I'm not condemning you for being dismissive I've asked you what makes for a valid opinion verses and invalid one, and you response is "journalism".

i think your fine to dismiss opinions, i dont think your fine to make accusations of character against other people especially if i can point out how that adhom doesent matter

I don't have an answer to your question becuase you're talking about a different subject than the one I am speaking of. @Dennafen

I was specifically talking about that video.

truth is established with observation and rationalization. journalists cover observation (unfortunately most slipping in rationalization that doesent matter and often twists the observation when they dont just doctor the observation in the first place) where as armchair commentators cover rationalization by presenting a broader perspective onto the observation

What can I say? An opinion is probably more valid if it's actually true or well reasoned.

Truth claims aren't opinions.

Oh I didnt watch the video I just saw the thumbnail and already knew I didnt like it purely for its presentation.

Sure.

Two people can be working with the exact same facts and come up with totally different opinions.

Different conclusions.

No opinions.

Opinions as to explain the facts.

Opinions are expressions of what is correct not what is factual.

What one ought to do as opposed to what one is.

I've got a feeling you're debating for the sake of debating. What is to be gained from this? I'm just a bloke that casually came by and saw that video and thought: ''oh great another one of those commentators with a sunglassed persona, like we didn't have enough of those.''

So if tim had a cartoon avatar with sunglasses what he said would be of no interest to you.

Perhaps their opinions aren't less valid. For me it was about presentation.\

Well mostly because authentic journalists don't portray themselves as such.

I don't see Kraut and Tea walking out on the street interviewing people, due to anonimity. Which is why those people use personas to begin with.

You mean like Ben Shaperio and David Pakman?

They want to be anonymous and thereby are confined to the internet.

Those beacons of objectivity.

Ben Shapiro isn't a journalist

Neither is David Pakman.

consitering steve crowder goes to the street and even he isint honest im not sure thats grounds for being trustworthy

But they report facts.

Okay.

From the start it was about me having a preference for people that are engaged on the streets, aren't anonymous internet users, and emphasize being objective and reporting news.

That's really all I can say.

Non of that has anything to do with opinion.

Exactly.

Precisely.

So why did you demean their ability to have a valid one?

I didn't.

This is your gripe with me

"They're not great thinkers, they're not informed scholars, they're just random plebs with opinions just like the rest of us"

Listen, you must understand that this conversation can't go anywhere because we both have a different interpretation on what it means to demean something

Yes.

That wasn't an insult

I said they were as valid as I am because all they do is give their opinions on things, but not doing any actual reporting.