SaintHeartwing
Discord ID: 201390618344161281
298 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2/3
| Next
Sometimes he makes good points
And yeah, he did
Yeah, no.
The White Helmets aren't some mysteriously nefarious evil group
That's a conspiracy theory, I'm afraid
How about the plain and simple fact nobody else had the resources for it?
Turkey has no motive
Assad does
"Occam's Razor"
The simple solution that fits the evidence is it was Assad
After all, he has an awful civil rights record
It's really not. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43697084
Okay, how about THIS? https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence
This lays it all out very clearly and goes into a lot of detail
Also, the BBC is a lot less biased than, say, INFOWARS
And according to "Media Bias Fact Check", their factual reporting is very high.
They only have a slight left of center bias
But that's how most British people are anyway. Overall, they subscribe to more liberal policies
Yes, but not everyone is right
Based off what?
These are the same people that were okay with saying stuff about Jeremy Corbyn that just wasn't true.
They even did stuff like this: https://petapixel.com/2018/03/19/bbc-accused-of-photoshopping-jeremy-corbyns-hat-to-look-more-russian/
They're not that leftist
Yeah. Communist
If they WERE really liberal, they'd love him and endorse him heartily
And they wouldn't do basic stuff like I just showed
Well that's because American politics is more right wing than Britain overall
CNN actually plays things very down the middle
Its boring, really
Yeah, the people that GOGGLE at the idea of Occasio-Cortez advocating for single payer are total commies. XD
Uh, no, it doesn't
It really doesn't.
There's no comparison
CNN isn't going out there and saying ridiculously untrue things for shits and giggles
Having stupid guests on isn't the same thing as trying to push a story that just isn't true
Yeah, ABOUT that dossier
There are parts within the Dossier that have actually proven true
And parts that aren't verifiable
It's a mixed bag
They're really not.
Politifact is very center.
They criticize everyone
From Sanders to Hillary to Trump
Nooope
Page being a Russian agent was the basis
He was bragging in bars
The Politifact link I just gave showed it wasn't the Steele dossier
It was that Page had been an FBI issue since 2013
He'd been described as a friggin' dupe for the Russians
The idiot had been in contact with Russian spies
That's not up for debate
That isn't true
Literally, you would have known this had you fact checked with Google
"These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources."
"In review, Politifact has been called left biased by some right leaning sources. In fact, there is a source called Politifact Bias that is dedicated to pointing out Politifactโs biases. Politifact is also a signatory of the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN), which outlines a code principles for credible fact checkers.
Politifact uses minimal loaded language in their articles and headlines such as this: Trump falsely claims NATO countries owe United States money for defense spending. All information is well sourced to credible media and/or direct statements from experts in the field or the politicians themselves. Fact Check selection leans slightly left as more right wing politicians are currently fact checked. This may be due to bias or the fact that Republicans currently control all branches of government and hence there is more to check.
Overall, this update reveals a slight leftward shift in Politifactโs fact checking selection, but not enough to move them from the least biased category"
Snopes and Politifact do good jobs
They cite a lot of experts
"LMAO, experts, pffft, I don't gotta listen to EXPERTS"
I don't have to do REEEESEEAAARCH! XD
I get it. I do
You want people to tell you you're already right.
...well what if you're not?
How would you know?
You dont' look for ideas that challenge you.
So you'll never know if you ARE wrong
It's better to actually search this stuff up
In the words of David Hume..."The Wise Man proportions his beliefs to the evidence."
And that makes me smarter because I can quote a famous philosopher. ๐
Oh, absolutely
The "election"? Name a part where they were wrong and didn't change their articles
Or revise something when proven wrong.
C'mon, your mom's not equivalent to David Hume.
People can be free to believe whatever they want. But they ought to back up claims with real proof.
That's my point.
Cite evidence. Cite experts.
Cite people who know their shit
I just said DO cite evidence and experts, which they do
They even list all their sources at the bottom
BAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you KIDDING ME?
You think POLLSTERS are equivalent to, say, people making arguments based on historical evidence?
Look. Did Washington ACTUALLY chop down that cherry tree?
No, right?
The point being that cherry tree thing is something you could ask a historian about.
It's a matter of the record.
Historical fact
People's opinions aren't the same AS historical fact, or legal laws or the like
Like "I think so and so is a great politician" isn't the same as "doing this is illegal"
Because you can definitely look up an objective answer to the second thing
For the most part, the legal and historical experts tend to agree on the big things that matter
And opinion polls aren't the same as "finding out whether doing so and so is illegal under the US penal code"
Like "Do you like this policy" isn't the same thing as "Is it actually breaking the law to be in this country illegally".
My point is you're comparing apples and oranges
They're both fruit, but that's it
Opinion pollsters can be often very wrong. Legal, historical experts usually aren't
298 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Prev |
Page 2/3
| Next