373
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
373 points (100.0% liked)
World News
37014 readers
197 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
from MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
time ran the exact same article, what is your point?
shame on Time?
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline...
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…
notice how i didn't prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that's because i didn't use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
woooow
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party 'bias checker' (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
this is just sad.
We all understand how exaggeration works. @meth_dragon@hexbear.net linked the article, clearly indicating it's not the same article with the same word as the exaggeration. After that, @meth_dragon@hexbear.net was willing to be clearer, but you had already removed the thread from being about the topic of whether or not this bias indicator has any value. Now it never returned to the point being obviously initially made
I honestly think this guy might be some kind of troll. every single exchange he has with people results in him reusing these points.
careful you don’t sprain something with those mental gymnastics!
clearly you know how to lie badly in an attempt to cover another pile of lies, but not how to lie well enough to convince someone smart than a small woodland creature— or yourselves.
you know what would be impressive? if any of you could just admit you made a mistake and dropped this whole charade.
What more do you want than "I was exaggerating"? Once that was said, this whole BS could've just stopped. You then say "ok, now that we're clear that you were exaggerating, how different are these articles?" But we never got there, because you derailed.
Request an edit if you really think it's so misleading, I'm sure @meth_dragon@hexbear.net would've initially just edited if you were so concerned that this "lie" would mislead others. Now I doubt it, because you've proven to be acting in bad faith by not just accepting the explanation and continuing the initial discussion, but you had that chance.
should have just called him names to begin with, this was one of the most pathetic interactions i've had online in recent memory
although i guess it's possible he's like 11 and can't really come up with anything else
Also they seem to have 7 likes on a lot of comments, or just above it. Get the feeling there's some real bot/alt account stuff going on because I cannot imagine anyone liking it lol, let alone a consistent number as you go down the chain.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it's not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
so you even admit that they lied
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
What conclusion do these facts support?
that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
this should help
Lol what is this even supposed to mean
I suspect it’s just a typo and should say:
Thank you whiskeypickle, that's really helpful!
fucking liberal
We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.
I don't think so. That whole website is premised on an elementary logical fallacy. Just because a news source is left- or right-leaning doesn't make it inherently less trustworthy than a "centrist" one, in fact all you've done is introduce your own untrustworthy ideological bias into the judgement criteria by proactively dismissing anyone who doesn't align with your definition of centrism.
it's just a test of how much the position agrees with the people running the website haha
there's no such thing as "bias-free" propaganda, and propaganda isn't inherently subversive
why? read the article, and if you can't tell the bias that's on you.
ya know, I’ve looked into it. one of the biggest problems with bots is that they have to be hosted from somewhere. that’s my first hiccup.
I’d LOVE to make this a bot, but I don’t know where I’d host it from.
You can get a cheap VPS with a couple cores and some RAM for less than $5.
can I run it from inside a docker container?
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn't virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?