fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.

To back up the other user, who obviously read the article

White supremacists sharply focused their hate on the LGBTQ+ community in 2023. More than 20 percent of white supremacist events included some element of anti-LGBTQ+ hate. On at least 39 occasions, white supremacists demonstrated outside LGBTQ+ event venues, including drag shows and Pride festivals. A range of white supremacist groups and networks participated in these demonstrations including individuals associated with Active Club Networks, Aryan Freedom Network, Blood Tribe, Nationalist Social Club, Patriot Front and WLM.

Approximately 18 percent of 2023’s white supremacist events included at least one element of antisemitic harassment, from chants and written propaganda/signage to Hitler salutes, swastika flags and demonstrations targeting Jewish institutions.

Examples of events targeting Jewish Institutions:

Orlando, Florida, February 2023: Fifteen individuals associated with GDL held antisemitic banners and shouted obscenities at pedestrians and passing cars during a demonstration in front of the Chabad of South Orlando.

East Cobb and Macon, Georgia, June 2023: Approximately 11 individuals associated with GDL waved swastika flags and held antisemitic signs outside Jewish institutions in Georgia.

Toledo, Ohio, July 2023: At least 20 individuals associated with Blood Tribe demonstrated outside of the Toledo, Ohio Jewish Community Campus with tiki torches and swastika flags.

Missoula, Montana, October 2023: Approximately two dozen people associated with Vinland Rebels, White Lives Matter and the Active Club Network demonstrated in front of Congregation Har Shalom. The group displayed signs that read “Diversity = White Genocide” and “Refugees not welcome.”

Madison, Wisconsin, November 2023: During a march through downtown Madison, 20 individuals associated with Blood Tribe stopped in front of the Gates of Heaven synagogue. During the march the group shouted racial epithets as passersby and chanted “Israel is not our friend” and “There will be blood.”

Dallas, Texas, November 2023: Several individuals associated with GDL and Order of the Black Sun waved a Nazi flag and held antisemitic signs across the street from a North Dallas temple.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/anti-defamation-league/

In general, ADL reports news with low bias; however, editorial content does lean left. Further, the ADL advocates for policies favored by the liberal left, such as a two-state solution for Palestine and Israel and supporting same-sex marriage and the DREAM Act.

Overall, we rate the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Left-Center biased based on political positions that mostly favor liberal policy. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and being a resource for IFCN fact-checkers. (D. Van Zandt 10/6/2016) Updated (03/27/2024)

Edit: bolded

Sounds familiar...

https://www.adl.org/resources/report/nordic-resistance-movement

Around Passover in March 2021, the synagogue in Norrköping was once again targeted by NRM, this time with signs and dolls symbolizing dead children. The signs read: “Today marks the beginning of the Jewish passover, celebrated every year in memory of the israelites’ murder of tens of thousands of newborn babies in Egypt” and “Tens of thousands of babies have in our time been murdered under the Jews’ occupation of Palestine. Organize in the struggle against zionism!”

Mkay buddy

No, in fact, I'm not.

I too have seen exactly this from that user.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jewish-press/

Analysis / Bias

The Jewish Press publishes both original stories and republished articles from other sources. News is focused on the USA and Israel with an emphasis on the Jewish Community. Articles and headlines are often straightforward and not overly biased, such as this Iran Reports Sunday Morning Accident at Natanz Nuclear Site. Stories are sourced properly.

Editorial content is found under the blog section. The Jewish Press leans right with articles such as this 60 Minutes Deceptively Edits Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Push Blatant Smear Job, and this Emes Ve-Emunah: Will Identity Politics Destroy Us? A review of op-eds reveals moderate right-leaning bias; however, news reporting is factual.

Overall, we rate the Jewish Press Right-Center Biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact checks record. (D. Van Zandt 3/1/2017) Updated (12/13/2023)

I had posted this elsewhere but feel it is relevant to your comment. It describes Erdogan's position towards the conflict, and could provide some context to your reminder. Worth the read.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-turkeys-response-to-the-israel-gaza-crisis/

From your link too, said previously in 2023 by Palestinians against Hamas in the economic protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests

In July and August 2023, thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip took to the streets to protest chronic power outages, poor economic conditions in the territory, and Hamas's taxation of stipends to the poor paid by Qatar. The rallies, organized by a grassroots online movement called "Alvirus Alsakher" (The mocking virus), were a rare public display of discontent against the ruling Hamas government. Hamas bars most demonstrations and public displays of discontent.

This is correct, Jerusalem Report has the high rating which is published by the Jerusalem Post, though it appears these ratings are switched by op. Posted article is from the Jerusalem Post.

And I have supervision over this particular download, which is a random PDF hosted on cloudflarefront, not from a trusted source like apnews (I consider images on lemmy to be rather safe). Maybe the guardian article would have been a better reply instead of a random PDF? I don't understand why they would opt for that over the guardian article.

It's random shit from some user on lemmy, thus I'm not downloading it. And no, PDFs like theirs don't automatically download, unless I click it.

It attempted to download to my phone when clicking, and I have configured it to not automatically open PDFs for this reason. This terminology is correct.

https://www.ilovepdf.com/blog/can-a-pdf-have-a-virus#:~:text=Yes%2C%20PDFs%20can%20contain%20harmful,not%20take%20the%20proper%20precautions.

Can a PDF have a virus? Yes, PDFs can contain harmful security threats such as viruses, malware, and trojans. Like many other file types, PDFs can be used to compromise our data and sensitive information if you do not take the proper precautions.

Similar reporting, but I think discussed an important caveat to the polling:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/palestinians-back-hamas-survey-intl-cmd/index.html

But Shikaki cautions that higher support for Hamas should not be over-stated, at least not yet. As more Palestinians come to terms with the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, so attitudes could change — though that is unlikely to be the case so long as Gaza remains under massive attack.

Important again is how many people have watched videos from October 7 and the differences between the territories. In Gaza, 25% of those asked said they had viewed such videos; and 16% of all respondents told researchers Hamas had committed war crimes. In the West Bank, the corresponding numbers were just 7% and 1%.

Gaza is moving out of denial more quickly than the West Bank, Shikaki says, and that means a reckoning for Hamas. Already, only 38% of Gazans want to see the militant group return to governance after the war.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

The credibility of a website/media source is not determined by who owns them but rather by its track record. Everybody starts as a beginner and, through experience, becomes an authority in their field. MBFC is no different. Over the last 8 years, we have proven to be a trusted authority on the rating of bias and the credibility of media sources. For example, MBFC is trusted by major media outlets and IFCN fact-checkers. This is evidenced by frequently being referenced by sources such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, Science Feedback, Washington Post, and NPR, among dozens of others. We are also frequently used as a resource in libraries, high schools, and universities across the United States.

Media Bias/Fact Check has also been used as a resource for research by the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Further, we have been utilized by numerous print books such as these:

The Rise of the Alt-Right

Fake News, Propaganda, and Plain Old Lies: Find Trustworthy Information in the Digital Age

Raising Humans in a Digital World

Everyday Media Literacy An Analog Guide for Your Digital Life

Hate Groups and Extremist Organizations in America: An Encyclopedia

Finally, MBFC scored a perfect 100/100 rating by Newsguard, which rates the credibility of Media Sources. We believe it is significant that a competitor gave us this score.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/about/why-should-you-trust-us/

I don't think that addresses what I said, and you don't have to read what I post either, but I would hope you'd understand that presenting information from dubious sources is not a good way to get ideas across.

I don't see why presenting another worse source reinforces anything. I might come away with the impression that if a worse source is also saying the same thing that the information might be suspect.

I would think the guardian article would suffice.

I'll click a guardian link, thanks. Is there a reason you chose to post a much worse source for this information? I, along with others here, refuted your source. Why not post the guardian article in the beginning?

You should be able to find this information presented by a reliable source, like I did.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brookings-institute/

Overall, we rate Brooking Institution Left-Center biased based on donations to primarily Democratic candidates and policy advocacy that slightly favors the left. We also rate them Very High for factual reporting due to strong sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Edit: op thinks I'm refuting the poll and not the source. Stay calibrated, boss.