4 ms·
I don’t see how this is a solid defense against GP comment. You’re criticism of a source your unfamiliar with follows very tribal / ideological lines, which you
by DiggyJohnson 4y ago
I don’t see how this is a solid defense against GP comment. You’re criticism of a source your unfamiliar with follows very tribal / ideological lines, which you admit to, but don’t seem to think that this is itself way more biased than the bias you’re warning of in the source.
At the very least, you’re comfortable with knee jerk judgements based on personal ideology, and I don’t think that’s good for any discussion.
- smackeyacky 4y agoOn the contrary. It serves me very well to ignore a swathe of organisations if they get caught fabricating information. If your friends caught you lying in a social interaction, they would ostracise you (and rightly so). It's no different for the industry of bullshit.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoBut this organization hasn't been caught fabricating information, unless I'm misreading the thread. You're saying that organizations with similar political ideologies (that you disagree with) have fabricated information, so I can dismiss this source due to their ideological association with distrusted organizations. How is that a reasonable way of thinking? Unless you're one of those people that assume "All Republicans/Democrats/Libertarians/Communists are lying thieves, except members of $MYPARTY."
- smackeyacky 4y agoI mostly stick to a "3 strikes you're out" philosophy. I can't deny a bias against avowedly right wing bullshit factories, but I'm not watching the noisefest of MSNBC or CNN either. Being reasonable is not hard. I will say I block everything Murdoch. At this stage, the chaotic evil of Murdoch news sources is not just noise any more, it's deliberately disruptive.