How do you expect a mere mortal to tell the difference? 
I’m not the one making declarative statements based on predetermined subjective and biased opinions.
3 Likes
Look at the basic pattern: The right comes up with a vast amount of garbage. Most of it goes unrefuted because there’s simply too much of it. The stuff that doesn’t get refuted is taken to be true. Thus you conclude that you are right when you’re actually being lead around by the nose.
When a source keeps being show false quit listening to it! Don’t think that this time they got it right.
You just keep throwing garbage against the wall and hope it sticks. If there’s a “vast amount of garbage out there” give us some examples. Specific examples with links to sources. But you’ve shown repeatedly on this thread that you will not do that so discussions with you are pointless.
2 Likes
When one is shown to be untrue, people do stop listening to it. You are skipping the step of actually establishing the lack of truth, instead basing your declarations on what you’ve decided you want to be true and offering absolutely nothing to support your claims. And perhaps worst of all, you then expect others to just blindly follow you instead of thinking for themselves to reach their own conclusions.
Since you brought up that damn laptop - countless mainstream media sources repeatedly and venemously denied that the laptop existed, that it was a figment of Russian propaganda. Until it was established that it is real and the reported contents really did come from it. That is what a source being wrong looks like.
3 Likes
No. While there really is a laptop the FBI never had it. What it has is a drive image that purports to be from the laptop. However, it doesn’t have a chain of custody and it was obtained under suspicious circumstances. No judge would allow anything like that into court. It’s a nothing.
That is a far cry from the “It’s all made up!” that was reported ad nauseam. They picked the most convenient “truth” to run with, instead of working to find the actual truth.
So you’re sticking with the notion that “No one was supposed to have it, so we should continue pretending it doesnt exist”? When you think something wont meet the standards for evidence in court, you say that it doesnt meet evidentiary standards. You dont summarily declare it to be fake and that it doesnt exist.
2 Likes
So you think the criminal complaint is a fake simply because a Federalist writer was the one to bother getting a copy of it? Don’t you think if that were the case, a Buzzfeed writer would have gotten a copy of the real criminal complaint and posted it to show that the Federalist posts fake documents?
2 Likes
Ah yes, the “will this be allowed into court” standard that journalists have traditionally followed when it comes to whether something in newsworthy and should be reported. Thanks for reminding me of that standard. I had forgotten about it.
3 Likes
I can’t even figure out what your chain of reasoning is here. What criminal complaint are you talking about?
You still haven’t clicked the Federalist link? So you don’t even know what you are calling dishonest reporting? What’s the point in responding to someone that will call something fake when THEY HAVEN’T EVEN READ IT? I am going to do my best not to even bother conversing with you on this board anymore until you show at least some willingness to engage in the substance of what you’re criticizing.
3 Likes
The Federalist link is about the activist’s assault, not the laptop.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mixed us up. I haven’t been talking about the laptop at all. In one post I did call the FBI politically motivated. I then backed up that viewpoint, but still never brought up the laptop. Aside from those two posts, all of my posts on this subject have been about the Biden justice department and FBI targeting pro-life activists - in particular Mark Houck.
You have said from the beginning that the story or stories from the right wing media on this subject and Houck’s arrest have been fake. Yet you had shown in multiple posts that you haven’t even the slightest comprehension of the facts of the story or how they affect the prosecution. Now I guess you’re backtracking and you’re not calling the Federalist’s story on Houck’s arrest fake anymore? Now you’re going to claim you were referring to something laptop related when you accused the right-wing media of making things up?
1 Like
I was replying to a post about the laptop.
I said the claims about how the arrest went down appear to be fake. I never contested the arrest. This looks like the sort of case that prompted the creation of the FACE act in the first place–local officials not prosecuting violent protesters.
No you weren’t. When I posted the link to the federalist article, you claimed it wasn’t honest.
You did not. Go back and check. You called it dishonest and made no distinction between parts of the story being true and parts being untrue. You called it all untrue. This is what you wrote:
I reiterate, BASED ON THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, this does NOT look anything like a FACE act violation. The criminal complaint is the only public document giving the side of the “victim.” I am not saying this isn’t a FACE act violation based on what the pro-life activist claims. I am saying this is not a FACE act violation based on what the COMPLAINANT said happened to him WHEN HE WENT TO THE LOCAL POLICE TO GET THE ACTIVIST ARRESTED. What part of that criminal complaint looks to you like a FACE act violation specifically?
2 Likes
No, you were not.
1 Like
More on the negative effects of women taking over academia
We are in the middle of a great social experiment. The sex ratios of many important institutions in the West are changing, and few institutions more dramatically illustrate this shift than academia. For centuries, academia was primarily a male-led institution. Although many universities in the United States began admitting women in the 1800s, others did not begin to do so until the mid-to-late 1900s.
Only in the past few decades have women started to outpace men at all levels: new bachelor’s degrees, new graduate degrees, new faculty members. Today, an institution once led and populated almost entirely by men, is increasingly led and populated by women. Because men and women (on average) have different traits, tendencies, and priorities, this change in sex ratios has changed and will continue to change the nature of the modern university.
2 Likes
- 71 percent of men reported that protecting free speech is more important than promoting an inclusive society; 59 percent of women said promoting an inclusive society is more important than protecting free speech.
our own data, however, female sex continues to predict lower support for academic freedom and lower prioritization of truth after controlling for political allegiance.
Sounds like men are being kept down by the matriarchy, or will be soon if they aren’t already.
2 Likes
“You have the freedom to say whatever you want, as long as I approve of what you say.”
2 Likes
A review of a recent overly charitable show in favor of trans issues, sex changes, and the like. A small except of many inaccuracies from the show’s claims.
Oliver’s claim that sterility “can happen” as a result of cross-sex hormones is also misleading. When taken as a follow-up to puberty blockers, sterility is virtually guaranteed, since the organs responsible for producing sex gametes (ova and sperm) are not allowed to develop. These procedures also impact sexual function. Transgender surgeon Marci Bowers infamously concededthat of the 2,000 or so people on whom she has operated, none has been able to achieve sexual satisfaction. Is renunciation of all future reproductive capabilities and sexual function something a 12-year-old can give valid consent to? Perhaps Oliver should have raised this question.
4 Likes