Message from @Xaverius
Discord ID: 621308694474260481
Well, Hindus, these cow-protecting good people, they pay other people to kill the animals the "protect" because they don't want to get punished for killing the holy holy animal. They pay others to kill, then then eat and wear their skin on their shoes. To me, that's a fucking hypocrisy.
It's like saying USA did nothing wrong, they paid Private Military Companies to fight in Middle-East.
Can I buy a terrorist to torture?
> ``[11:04] Weez: Don’t forget the BBC do not write opinion pieces, they only post fact.``
fucking volcano take
right after dank's video on their obvious-as-fuck hit-docu on him, too
If that was a hit piece they succeeded
In hitting their own reputation
the bbc have no reputation here to begin with
but it's plainly obvious as to why they did it
They found the absolute worst comedian to represent their side of the argument then
How stupid must they be if they don't get that right
extremely. again, this is known
I know it's usually best to assume incompetence over malice, but that's so many levels of fail
like the only thing these people are actually competent at are being the mafia
TR also exposed them good a while back
I guess it's a classic example of don't stop your enemy from making a mistake
BBC is 140 % objective what are you talking about <:hyperthink:462282519883284480>
I mean, the BBC is fine <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>
OFC when they start talking about things you don't like, then BBC MAN BAD!
How is any of this incorrect?
Or opinion pieces?
It's objective fact.
Even this, isn't written in a negative way
"No-deal Brexit: 10 ways it **could** affect you"
"The contents of your shopping basket **may** change"
"And Bank of England governor Mark Carney has said that, in a worst-case scenario, our shopping bills **could** increase by 10%. "
Nowhere do they say they WILL. They say they COULD.
Can you show me where the BBC isn't objective?
Or posting factual information?
here's a pretty cool example of a non-objective article
see all the slanting and fanciful wording? sure, everything written here is true when you look at it... but it's written fairly disingenuously, don't you think? it's also interesting how all of their quotes are from people opposed to the topic in question. no pro- or even neutral parties
you can still be factual and objective and show insane bias
or are you a stupid retard?