Republicans who blast FBI's Trump search are prepping to snag Joe in a Hunter Biden probe
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (27)
sorted by:
I love the "No evidence has emerged of this thing" line they always trot out to dismiss any claims they don't like. I started noticing it after the election, when the media collectively and conveniently forgot the difference between "evidence" and "proof", so they could use lack of evidence as evidence of lack in illogical factchecks that somehow worked with idiot NPCs. These NPCs will gleefully parrot the latest "Baseless! Without Evidence! Conspiracy Theory!" factcheck from The Cathedral, when any of us paying attention know the FBI wouldn't touch Hunter's stash with a 10 foot pole. The agents searching Giuliani's house looked through those hard drives like they weren't there, muttering "It doesn't look like anything to me" as they rifled through and bagged Rudy's personal possessions.
My favorite example of that was when - in a rare move for him - Barr put down his bucket of extra crispy chicken, and bravely got out in front of the stolen election claims to tell the media that he'd found no evidence of fraud. It was literally weeks after the election. It was days after Amistad Project brought out the truck driver whose truck of ballots was stolen. But Barr figured out an amazing lifehack - Can't have evidence if there's no investigation! <rollsafe.gif>
I don't know the nature of the "year-long investigation" here but why should that convince anyone? They aren't just politically biased - they are criminally incompetent. 4chan autists could find out more about Hunter and Joe's links to China in one day than federal agents would ever discover in a year.
What IS the difference between evidence and proof?
Proof is the beyond reasonable doubt, evidence is the steps taken to get there. Your knife being in the murdered's house is evidence, but its not proof because it could be innocuous. At least that's my understanding.
Gotcha. Thanks.
So the distinction is more of a legal one.
In lay terms, proof and evidence are used fairly interchangeably.
His example is good but it's not only a legal distinction. Colloquially I think mixing them up is even worse because while in a legal setting all the parties will know exactly what their own jargon means, to a lay person proof carries a connotation of "being proven and factual" that evidence does not. We all know you might need lots of evidence to prove something, but nobody says "ok so you've got proof but is it enough proof to prove it?" Admittedly the words are synonymous but I would never use them interchangeably if I wanted to be precise. And journalism should be a technical, pedantic field as much as a court of law should be. Instead, news writers like to play with synonyms to sway emotions one way or another. Had they used "proof" in all the above examples over the last two years, some normies might wonder "Ok so it's not proven, but maybe they had some evidence?" And we can't allow that.