Conservatives and deeply questionable sources; is there any more iconic combination?
To quote the most famous questionable source: “Fake news.”
A substack written by one person, and an unverified claim reported in a second questionable source is not solid evidence. It’s not even shaky evidence, because it’s not evidence.
My dude, you don’t have to post it. There are a ton of good sources sources that lean solidly conservative. The Calgary Sun, The Wall St. Journal, National Review, Christian Science Monitor… Post trash that has no basis in fact looks every bit as frothing-at-the-mouth unhinged as it does when people on .ml post garbage from The Mint Press.
If you don’t like what post, then you don’t have to click on the links. Me posting stuff I find interesting doesn’t negatively affect your life at all.
If you’re unhappy with the news I post, feel free to post your own links. You can do it just as easily as i can.
The sites I post from are extremely popular have have tons of readers. If they are so bad, then how come they are so popular? Because not everyone has your same fucking opinion. Get over yourself.
“Popular” doesn’t mean worthwhile. This is such a dumb argument; if fentanil is so bad for you, then how come so many people use it? If McDonald’s is such terrible quality food, then why do so many people eat it each day?
But you not liking something doesn’t make it unworthwhile.
Something not being rooted in objective facts does make it unworthwhile though. A personal opinion on a <<thing>> is irrelevant; factual information is relevant. The source that you keep insisting has value does not use objectively correct, verifiable, factual information. Since there’s no accurate information coming from the source, what, exactly, is the value proposition that it offers?
So, despite being entirely devoid of any factual information–and actually being deceptive–you like it because it validates your emotions? Is that correct?
Seems to me that I remember a certain conservative icon saying something about, “facts don’t care about your feelings”.
Conservatives and deeply questionable sources; is there any more iconic combination?
To quote the most famous questionable source: “Fake news.”
A substack written by one person, and an unverified claim reported in a second questionable source is not solid evidence. It’s not even shaky evidence, because it’s not evidence.
You don’t have to listen to either one. Feel free not to click on the article.
My dude, you don’t have to post it. There are a ton of good sources sources that lean solidly conservative. The Calgary Sun, The Wall St. Journal, National Review, Christian Science Monitor… Post trash that has no basis in fact looks every bit as frothing-at-the-mouth unhinged as it does when people on .ml post garbage from The Mint Press.
For fucks sake, learn some media literacy.
My dude, you don’t have to read it.
If you don’t like what post, then you don’t have to click on the links. Me posting stuff I find interesting doesn’t negatively affect your life at all.
If you’re unhappy with the news I post, feel free to post your own links. You can do it just as easily as i can.
The sites I post from are extremely popular have have tons of readers. If they are so bad, then how come they are so popular? Because not everyone has your same fucking opinion. Get over yourself.
For fucks sake, learn some internet literacy.
“Popular” doesn’t mean worthwhile. This is such a dumb argument; if fentanil is so bad for you, then how come so many people use it? If McDonald’s is such terrible quality food, then why do so many people eat it each day?
But you not liking something doesn’t make it unworthwhile. There are plenty of people who do like it, and it’s worthwhile to them.
I’m one of them. Stop trying to force your opinions on me.
He’s just posting his opinion, you don’t have to read it.
Correct!
Something not being rooted in objective facts does make it unworthwhile though. A personal opinion on a <<thing>> is irrelevant; factual information is relevant. The source that you keep insisting has value does not use objectively correct, verifiable, factual information. Since there’s no accurate information coming from the source, what, exactly, is the value proposition that it offers?
I like what trump is doing.
So, despite being entirely devoid of any factual information–and actually being deceptive–you like it because it validates your emotions? Is that correct?
Seems to me that I remember a certain conservative icon saying something about, “facts don’t care about your feelings”.