Joe Biden Wins - Becomes 46th president of the United States

[tabzer]

So their base is about pseudo science and conspiracy theories?
Thanks for already confirming what I was already saying.

That's a disingenuous response. Both sides of the spectrum like conspiracy theories. WAPO isn't free from having done so either. The point is that using fact-checkers to confirm your own bias is lazy and already predisposed in political agenda.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

 

[Deleted User]

That's a disingenuous response. Both sides of the spectrum like conspiracy theories. WAPO isn't free from having done so either. The point is that using fact-checkers to confirm your own bias is lazy and already predisposed in political agenda.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

Quick question:
What kind of movement do you think qannon is? what politics do antivaxxers have?
Most of the big, overreaching conspiracy theories are always in the right wing groups.
Calling both sides is fairly disingenuous don't you agree? It's complete bullshit.

 

[tabzer]

Quick question:
What kind of movement do you think qannon is? what politics do antivaxxers have?
Most of the big, overreaching conspiracy theories are always in the right wing groups.
Calling both sides is fairly disingenuous don't you agree? It's complete bullshit.

More bias confirmation. Do you want me to answer those questions honestly, or do you think you already understand my position?

Also. Define "overreaching". As I made in a point before, 100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article.

 

[Deleted User]

More bias confirmation. Do you want me to answer those questions honestly, or do you think you already understand my position?

Also. Define "overreaching". As I made in a point before, 100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article.

Overreaching being prominent.
Being a leftist doesn't change anything about this argument. Epoch spewed conspiracy theories. Either you address the fact they were literately talking about psi/pseudo science. Or you shut up, since this argument won't be going anywhere.

 

[RandomUser]

For those wondering what site monkeyman4412 posting snippets of the site, fact or bias checking is:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
Now everyone can check their respective media source for fun.

 

[tabzer]

Overreaching being prominent.

WAPO is definitely more overreaching than Epoch. There's no contest.

Either you address the fact they were literately talking about psi/pseudo science.

I did. They were. They do that. They will do it again.

But the point that you are side-skirting, here, is that you don't distinguish the difference between an article and its source.

Being a leftist doesn't change anything about this argument

Calling yourself a leftist is precisely the linchpin that keeps you as a captivated audience and not an active participant.

 

[Deleted User]

(Overreaching being prominent.)
WAPO is definitely more overreaching than Epoch. There's no contest.

Nice context change there.
here's what I originally said:

Quick question:
What kind of movement do you think qannon is? what politics do antivaxxers have?
Most of the big, overreaching conspiracy theories are always in the right wing groups.
Calling both sides is fairly disingenuous don't you agree? It's complete bullshit.

Moving from conspiracy theories into websites.
You enjoy being disingenuous don't you?

I did..

You went on a tirade about news fact checking and how it only helps confirmation bias. You didn't address the fact they did indeed, with what I linked, put pseudo science. You didn't refute it.

But the point that you are side-skirting, here, is that you don't distinguish the difference between an article and its source.

News reporters aren't researches. News reporters job is to give things a platform. They gave a platform to pseudoscience.
meaning they in some way shape or form, they support it. So it doesn't matter about the difference, you don't give platforms to fake shit. It's wrong.

Calling yourself a leftist is precisely the linchpin that keeps you as a captivated audience and not an active participant.

Yeah well making me a boogeyman doesn't really make anything you have to say more meaningful now does it?

 

[tabzer]

You are projecting and not really paying attention to what I am writing.

Moving from conspiracy theories into websites.
You enjoy being disingenuous don't you?

What I've already said on the topic:

"There is no clear governing model to determine the scale of honesty of news organizations as many undefined variables exist. Is one media source, that regularly and unfairly criticizes a political party, more dishonest than a mega-news corp that publishes a single grand hoax that, perhaps intentionally, crashes the economy?"

"100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article." (in any context, including conspiracy theories)

You went on a tirade about news fact checking and how it only helps confirmation bias. You didn't address the fact they did indeed, with what I linked, put pseudo science.

What I've already said on the subject:

"You can take it however seriously you want. They make articles that pander to their base, as do all publications. If one of their stories is being used, you can check their sources."

"They do that. They will do it again."

News reporters aren't researches.

If it's not accurate, then it is not news. News reporters should definitely be researching what they are reporting.

News reporters job is to give things a platform.

Are we confusing the difference between a News Platform/Publisher and a News Reporter? Many reporters earn their own reputation in order to become recognized and prestigious. A site like Epoch will publish almost anyone if it aligns with their base's interest and gets them more clicks/$.

Yeah well making me a boogeyman doesn't really make anything you have to say more meaningful now does it?

I wasn't the one saying that you are a leftist. You did that.

 

[Master X]

Whelp, Antrim county finished their recount. Despite all the interesting 'theories' put forth by ASOG, and their supporters, the hand recount doesn't exactly support them.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/n...ty-audit-shows-12-vote-gain-trump/3938988001/

 

[Deleted User]

Holy mother of nonsense. We do circular reasoning now?

You are projecting and not really paying attention to what I am writing.

Really?

What I've already said on the topic:

"There is no clear governing model to determine the scale of honesty of news organizations as many undefined variables exist. Is one media source, that regularly and unfairly criticizes a political party, more dishonest than a mega-news corp that publishes a single grand hoax that, perhaps intentionally, crashes the economy?"

"100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article." (in any context, including conspiracy theories)

impressive that you changed the order of your statements. we didn't talk about over reaching until I brought up the fact epoch was putting pseudo science with a link. You are intentionally now trying to reorder your arguments at this point.
So for those who want to know. the overachieving argument should come after the quote beneath the next one
Oh further more, those parentheses are new. not his original argument.

What I've already said on the subject:

"You can take it however seriously you want. They make articles that pander to their base, as do all publications. If one of their stories is being used, you can check their sources."

"They do that. They will do it again."

and I brought up that it's quite clear the pandering they are doing is conspiracy and pseudo science.

Are we confusing the difference between a News Platform/Publisher and a News Reporter? Many reporters earn their own reputation in order to become recognized and prestigious. A site like Epoch will publish almost anyone if it aligns with their base's interest and gets them more clicks/$.

News reporters should definitely be researching what they are reporting. If a report goes on writing an article about a conspiracy, and the platform allows it. It is wrong. And this still fails to refute my point
Epoch is not a trustworthy source
if you want to gundown mediabiasfact check go ahead. But if they (epoch) are putting out clear articles that are untrue, which I showed an example that they were.
There's only so long before you call the kettle it's color.

I wasn't the one saying that you are a leftist. You did that.

And I wasn't the one arguing that having a bias for a side somehow changes the fact that the most prominent/overeaching conspiracy theories are on the right wing, or arguing that that epoch is a trustworthy news source. Because that's essentially what you were arguing. I pointed out x thing, you went out of your way to talk about y as if it changed x. When it never did.
X being epoch isn't credible
y being that fact checkers have issues and it goes into confirmation bias.
Tell me, does fact checkers having issues somehow the contents of the page for epoch? That they posted pseudo science. If it somehow does, please tell me how.
tell me how rendering invalid mediabiasfactcheck changes epoch's page:

 

[tabzer]

impressive that you changed the order of your statements. we didn't talk about over reaching until I brought up the fact epoch was putting pseudo science with a link. You are intentionally now trying to reorder your arguments at this point

I talked about it before you did, showing that you aren't even paying attention. You think you came up with something I didn't already consider. You ignored what I said that was directly relevent to the subject. It doesn't matter what order you decide to read the quotes. Both indicate my position.

***And HOLY NINJA EDIT. I have already made this point, before both of these posts:

Also. Define "overreaching". As I made in a point before, 100 Buzzfeed articles may not be as overreaching as 1 WAPO article.

***And from here, you will act surprised when I bring it up again. Daft.

and I brought up that it's quite clear the pandering they are doing is conspiracy and pseudo science.

I don't disagree. I don't like Epoch. I don't consider their existence to be as threatening as some other media companies oligarchies.

Epoch is not a trustworthy source

Right. But some articles that they sometimes decide to parrot link to sources outside of their publication.

And I wasn't the one arguing that having a bias for a side somehow changes the fact that the most prominent/overeaching conspiracy theories are on the right wing, or that epoch is a trustworthy news source.

I still think the WAPO conspiracy claims have been more damaging. But, in my first post I conceded that we don't have a reliable baseline.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

News reporters should definitely be researching what they are reporting. If a report goes on writing an article about a conspiracy, and the platform allows it. It is wrong. And this still fails to refute my point

You are conflating news reporters with platforms that host their reports. It's lazy and not a catch-all in determining the validity of their respective articles/sources. That is the refutation.

took issue with me being a leftists, and I really can't care
"Calling yourself a leftist is precisely the linchpin that keeps you as a captivated audience and not an active participant."

This was a tangent you introduced. I commented on it.

 

[Deleted User]

I talked about it before you did, showing that you aren't even paying attention. You think you came up with something I didn't already consider. You ignored what I said that was directly relevent to the subject. It doesn't matter what order you decide to read the quotes. Both indicate my position.

oh hey look at this, tabzer lied? no way

This was a tangent you introduced. I commented on it.

Correction, you introduced it since you were talking about confirmation bias. I brought that up to counter your stupid argument that my bias was somehow changing the fact that they were putting pseudo science.
Edit:looks like youtube might be stupid and processing my video at stupid low quality. Give it sometime and hopefully it comes crisp. the source is 1080p

 

[tabzer]

oh hey look at this, tabzer lied? no way

This is the first thing I said on the subject of what you later coined "overreach":

There is no clear governing model to determine the scale of honesty of news organizations as many undefined variables exist. Is one media source, that regularly and unfairly criticizes a political party, more dishonest than a mega-news corp that publishes a single grand hoax that, perhaps intentionally, crashes the economy?

Maybe you are subliminally influenceable and this was just too "indirect" for you to process.

Correction, you introduced it since you were talking about confirmation bias. I brought that up to counter your stupid argument.

Talking about bias is not calling you a leftist. Calling yourself a leftist doesn't counter my "stupid" argument. It supports it.

 

[Deleted User]

This is the first thing I said on the subject of what you later coined "overreach":

Holy fuck, your dense. No, that's not at all you were saying. you went into a tirade about fact checkers.
When I said overreach, it was used a very different context.

Maybe you are subliminally influenceable and this was just too indirect for you to process.

And your being seriously dishonest.

Talking about bias is not calling you a leftist. Calling yourself a leftist doesn't counter my "stupid" argument. It supports it.

doesn't it get old snipping out parts of my statements?
At this point I'm done, your so dishonest that it's actually outright insane.
here's my full original quote you botched
"I brought that up to counter your stupid argument that my bias was somehow changing the fact that they were putting pseudo science."

 

[tabzer]

No, that's not at all you were saying. you went into a tirade about fact checkers.

Look at this statement: "There is no clear governing model to determine the scale of honesty of news organizations as many undefined variables exist. Is one media source, that regularly and unfairly criticizes a political party, more dishonest than a mega-news corp that publishes a single grand hoax that, perhaps intentionally, crashes the economy?"

It quite clearly is referencing how fact checkers aren't reliably evaluating the weight of prominence, impact, or "overreach".

You said: "Most of the big, overreaching conspiracy theories are always in the right wing groups." And I had already disagreed with the premise of that evaluation on my 1st post.

doesn't it get old snipping out parts of my statements?
At this point I'm done, your so dishonest that it's actually outright insane.
here's my full original quote you botched
"I brought that up to counter your stupid argument that my bias was somehow changing the fact that they were putting pseudo science."

That was never a point in my argument. I thought I quoted what was relevent to what I said. Maybe I missed it. Maybe you post-edited it like all your other posts. Who knows? You calling yourself a leftist does support my actual argument though. You want to get "leftist news" and instructions on "how a leftist should act". You aren't representing anything authentic. Things you don't understand, you ignore. When they are thrown back to you because you failed to understand them the first time, you act outraged. You might think you are acting honestly, but I am too. It's better to not talk over people and instead, try to understand what's being said. There's no shame in asking,"what do you mean by this?". You know, instead of pretending you understand and then regurgitating the prescribed parrot talk that was initially refuted with the opening act.

 

[tabzer]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

If you think of yourself as a leftist, you aren't thinking.

 

[morvoran]

Whelp, Antrim county finished their recount. Despite all the interesting 'theories' put forth by ASOG, and their supporters, the hand recount doesn't exactly support them.

Odd that brainlets forget about this fact that was in the site you posted:

"The reliably Republican county has been the center of controversy in the weeks since the election after initial results posted in the early morning hours of Nov. 4 showed Biden ahead of Trump by thousands of votes. Election officials later determined a clerk's failure to properly update software had resulted in transposed results and Trump actually won the county by more than 3,700 votes."
This was claimed to be due to "human error" by Pedocrats election officials, but forensic evidence shown it was due to a "feature" of Dominion software that flipped the votes to Pedo Joe. Now that they were caught and the votes fixed, they're saying the numbers are correct and Dominion is "secure". GTFO with that mess.

 

[tabzer]

*snip*

 

[DarknessPlay3r]

241 pages later and this thread is still going, and all I can think of is this:



Only now instead of being about TV is kinda applies to any modern media distributions...

 

[6adget]

241 pages later and this thread is still going, and all I can think of is this:



Only now instead of being about TV is kinda applies to any modern media distributions...

And this comes to mind