead of learning python, you should learn fundamentals of programming. You may use python, but you'll be able to translate your skillset.

You said you wanted to be elite haxxor. I'd put your age at about 13.

literally, the nod doesnt even matter, everyone can assume exactly what he is saying even without social ques.

Whelp, i can see I'm not getting any help from you. Go get a college education and then we can talk. You're boring me.

I don't think so, you're not concerned with winning.

People who make one-liner non-thinking responses are low energy checkers' players who are easily manipulated by the left wing and outplayed by them.

There is only a handful of high energy people in this thread, you aren't one of them.

Not to cast aspersions on OP (necessarily), but its a completely valid tactic for CTR to try to get everybody to focus on this video PURELY for the nod, as if that's the only thing that's there.

Since 80% of people will write the nod off as insignificant, it would neutralize this video as a redpill.
You need to just get people to listen to the fucking thing.

Don't EXPLAIN IT unless they aren't getting it.

see

Your non-argument response here is lending credence to the notion that all this "nod" business is a CTR distraction away from the actual WORDS of the video.

Wow I've seen Holla Forums get pretty bad in the summer, but not with so many retards like
posting.

The real Slobo is still in hiding with Tupac

How is it a non-argument?

Stating something is a non-argument without reasoning to back it up is itself a non-arguments, since it contains no reasoning. So by your own reasoning and commitment you are making a non-argument. This is the problem with you Molyneux-fags, you lack philosophical depth and self-awareness.

As to the rest of my posts, maybe you have a reading comprehension problem. Since that is exactly my point in this post:

Here I'll repost it since you are slow on the uptake:

He was as helpful as could be. Did you want a list of specific technologies to learn? You have to figure that our yourself.

Note: It takes several years to learn a single language to basic competency

...

Your posts were enjoyable to read.
Thanks user.

I find it quite absurd how the interviewer responds to him saying he was murdered because he leaked information rather than it being a random robbery.
I mean does he actually believe that people dont get killed for doing that all over the world?
In america of all places too?

This is exactly what it looks like. You cunts are going ape shit over this and it's fucking nothing.

...

It's a subtle form of shilling, put one false picture in to discredit everything else.

nothing was stolen, try harder CTR

Arkencide

I feel like the kikes try to discredit my channel by posting links to it here in a very kikey fashion.

Maybe I am wrong. Who knows?

bumpy

agreed with you at first, thinking people are jumping to conclusions again

This user is right.

You are either blind or have never had close friends in your life if you missed that gesture.

Entire post disregarded and filtered

He's definitely hinting that seth rich was in fact a source.

However, the head nod is simply him trying to listen politely. There is an audio lag from the host of the show to assange.

Just because the head nod isn't his confirmation, him bringing up seth rich when discussing that his sources put themselves in danger is all he needs to say to successfully hint that he was, in fact the source, and he was likely yet another assassination victim of the clinton administration

you are probably right but also severely autistic, you couldve just said

..strormtriggered?

You can just tell from his expression, the look in his eyes that he was, even without the nod.

madman

He knows about the (((chosen people)))

...

counter globalist = preddy gud jannel

That was exactly what he wanted

He confirmed enemies fears and allies fears as well

He layed it all out "accidentally" to clear the murky waters and set a clear goals.

Seth is dead, no further punishment could be done towards him, this way however he is showing that he knows who is behind this

Shudup shill

So where's the nod?

I dont think this discredits your channel
I think you are doing Gods work fam

1:01

Even if he was murdered by some shitskin in cold blood on the street, the message is the same. DC Democrats are filth.

Isn't it enough that he implied this murdered guy was one of their sources?

absolutely based user

Funny, most of the post you were replying to said, 'Ignore the nod, this explains why Assange was answering in the affirmative.'

And his argument was pretty solid. Now, it doesn't mean that Seth Rich was the party that gave Wikileaks the information, but it almost certainly means that Assange knows something about Seth Rich which he is not sharing, and which is relevant to the interview. Seth may have been a friend or helper of the person who released the information, or may have contacted Wikileaks in the past on a completely unrelated issue.

We don't know.