3 ms·

Someone else posted a link to an interview with the author of that site, "How Biden Used Religious Charities to Fund the Great Replacement": https://podcast24.

by antonvs 20d ago

Someone else posted a link to an interview with the author of that site, "How Biden Used Religious Charities to Fund the Great Replacement": https://podcast24.fi/jaksot/the-auron-macintyre-show/how-biden-used-religious-charities-to-fund-the-great-replacement-guest-brian-chau-8-12-26-Ph13Of4Yte https://podcast24.fi/jaksot/the-auron-macintyre-show/how-bid... There's a related story on the effort.news site, "The $1.2B Refugee Services Program that Funds Pro-Asylum Religious Groups." It has a strong implicit slant, focusing heavily on the how the organizations in question oppose Trump's policies - although the article frames this as opposition to Trump himself. > I'm very sensitive to slanted reporting (regardless of the direction of the slant!)—and, hey, maybe my bullshit detector is broken or something, I dunno Yeah, unless you believe white people are being replaced, and you like to march in places like Charlottesville wearing khakis, carrying a torch, and chanting "Jews will not replace us!", you might want to get that bullshit detector checked out.

adamrezich 19d ago
Wait, unless I believe that, I might want to get my bullshit detector checked out? I'm just reading what is posted on this website man and it seems fine to me. I don't filter information through social validation mechanisms to determine if something is true or not. I don't know why you brought all these unrelated topics up, but that kind of seems like what you're doing.
- antonvs 19d ago
  If you believe in Great Replacement theory, then your entire belief system would be the problem. But otherwise, you're reading right-wing propaganda, sucking it up, and saying "seems fine to me". > I don't filter information through social validation mechanisms to determine if something is true or not. There are plenty of indications of bias in the article I linked on that site. If you're not picking up on those, then yes, you need to work on your bullshit detection. > I don't know why you brought all these unrelated topics up, but that kind of seems like what you're doing. They're not "unrelated topics". I pointed out a clearly biased article on a site you thought wasn't biased, and I demonstrated where the author is coming from with an interview with him. If you can't connect those dots... Whew.
  - adamrezich 19d ago
    > There's a related story on the effort.news site, "The $1.2B Refugee Services Program that Funds Pro-Asylum Religious Groups." It has a strong implicit slant, focusing heavily on the how the organizations in question oppose Trump's policies - although the article frames this as opposition to Trump himself. Please highlight the offending sentence(s) in that article for me, because I can't find them. It is obviously true that the Biden administration was more friendly to the groups in question than the Trump administration has been—this should be entirely uncontroversial. Hopefully you're not referring to e.g. > Politically, they are fervent and frequently cited critics of Trump’s immigration policies. such that you think the article would be demonstrably improved by replacing “Trump's” with “the Trump administration's”, as a means of somehow making the article become “more unbiased”? The article you're referring to quite plainly lays out facts with citations for its claims—just because the author may lean one way or the other, and you can prove as much from places he's appeared elsewhere, doesn't mean that the article itself is unbiased. Unless by “unbiased” you mean “free from potential ideological contamination caused by having beliefs that run contrary to my own”…?

by antonvs 20d ago

adamrezich 19d ago

Wait, unless I believe that, I might want to get my bullshit detector checked out? I'm just reading what is posted on this website man and it seems fine to me. I don't filter information through social validation mechanisms to determine if something is true or not. I don't know why you brought all these unrelated topics up, but that kind of seems like what you're doing.

antonvs 19d ago
If you believe in Great Replacement theory, then your entire belief system would be the problem. But otherwise, you're reading right-wing propaganda, sucking it up, and saying "seems fine to me". > I don't filter information through social validation mechanisms to determine if something is true or not. There are plenty of indications of bias in the article I linked on that site. If you're not picking up on those, then yes, you need to work on your bullshit detection. > I don't know why you brought all these unrelated topics up, but that kind of seems like what you're doing. They're not "unrelated topics". I pointed out a clearly biased article on a site you thought wasn't biased, and I demonstrated where the author is coming from with an interview with him. If you can't connect those dots... Whew.
- adamrezich 19d ago
  > There's a related story on the effort.news site, "The $1.2B Refugee Services Program that Funds Pro-Asylum Religious Groups." It has a strong implicit slant, focusing heavily on the how the organizations in question oppose Trump's policies - although the article frames this as opposition to Trump himself. Please highlight the offending sentence(s) in that article for me, because I can't find them. It is obviously true that the Biden administration was more friendly to the groups in question than the Trump administration has been—this should be entirely uncontroversial. Hopefully you're not referring to e.g. > Politically, they are fervent and frequently cited critics of Trump’s immigration policies. such that you think the article would be demonstrably improved by replacing “Trump's” with “the Trump administration's”, as a means of somehow making the article become “more unbiased”? The article you're referring to quite plainly lays out facts with citations for its claims—just because the author may lean one way or the other, and you can prove as much from places he's appeared elsewhere, doesn't mean that the article itself is unbiased. Unless by “unbiased” you mean “free from potential ideological contamination caused by having beliefs that run contrary to my own”…?