![Egon [they/them]](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/1dee944e-1e8e-4465-89e8-a22e23187ddd.png?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
What is the biggest lesson that employment has taught you?
You said the source brands I speak of can be said to lie about what’s going on and spin it to something of their liking.
I then highlighted why and showed examples of them having done so.
. Here, the question “as opposed to what”.
Lying as opposed to observable reality, for example with regards to the Iraq war and stories about North Korean haircuts. With regards to the Iraq war they themselves have admitted to it, the untruths are well known. With regards to North Korean haircuts this lie has been highlighted by people reporting on the ground, showing it to be untrue.
called out as lying have to indicate it might be lying that the other sources anyone else can call out for lying don’t have.
The source "called out for lying" has been proved to have lied. The others have not. You are welcome to prove so - which you do by showing them lying, not by posting some us state dep ghoul saying "oh they're lying".
Jesus fucking Christ, you libs are so fucking dense it is incredible. Try for once to engage in good faith in a discussion, it might do you so e good
as opposed to what or who?
What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation.
We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable.
Which I then answered. Are you dense?
Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources.
Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources?
I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
You've posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you've finally posted one single reference, to which I've asked if that is your totality of references. I've asked this because 1. A single article isn't exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I'd rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.
Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn't what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.
You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.
because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics.
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
You initiated this with the framework of American media. Now that that media has been critiqued, you are trying to reframe the discussion to one that is being more general, rather than actually engage with the argument put forth or acknowledge in any way what I have been saying. You are not engaging with my argument, you are trying to avoid it by making the discussion be about something else.
Would you rephrase your question then? Because as I've made clear, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.
Yeah because you totally deserve to be taken seriously, when your response is some snide little smuglord gotcha. You get what you give
The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
No, your question was
... As opposed to?
Which makes no fucking sense. Like it's a cute little snide smuglord gotcha that you can throw out, but what the fuck are you actually asking?
I wish I could go thru life line you, smooth-brained, unthinking, uncaring, perfectly safe in the belief that I am a special little boy. Sadly I have been cursed with the bane of Thought, and so I must interrogate my beliefs when I encounter that which conflicts with them.
I guess that's what makes me not a lib
Your question makes no sense bud.
Dude, it's Wikipedia... How are you not getting it? I linked you a Wikipedia article about bias on Wikipedia as a joke
You are putting words in my mouth
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth.
"Having the result of my actions pointed out to me is putting words in my mouth". Don't ask questions if you don't want them answered.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria,
Get it thru your dense skull: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY GOOD SOURCE. You need to be critical of ANY source, but the only way you can do that is by PRESENTING IT so it can be studied. THIS IS BASIC SHIT. Have you never learned source critique?
When we speak about "good" and "bad" sources, it's generally common parlance to describe media that is known to lie or which had a heavy bias - Breitbart, Infowars, Epoch Times, Radio Free Asia, Wikipedia - these are all examples of being "bad". This is not to say that they cannot present useful information, but you should be extremely wary of taking anything presented by them at face value - again you should be wary of all sources, but even moreso one that has a proven track record of a bias.
A source might be good for one thing and bad for another. You wouldn't trust the press secretary oval office dismissing accusations of sexual assault made by the same press secretary, but you would probably trust it with statements about wildfires in the US. You wouldn't trust the Japanese government with statements about it having no connection to the moonies, but you'd probably feel safe in trusting it's statements about shinto shrines or whatever.
You investigate your references for bias, for lies, for truth, you cross-reference with your other references in order to gather a more complete picture, and when you encounter conflicts you weigh the validity of each reference - In large part here the question of "who to trust" should in part be answered by "who do I know has lied before?"
m simply stating the observation that there are other nationalities who not only might serve as a spark or derivative for whatever the American media
What does this have to do with a discussion about North Korea as presented by American media? You are not engaging with the argument or the points, you are not even relating it to your own, you are instead reframing the discussion to be about something else - You are moving the goalposts.
Never did I imply I was only talking about things because America was the one doing the narrating though.
dawg your alleged sources were all American media.
Oh hey you managed to find one whole article! Good on you! Is that article the sources you mentioned? I just wanna be sure that I'm not missing out.
As opposed to not lying. You're welcome
Hahahaha ah yes the website with a massive nazi problem is going to be unbiased against Marxists, okay buddy
Youre being a lib and you support lib ideology. Doesn't matter what you identify as