Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Options
1…242243245247248…331

Comments

  • Options
    #7322
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    have you done that? did you know that the 4 already pointed out were incorrect? Or did you just assume it was all correct?

    Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

    Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.


  • Options
    #7323
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,666 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

    Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.

    So it has been pointed out to you that there are clear factual inaccuracies in the list yet you stand over the accuracy of the entire list?

    If the political dimensions don't seem to matter, since some aren't politicians and others are mislabeled, what is the point you are trying to make with the list?


  • Options
    #7324
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Just so I understand you.

    You ignore MSM because you believe it not credible, but on this occasion, you are willing to run with this story despite acknowledging that they are not credible.

    So is it that you judge each story on its merits or that the credibility of the organisation has a bearing on your view on it?

    Becasue I don't understand why you would avoid MSM on that basis

    They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

    It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.


  • Options
    #7325
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Yes there are news stories from reliable sources for every person listed.

    Not everyone on the list is a politician as some political activists are included and some may or may not be correctly identified as Republican or Democrat but there are no inaccuracies in what they have been charged with or convicted of.

    not very reliable if they dont even get the persons political affiliations correct. there is no "may or may not". they have definitely got some wrong. yet you still stand over it. thats the cognitive bias that everybody keeps mentioning to you.


  • Options
    #7326
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

    It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

    a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7327
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,454 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?

    It's no sex panther


  • Options
    #7328
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,666 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

    It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

    My point is that you have stated before that you don't listen/read the likes of CNN because of their bias.

    Yet here you are pushing a piece from a, your own admission, not a credible source because you happen to believe the particular story.

    Whilst I agree with your approach to this story, as in just because the source is not generally credible doesn't mean that the story is false, but why do you not use the same approach across the MSM?


  • Options
    #7329
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So it has been pointed out to you that there are clear factual inaccuracies in the list yet you stand over the accuracy of the entire list?

    If the political dimensions don't seem to matter, since some aren't politicians and others are mislabeled, what is the point you are trying to make with the list?

    There are no factual inaccuracies in the crimes that they have been charged with or convicted of feel free to point me to any inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that they were charged with or onvicted of.

    I was pointing out that they post credible and newsworthy stories on rare occasions nothing more and nothing less.


  • Options
    #7330
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    a 1% credibility rate is not fantastic now, is it?

    Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.


  • Options
    #7331
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.

    do you think that MSM posts credible stories less than 1% of the time?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7332
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Their going to post something credible and newsworthy 3 times a year so it's worth checking every now and then IMO.

    What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?


  • Options
    #7333
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    do you think that MSM posts credible stories less than 1% of the time?

    I can't comment on their credibility because I don't pay attention to the news they publish all I know is that they are inherently biased so they spin stories and news so that it suits their agenda and the narrative that they are trying to push.


  • Options
    #7334
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

    It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

    So

    They are not credible 99% of time, but 1% of the time they are credible.

    You then post a list full of inaccuracies and claim that it's credible, think about that for a minute.


  • Options
    #7335
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    I can't comment on their credibility because I don't pay attention to the news they publish all I know is that they are inherently biased so they spin stories and news so that it suits their agenda and the narrative that they are trying to push.

    so you ignore MSM because it is biased yet you spend time reading media that is accurate 1% of the time? bizarre thinking


  • Options
    #7336
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?

    whatever the process is it isn't working.


  • Options
    #7337
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?

    Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

    As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.


  • Options
    #7338
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

    As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.

    so what news sources do you use to check that the 1% are correct?


  • Options
    #7339
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So

    They are not credible 99% of time, but 1% of the time they are credible.

    You then post a list full of inaccuracies and claim that it's credible, think about that for a minute.

    Can you point me to the inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that the people on the list were charged with or convicted of because there are no inaccuracies there.

    You and other posters are nitpicking about whether they are correctly identified as Republican or Democrat when the all the stories about them are true so the there are no inaccuracies in the reporting of those stories.


  • Options
    #7340
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,597 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

    As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.

    So you dont trust the MSM, But when Qanon post something you feel may be relevant you then check "multiple news sources" (MSM?) to help verify the story.


  • Options
    #7341
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    Can you point me to the inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that the people on the list were charged with or convicted of because there are no inaccuracies there.

    You and other posters are nitpicking about whether they are correctly identified as Republican or Democrat when the all the stories about them are true so the there are no inaccuracies in the reporting of those stories.

    did you check all the links?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7342
    LessOutragePlz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭LessOutragePlz


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    did you check all the links?

    What links are you referring to?

    I didn't post any links?


  • Options
    #7343
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,666 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The list is irrelavant, it makes no difference to the overall view that you select sources based on whether you think they align to your beliefs.

    Hence, although you are willing to admit that this particular source is wrong 99%, for some reason you were no only checking this source but now want people to prove the source wrong.

    BUt you do not use the same methodology for MSM, writing anything and everything they say as bias because it is biased some of the time, lets us even go with your 99%.

    By your own standard, you should be checking them to find the 1% that you think would be right.

    Can you not see the contractidion and double standards that you are using?


  • Options
    #7344
    dwayneshintzy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    What links are you referring to?

    I didn't post any links?
    Have you not said yourself that there are links to everything on that list?

    I also brought Westlake up in relation to Roy Moore for a reason. What crime has Westlake been convicted of?


  • Options
    #7345
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LessOutragePlz wrote: »
    What links are you referring to?

    I didn't post any links?

    you said there were links confirming all of the crimes that they were charged and convicted of. did you check them all?


  • Options
    #7346
    francois
    Registered Users Posts: 3,480 ✭✭✭francois


    Another non-award awarded by himself to himself

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1305196075997966336


  • Options
    #7347
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    francois wrote: »
    Another non-award awarded by himself to himself

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1305196075997966336

    He is still claiming that he was awarded Michigan Man of the Year. That no such award exists does not seem to be a bar to him receiving it.


  • Options
    #7348
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,860 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    He is still claiming that he was awarded Michigan Man of the Year. That no such award exists does not seem to be a bar to him receiving it.

    Loads of people will believe him though which is all that matters.


  • Options
    #7349
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Someone doesn’t even read MSM because they know it’s biased but reads Qanon stuff because 2 or 3 times a year they post truthful stuff, that’s where we are with this cult.


  • Options
    #7350
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,851 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    salmocab wrote: »
    Someone doesn’t even read MSM because they know it’s biased but reads Qanon stuff because 2 or 3 times a year they post truthful stuff, that’s where we are with this cult.

    Yes, as you point out it's so small as to be irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7351
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Danzy wrote: »
    Yes, as you point out it's so small as to be irrelevant.

    The bigger point would be though how does one know MSM is all biased unless one reads it, it’s like they’ve been told it’s all biased and just accept it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement