Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg alive as of February 2019? [on hold]
Right wing sources on social media have been abuzz with rumors that Ginsburg has died. The conspiracy theory is that Democrats are hiding her death to avoid another Trump pick on the Supreme Court. This conspiracy theory has been documented in mainstream media (here and here, among others). There's even a hashtag on Twitter for this conspiracy theory, #WheresRuth.
Yesterday The Washington Post ran a story claiming Ginsburg had attended a performance celebrating her. However, the paper featured no hard evidence that she was there and far-right sources claimed the story was fabricated.
My belief is that this is another Pizzagate- or Q-esque invention; nonetheless I don't have any proof. So is Ginsburg alive?
politics mortality celebrities
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS, LangLangC 2 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
|
show 15 more comments
Right wing sources on social media have been abuzz with rumors that Ginsburg has died. The conspiracy theory is that Democrats are hiding her death to avoid another Trump pick on the Supreme Court. This conspiracy theory has been documented in mainstream media (here and here, among others). There's even a hashtag on Twitter for this conspiracy theory, #WheresRuth.
Yesterday The Washington Post ran a story claiming Ginsburg had attended a performance celebrating her. However, the paper featured no hard evidence that she was there and far-right sources claimed the story was fabricated.
My belief is that this is another Pizzagate- or Q-esque invention; nonetheless I don't have any proof. So is Ginsburg alive?
politics mortality celebrities
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS, LangLangC 2 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
24
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
26
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
4
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
6
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
2
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago
|
show 15 more comments
Right wing sources on social media have been abuzz with rumors that Ginsburg has died. The conspiracy theory is that Democrats are hiding her death to avoid another Trump pick on the Supreme Court. This conspiracy theory has been documented in mainstream media (here and here, among others). There's even a hashtag on Twitter for this conspiracy theory, #WheresRuth.
Yesterday The Washington Post ran a story claiming Ginsburg had attended a performance celebrating her. However, the paper featured no hard evidence that she was there and far-right sources claimed the story was fabricated.
My belief is that this is another Pizzagate- or Q-esque invention; nonetheless I don't have any proof. So is Ginsburg alive?
politics mortality celebrities
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Right wing sources on social media have been abuzz with rumors that Ginsburg has died. The conspiracy theory is that Democrats are hiding her death to avoid another Trump pick on the Supreme Court. This conspiracy theory has been documented in mainstream media (here and here, among others). There's even a hashtag on Twitter for this conspiracy theory, #WheresRuth.
Yesterday The Washington Post ran a story claiming Ginsburg had attended a performance celebrating her. However, the paper featured no hard evidence that she was there and far-right sources claimed the story was fabricated.
My belief is that this is another Pizzagate- or Q-esque invention; nonetheless I don't have any proof. So is Ginsburg alive?
politics mortality celebrities
politics mortality celebrities
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 hours ago
Solomonoff's Secret
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
asked yesterday
Solomonoff's SecretSolomonoff's Secret
15814
15814
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Solomonoff's Secret is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
put on hold as off-topic by Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS, LangLangC 2 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS, LangLangC 2 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "Skeptics Stack Exchange is for challenging notable claims, such as pseudoscience and biased results. This question might not challenge a claim, or the claim identified might not be notable." – Jan Doggen, DavePhD, gerrit, DenisS
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
24
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
26
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
4
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
6
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
2
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago
|
show 15 more comments
24
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
26
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
4
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
6
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
2
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago
24
24
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
26
26
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
4
4
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
6
6
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
2
2
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago
|
show 15 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
In this article by the well-respected Associated Press, we read of a concert that Justice Ginsburg attended Monday night (Feb 4, 2019), her first public appearance since surgery in New York on December 21, 2018.
The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography.
Justice Ginsburg's son James Ginsburg was also in attendance at the concert. He told reporters that "his mother is walking a mile a day and meeting with her personal trainer twice a week."
EDIT
Is this enough to answer the question?
To find the best explanation, I look for one that makes sense, makes the most of the evidence, and requires the least imagination on my part.
In the present case, the hypothesis doesn't make sense because it would be very hard to accomplish the coverup of the death of a US Supreme Court Justice long enough to achieve any desirable end.
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In this article by the well-respected Associated Press, we read of a concert that Justice Ginsburg attended Monday night (Feb 4, 2019), her first public appearance since surgery in New York on December 21, 2018.
The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography.
Justice Ginsburg's son James Ginsburg was also in attendance at the concert. He told reporters that "his mother is walking a mile a day and meeting with her personal trainer twice a week."
EDIT
Is this enough to answer the question?
To find the best explanation, I look for one that makes sense, makes the most of the evidence, and requires the least imagination on my part.
In the present case, the hypothesis doesn't make sense because it would be very hard to accomplish the coverup of the death of a US Supreme Court Justice long enough to achieve any desirable end.
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In this article by the well-respected Associated Press, we read of a concert that Justice Ginsburg attended Monday night (Feb 4, 2019), her first public appearance since surgery in New York on December 21, 2018.
The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography.
Justice Ginsburg's son James Ginsburg was also in attendance at the concert. He told reporters that "his mother is walking a mile a day and meeting with her personal trainer twice a week."
EDIT
Is this enough to answer the question?
To find the best explanation, I look for one that makes sense, makes the most of the evidence, and requires the least imagination on my part.
In the present case, the hypothesis doesn't make sense because it would be very hard to accomplish the coverup of the death of a US Supreme Court Justice long enough to achieve any desirable end.
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In this article by the well-respected Associated Press, we read of a concert that Justice Ginsburg attended Monday night (Feb 4, 2019), her first public appearance since surgery in New York on December 21, 2018.
The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography.
Justice Ginsburg's son James Ginsburg was also in attendance at the concert. He told reporters that "his mother is walking a mile a day and meeting with her personal trainer twice a week."
EDIT
Is this enough to answer the question?
To find the best explanation, I look for one that makes sense, makes the most of the evidence, and requires the least imagination on my part.
In the present case, the hypothesis doesn't make sense because it would be very hard to accomplish the coverup of the death of a US Supreme Court Justice long enough to achieve any desirable end.
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
In this article by the well-respected Associated Press, we read of a concert that Justice Ginsburg attended Monday night (Feb 4, 2019), her first public appearance since surgery in New York on December 21, 2018.
The justice sat in the back of the darkened auditorium at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. The National Constitution Center, which sponsored the concert, did not permit photography.
Justice Ginsburg's son James Ginsburg was also in attendance at the concert. He told reporters that "his mother is walking a mile a day and meeting with her personal trainer twice a week."
EDIT
Is this enough to answer the question?
To find the best explanation, I look for one that makes sense, makes the most of the evidence, and requires the least imagination on my part.
In the present case, the hypothesis doesn't make sense because it would be very hard to accomplish the coverup of the death of a US Supreme Court Justice long enough to achieve any desirable end.
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
edited 11 hours ago
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
answered yesterday
elliot svenssonelliot svensson
2,294635
2,294635
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Oddthinking♦
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
AP, as part of the MSM, is "in on it." The beauty of living in that particular fact-free world is that you can always generate a new conspiracy angle to refute the obvious reality.
– PoloHoleSet
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
@PoloHoleSet, I'm not aware of any well-regarded claims of political unfairness or dishonesty ("fake news") leveled at AP, such as those known for der Spiegel. Ref: allsides.com/news-source/associated-press-media-bias
– elliot svensson
5 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
Tongue-in-cheek observation, though I will guarantee you that many someones are claiming that the AP is in on the conspiracy, for that reason, when that article is pointed out to them. The trick is "well-regarded," which is pretty much out the window when raising the original claim to begin with.
– PoloHoleSet
4 hours ago
add a comment |
24
It's an implausible theory. In order for a coverup to have a salutary effect, it needs to be maintained long enough. In this case, the hypothetical coverup would have to last until the Senate majority changes, about two years from now at minimum.
– elliot svensson
yesterday
26
@elliotsvensson It would also require the willing participation of the conservative wing of the court, which seems... unlikely.
– ceejayoz
yesterday
4
In a couple of days she'll show up somewhere else and then this question is moot...
– Jan Doggen
17 hours ago
6
-1 The claim is that RBG is dead. So the question should be "is there any evidence that RBG is dead", not that she's alive. You've accepted a burden of proof that you don't need to bear, because at face value the claim is implausible. As you say, it's based on rumor.
– henning
14 hours ago
2
@henning while I agree that "she is dead" would be the better claim to test, I don't think it's worth a downvote. "Hard evidence that she's alive" or "hard evidence that she's dead" are the desired answers regardless of which phrasing is used to ask, and I don't think Skeptics should be in the business of policing what conclusions someone might come to from claims that don't get hard evidence in either direction.
– Kamil Drakari
12 hours ago