3 ms·

Since when one propaganda is more reliable than the other propaganda? The source you are citing doesn't even pretend to be objective, the language they use is v

Since when one propaganda is more reliable than the other propaganda? The source you are citing doesn't even pretend to be objective, the language they use is very polarizing, not mentioning the ad hominem the article is full of. I tell what... instead of trying to appeal to authority (which is a fallacy of course), try looking at the information itself. We are all grown people, we can judge for ourselves what is bullshit and what's not, right? The video was about a former anti-war anti-"russian-aggression" protester who visited Donbas which led to her reevaluation of the whole situation. Can you find any evidence of this being bullshit? Maybe she wasn't a protester, maybe she hasn't been to Donbas, maybe people she talked to were paid actors and graves in children playground are just fancy decorations for a twisted play? If you have proof go ahead and present it. Your attempts at discrediting the source are ridiculous. Just because the boy cried "wolves" before with none to be seen, doesn't mean the wolves are not there this time around.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> I tell what... instead of trying to appeal to authority (which is a fallacy of course), try looking at the information itself. We are all grown people, we can judge for ourselves what is bullshit and what's not, right? You literally tried to appeal to an authority yourself, but your authority is someone who unashamedly just pushes Russian propaganda. But if you believe the fairy tails the Russians tell, like the Ukrainian black magic battalions, or the bio lab generated mutant super soldiers, or maybe its the Russian insistence they wouldn't invade then I don't even know what to say. > Your attempts at discrediting the source are ridiculous. Just because the boy cried "wolves" before with none to be seen, doesn't mean the wolves are not there this time around. Your source doesn't need discrediting because it has no credibility.
- akamaine 4y ago
  > REEEEEEE YOUR SOURCE IS BAD, MY SOURCE IS GOOD REEEEEE

_kbh_ 4y ago

> I tell what... instead of trying to appeal to authority (which is a fallacy of course), try looking at the information itself. We are all grown people, we can judge for ourselves what is bullshit and what's not, right? You literally tried to appeal to an authority yourself, but your authority is someone who unashamedly just pushes Russian propaganda. But if you believe the fairy tails the Russians tell, like the Ukrainian black magic battalions, or the bio lab generated mutant super soldiers, or maybe its the Russian insistence they wouldn't invade then I don't even know what to say. > Your attempts at discrediting the source are ridiculous. Just because the boy cried "wolves" before with none to be seen, doesn't mean the wolves are not there this time around. Your source doesn't need discrediting because it has no credibility.

akamaine 4y ago
> REEEEEEE YOUR SOURCE IS BAD, MY SOURCE IS GOOD REEEEEE