4 ms·
They are sea-lioning. They are going to constantly ask for "evidence", and then when provided for it, act as if it's biased/false/non-existant and then restate
by x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
They are sea-lioning. They are going to constantly ask for "evidence", and then when provided for it, act as if it's biased/false/non-existant and then restate the question. The goal is to put all the labor of the conversation and gathering of sources onto you while they just get to reply: "I don't believe that, the MSM is biased, show me another source".
- Exuma 6y agoAre you claiming MSM isn't biased?
- netsharc 6y agox86_64Ubuntu forgot to add "or they'll change the topic".
- gremlinsinc 6y agoAre you claiming specifically biased-right-wing <insert journal name> isn't biased? MSM (CNN, CNBC, MSNBC) is 10% as biased (to the left), Fox (probably 50% biased to the right), etc. Least biased is probably Reuters, AP, and PBS, and maybe NPR. Local news is usually not so biased either. But Washington Times, Breitbart, Random Youtube Vlogger, etc...none of those can be trusted. That's why they're never linked to on Hackernews, except maybe in comments, I'd imagine. They're basically tabloids. Good to cross-reference with Snopes or Politifact if you are curious what's true. Personally, I like to read multiple sources and google a topic to get a better picture to see other 'takes'. Only way to not get bubble/group think.
- Exuma 6y agoNo I'm not claiming that even remotely. I'm claiming when you can't look to MSM for "real" news, you have to try to find it elsewhere, which unfortunately has it's own problems. The fact you think NPR isn't biased automatically means you really have no idea how ridiculously biased it actually is.