Stalingrader wrote:
Liberals are scum. They believe in forcible land seizure and practice it continually in California.
Like the land grabs for the border wall or the land grabs for Israeli settlements?
Stalingrader wrote:
Liberals are scum. They believe in forcible land seizure and practice it continually in California.
Like the land grabs for the border wall or the land grabs for Israeli settlements?
Hey Celery, thank you. Someone gets the craziness of the media. At least one informed person on letsrun.
Of course you don't recognize the marginalized in your privaleged world. Do we need to keep spelling it out for you?
The only fake news is clearly FOX who clearly has a conservative racist platform.
LibsWinFOREVER wrote:
Of course you don't recognize the marginalized in your privaleged world. Do we need to keep spelling it out for you?
The only fake news is clearly FOX who clearly has a conservative racist platform.
Clearly a toll, I'll give you a 4/10 for getting a few responses.
sbeefyk2 wrote:
LibsWinFOREVER wrote:
A society where the marginalized can thrive and flourish. Any more questions?
Actually, the answer to the very general question what’s best for society is whatever maximizes social welfare. This may or may not include a society where the marginalized thrive and flourish because 1) if those that are currently marginalized flourish then those that are currently flourishing could be marginalized (leaving you no better off), and 2) often times the marginalized do not have the effort or will power to thrive and flourish. An easy example is low income communities where students choose to sell drugs and adopt a no snitching mentality (essentially choosing to take matters into their own hands and inevitably ending up in prison for getting revenge) in lieu of going to school. These communities are choosing to be marginalized and left behind by society. That said, some marginalized groups deserve some help. But this would maximize social welfare.
This is absolute ignorance. Do you have experience in these communities or know people from these communities?
“Choosing to be marginalized” ?
You aren’t the only one that works hard. You’re lying to yourself.
celery wrote:
mediamatters wrote:
https://adfontesmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Media-Bias-Chart_4.0_8_28_2018-min.jpgDaily Wire doesn't have the best reputation.
The media bias chart is the epitome of media bias. 90% of people are simply not capable of understanding what I just said so I'll try to explain.
Who made the media bias chart? Have different media outlets made their own media bias charts? If so, how do we chart the bias of the different media bias charts?
There is no way to determine if a news story is true or not simply based on the news source. The facts of every story can be accepted or rejected based on the evidence presented in the story itself, regardless of the media source. When confronted with any story, if you put even the least amount of effort into separating the facts of the story from the rhetoric of the story teller, you can know what's real or not real, or what's simply unknown. Hint: anonymous sources do not count as evidence.
If a random stranger walked up to you and told you a story and didn't present anything other than their word to support the story, would you believe them? I hope not. And a journalist has even less credibility than a complete stranger because we know journalist go into that profession because the have a political point of view they want to promote. You can still get valid information from a journalist, as long as you separate the facts (supported by real named sources) from the rhetoric. Within the first paragraph of any story you should already be seeing hints about the reporter's biases just based on the wording they use. If you need the "media bias chart" to tell which direction a reporter leans, you are beyond hope. That's why the "media bias chart" is the epitome of media bias. It is a sneaky attempt to make stupid people trust reporters just because.
This is the funniest post I've read in awhile - thank you. You start by saying that the chart itself is biased. Then you lay out how any person can tell what's real, not real, unknown, as well as being able to tell early on what the reporter/reporting source's biases are. So you fully acknowledge one can measure these things the chart presents. Oh, and you make the statement that all journalists go into the profession because they have a political point of view they want to promote, which is good for a laugh in itself.
mediamatters wrote:
This is the funniest post I've read in awhile - thank you.
Never attempt ridicule when attempting to seem rational. You lose before you even start!
So you fully acknowledge one can measure these things the chart presents.
"Valid" is a binary quality independent of any political spectrum. The poster did not mention or acknowledge anything about measurements. The straw man argument you construct here is not valid.
One thing that can be measured is the funding. MM gets millions from the liberal nonprofit complex, ironic in light of the stated purpose of combating corporate media themes. It is also demonstrably valid that said purpose is specifically to counter the Fox News Channel, which is not an impartial approach to journalism, even if one considers Fox News itself an impartial source. It is inherently partisan.
He implies that false accusations of male students are common. In fact, the problem primarily, though not exclusively, goes the other direction: less than 1% of rapists are convicted.
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
2024 Boston marathon - The first non-carbon assisted finisher ran..... 2:34
