Vetting media

[EvMetro]

What lefties fail to see is that pictures are worth a thousand words. In this thread, I've differentiated objectively searching for what the actual truth is from subjectively searching for what validates what one believes the truth is. There is no disputing that these two uses for using media sources exist, and that both methods are in use. Subjective, objective.

In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be.

3. In the case of @middleview , we see him subjectively isolating right leaning sources and premarginalizing them to give them less weight than sources that lean toward his ideology.

4. In spite of 1, 2, and 3 above, we eventually see mv's position evolve to claiming to make use of a broader range of media than he does. He is likely trying to appear what he thinks objective is as he tries to hijack and master my rhetoric, but is only able to remotely mimic it through the subjective vision of a lefty.

As long as 1, 2, and 3 exist, lefties will not be able to differentiate subjective from objective.

I maintain that pictures are worth a thousand words. In this case, the picture is that lefties do not accept or understand the difference between subjectively searching for information that validates their beliefs from objectively searching for what the actual truth is. We haven't even seen a lefty demonstrate that he read under understood the opening post.

 

[middleview]

What lefties fail to see is that pictures are worth a thousand words. In this thread, I've differentiated objectively searching for what the actual truth is from subjectively searching for what validates what one believes the truth is. There is no disputing that these two uses for using media sources exist, and that both methods are in use. Subjective, objective.

In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be.

3. In the case of @middleview , we see him subjectively isolating right leaning sources and premarginalizing them to give them less weight than sources that lean toward his ideology.

4. In spite of 1, 2, and 3 above, we eventually see mv's position evolve to claiming to make use of a broader range of media than he does. He is likely trying to appear what he thinks objective is as he tries to hijack and master my rhetoric, but is only able to remotely mimic it through the subjective vision of a lefty.

As long as 1, 2, and 3 exist, lefties will not be able to differentiate subjective from objective.

I maintain that pictures are worth a thousand words. In this case, the picture is that lefties do not accept or understand the difference between subjectively searching for information that validates their beliefs from objectively searching for what the actual truth is. We haven't even seen a lefty demonstrate that he read under understood the opening post.

Here you are attempting to marginalize, attack and discredit one poster. Me. You have no evidence that I've posted false information. I have pointed out to you the lies evident in InfoWars related to Sandy Hook. I can document many more in the other sites that I've named as unlikely to have reported facts. It isn't just bias. It is a lack of verifiable fact. I also do not use MSNBC as a source, because they mostly report opinion supporting the left.

I verify sources for their sources. I have also posted here who I find credible. I don't post opinions unless those opinions are from experts or witnesses and I check their backgrounds to determine if they are credible.

Again, I challenge you to find a post of mine that contains false information. If you cannot do that then you have lost the argument.

 

[PhilFish]

Here you are attempting to marginalize, attack and discredit one poster. Me. You have no evidence that I've posted false information. I have pointed out to you the lies evident in InfoWars related to Sandy Hook. I can document many more in the other sites that I've named as unlikely to have reported facts. It isn't just bias. It is a lack of verifiable fact. I also do not use MSNBC as a source, because they mostly report opinion supporting the left.

I verify sources for their sources. I have also posted here who I find credible. I don't post opinions unless those opinions are from experts or witnesses and I check their backgrounds to determine if they are credible.

Again, I challenge you to find a post of mine that contains false information. If you cannot do that then you have lost the argument.

i second the challenge, or cease attacking the poster MV> thanks alot.

 

[EvMetro]

Here you are attempting to marginalize, attack and discredit one poster. Me.

When you and I are exchanging posts, your posts represent two members. Yours, and the man of no words that can only be seen endorsing your subjective battle against the content of my threads. As long as he is visibly in lockstep with you, your posts represent two voices.

The post that you just quoted addresses the broad group of lefties, but yes, it also mentions you and your silent endorser.

You quoted this from me, but conspicuously evaded replying to it:

"In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be."

You have no evidence that I've posted false information.

This is a strawman. Nobody alleged that you posted false information.

I have pointed out to you the lies evident in InfoWars related to Sandy Hook. I can document many more in the other sites that I've named as unlikely to have reported facts. It isn't just bias. It is a lack of verifiable fact. I also do not use MSNBC as a source, because they mostly report opinion supporting the left.

Items 1 and 2 from above apply.

Compiling a case against sources that are counter to your ideology is as subjective as it gets. Religious sources will reflect religious bias, righty sources will reflect righty bias, and lefty sources will reflect lefty bias. If we are objectively searching for the actual truth, we need to understand the story from each position. From each position does not mean what one says the other is.

"In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be."

I verify sources for their sources. I have also posted here who I find credible. I don't post opinions unless those opinions are from experts or witnesses and I check their backgrounds to determine if they are credible.

Again, I challenge you to find a post of mine that contains false information. If you cannot do that then you have lost the argument.

Textbook strawman. What you quoted did not allege that you posted false information. When I said you claim to utilize a broader range of media than you do, I followed up with a disclaimer that allowed for your claim to be validated by your lefty lens and perspective.

Actual false information and claims are like when you posted on the political censorship thread that I endorse threats of violence posts in this community.

 

[PhilFish]

When you and I are exchanging posts, your posts represent two members. Yours, and the man of no words that can only be seen endorsing your subjective battle against the content of my threads. As long as he is visibly in lockstep with you, your posts represent two voices.

The post that you just quoted addresses the broad group of lefties, but yes, it also mentions you and your silent endorser.

You quoted this from me, but conspicuously evaded replying to it:

"In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be."



This is a strawman. Nobody alleged that you posted false information.

I have pointed out to you the lies evident in InfoWars related to Sandy Hook. I can document many more in the other sites that I've named as unlikely to have reported facts. It isn't just bias. It is a lack of verifiable fact. I also do not use MSNBC as a source, because they mostly report opinion supporting the left.

Items 1 and 2 from above apply.

Compiling a case against sources that are counter to your ideology is as subjective as it gets. Religious sources will reflect religious bias, righty sources will reflect righty bias, and lefty sources will reflect lefty bias. If we are objectively searching for the actual truth, we need to understand the story from each position. From each position does not mean what one says the other is.

"In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be."

I verify sources for their sources. I have also posted here who I find credible. I don't post opinions unless those opinions are from experts or witnesses and I check their backgrounds to determine if they are credible.

Again, I challenge you to find a post of mine that contains false information. If you cannot do that then you have lost the argument.


Textbook strawman. What you quoted did not allege that you posted false information. When I said you claim to utilize a broader range of media than you do, I followed up with a disclaimer that allowed for your claim to be validated by your lefty lens and perspective.

Actual false information and claims are like when you posted on the political censorship thread that I endorse threats of violence posts in this community.

false claims, like 'endorsement' followed by continued maligning and backhanding.....vs say..somebody placing a 'like' on a post because they were amused, or potentially myriad other reasons.

yours is a trite game. no one is amused. maybe rethink it.

 

[EvMetro]

false claims, like 'endorsement' followed by continued maligning and backhanding.....vs say..somebody placing a 'like' on a post because they were amused, or potentially myriad other reasons.

yours is a trite game. no one is amused. maybe rethink it.

Using the "like" button is a very STRONG way to endorse a post. It is highly visible, and it tells the world that you like the post. It is certainly an endorsement.

 

[EvMetro]

i second the challenge, or cease attacking the poster MV> thanks alot.

I am not interested in attacking mv and his "liker," I am only interested in intelligent political debate. If you can succintly summarize what you see as an attack that steps outside of typical political discourse, I'd be interested in adjusting my rhetoric. Please explain.

Also, do you disagree with any of the items 1 through 4 that I posted? You might as well touch on the thread topic, right?

 

[PhilFish]

Using the "like" button is a very STRONG way to endorse a post. It is highly visible, and it tells the world that you like the post. It is certainly an endorsement.

It is also a very simply a way to like a post. What is highly visible is somebody extrapolating a like.. into something that was not expressed, such as supporting the subjectivity of a view, or for that matter supporting the objectivity of a view, for that it somehow carries with it the implicit agreement with a particular stance or another. Which is precisely what you're attempting, and which is now being called out

If you want to find an establish an endorsement, go out into this thread and find this referenced person's explicit endorsement. Otherwise, you're playing in the very subjective versus objective field, that you're concurrently attempting to decry.

 

[PhilFish]

I am not interested in attacking mv and his "liker," I am only interested in intelligent political debate. If you can succintly summarize what you see as an attack that steps outside of typical political discourse, I'd be interested in adjusting my rhetoric. Please explain.

Also, do you disagree with any of the items 1 through 4 that I posted? You might as well touch on the thread topic, right?

I just did in a previous reply. Feel free to look it up and ponder it. Meanwhile, maybe there was interest in one point in discussing the items that you posted, but when it was noted that you turned it into a means to rail against another poster, and in turn to somehow embroil or malign a moderator.. mind you absent the objectivity you're calling for.. well now it's a different exercise all together.

Again, and as I mentioned above, you may think you're cute, but now it seems more than a few people find your exercise trite. You may want to rethink it.

Objectively speaking, it's the last time I write to you that you may want to rethink it. I'm the less pleasant of the two moderators as far as outcomes are concerned.

Have a good one

 

[EvMetro]

Ok folks, back to the thread topic.

What is important is how this thread in its entirety looks as a picture.

In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be.

3. We see some lefties subjectively isolating right leaning sources and premarginalizing them to give them less weight than sources that lean toward their ideology.

There is a trend here. Does anybody know why lefties are fighting so hard to dismantle this thread?

 

[middleview]

Ok folks, back to the thread topic.

What is important is how this thread in its entirety looks as a picture.

In the picture worth a thousand words, we see lefties

1. Attempting to marginalize, attack, and dismantle the premise of the thread.

2. Conspicuously failing to demonstrate that they understand what the difference is between objectively searching for the truth and subjectively searching for stuff to validate what they want the truth to be.

3. We see some lefties subjectively isolating right leaning sources and premarginalizing them to give them less weight than sources that lean toward their ideology.

There is a trend here. Does anybody know why lefties are fighting so hard to dismantle this thread?

We are dealing with opinions here. Not facts. You think sites like InfoWars should be considered in looking for the facts related to an issue. In my opinion the sites I mentioned are a waste of time, as they will not have verifiable facts. I have spent far too much time researching the twist on the issue that some of those sites present.
If I go to a story on CNN, for instance, and they have facts to back up the premise of the story and I can validate those facts...why would I go looking for "alternate" facts?

If we are talking about opinions from the left vs opinions from the right, spending time reading opinions from various media doesn't seem all that useful. I already know what the opinions are on both sides. If some new issue arises I may well look to Fox News or CNN to get a flavor of both.

Again, huge difference between stories based on fact and those based on opinion. I form my own opinions and usually based on analysis, not by adopting someone else's.

 

[condorkristy]

This thread had a premise?

Okay...what sources should we read to get the "whole picture"? The floor is yours.

 

[EvMetro]

We are dealing with opinions here. Not facts. You think sites like InfoWars should be considered in looking for the facts related to an issue. In my opinion the sites I mentioned are a waste of time, as they will not have verifiable facts. I have spent far too much time researching the twist on the issue that some of those sites present.
If I go to a story on CNN, for instance, and they have facts to back up the premise of the story and I can validate those facts...why would I go looking for "alternate" facts?

First off, it is unlikely that we will ever know the actual truth of what really goes on in the political landscape. The best we can hope for is to triangulate the "most likely" truth. When we use media sources to dig for the truth, each one tells the story from a different bias. They are all capable of using the same facts to sell different narratives. They are all capable of omitting certain facts to help sell their narrative, and they are all capable of packaging select facts into bundles of false narrative. If we are looking for the actual truth, there would be no reason to limit the search for it.

Second, you are isolating and categorizing media sources according to your ideology, as if one would have some reason to trust certain sources and not others. The problem with this is that trust is not how we objectively search media for the truth. We start out with the understanding that the trash can contains nothing but trash, and we rummage through it looking for anything of value.

Are you promoting the notion that you can get a full view of the entire spectrum of news and propaganda by relying on media sources that are aligned with your bias?

If we are talking about opinions from the left vs opinions from the right, spending time reading opinions from various media doesn't seem all that useful.

This is how lefties see the broad spectrum of media. To date, I've never seen a lefty who sees media in any other way than this subjective perspective. This is why lefties cannot articulate the difference between objectively searching for the actual truth and subjectively search for what validates what they think the truth is. If lefties cannot perceive these two things and differentiate them from each other, then they cannot post about them. This is why you keep trying to derail the thread into a lefty vs righty media debate.

I already know what the opinions are on both sides. If some new issue arises I may well look to Fox News or CNN to get a flavor of both.

Again, huge difference between stories based on fact and those based on opinion. I form my own opinions and usually based on analysis, not by adopting someone else's.

Enjoy hearing what you want to hear. I don't think I can get much further under the circumstances.

As far as circumstances go, I've got one hand tied behind my back in such a way that I cannot freely debate with you in this community. There is a mountain of resentment of me that is manifesting as we speak, and my content is being redefined to justify inevitable censorship, suppression, and cancel culture.

In case you see this before my switch is turned off, I've enjoyed debating with you. If you run into me elsewhere, maybe we can debate on a level playing field.

 

[PhilFish]

First off, it is unlikely that we will ever know the actual truth of what really goes on in the political landscape. The best we can hope for is to triangulate the "most likely" truth. When we use media sources to dig for the truth, each one tells the story from a different bias. They are all capable of using the same facts to sell different narratives. They are all capable of omitting certain facts to help sell their narrative, and they are all capable of packaging select facts into bundles of false narrative. If we are looking for the actual truth, there would be no reason to limit the search for it.

Second, you are isolating and categorizing media sources according to your ideology, as if one would have some reason to trust certain sources and not others. The problem with this is that trust is not how we objectively search media for the truth. We start out with the understanding that the trash can contains nothing but trash, and we rummage through it looking for anything of value.

Are you promoting the notion that you can get a full view of the entire spectrum of news and propaganda by relying on media sources that are aligned with your bias?



This is how lefties see the broad spectrum of media. To date, I've never seen a lefty who sees media in any other way than this subjective perspective. This is why lefties cannot articulate the difference between objectively searching for the actual truth and subjectively search for what validates what they think the truth is. If lefties cannot perceive these two things and differentiate them from each other, then they cannot post about them. This is why you keep trying to derail the thread into a lefty vs righty media debate.



Enjoy hearing what you want to hear. I don't think I can get much further under the circumstances.

As far as circumstances go, I've got one hand tied behind my back in such a way that I cannot freely debate with you in this community. There is a mountain of resentment of me that is manifesting as we speak, and my content is being redefined to justify inevitable censorship, suppression, and cancel culture.

In case you see this before my switch is turned off, I've enjoyed debating with you. If you run into me elsewhere, maybe we can debate on a level playing field.

Such a martyr...
All in the midst of telling another poster he's predisposed to certain sources driven by ideology when the guy has told you over and over that he's not. And demonstrably so. Yet you play on with your fictions

 

[EvMetro]

Such a martyr...
All in the midst of telling another poster he's predisposed to certain sources driven by ideology when the guy has told you over and over that he's not. And demonstrably so. Yet you play on with your fictions

Do you plan to use your administrative powers to assist this member debate? Do you plan to use it to redefine my content as breaking rules to justify censorship and cancel culture? I can't tell the difference between you as a debater and you with your badge. Who are you on this thread? Can you go head to head with me without reminding me of your badge? I STILL won't break any rules, but we can't function here with me trying to debate as a common member against you and your badge. A level playing field is where I can differentiate you as a debater from you with a badge. In public view. A level playing field that conforms to the rules would also include a disclosure that there is a censorship war between you, me, and the "liker" behind the scenes and out of public view, but with details and actions being kept confidential for your benefit, as per da rules.

 

[PhilFish]

Do you plan to use your administrative powers to assist this member debate? Do you plan to use it to redefine my content as breaking rules to justify censorship and cancel culture? I can't tell the difference between you as a debater and you with your badge. Who are you on this thread? Can you go head to head with me without reminding me of your badge? I STILL won't break any rules, but we can't function here with me trying to debate as a common member against you and your badge. A level playing field is where I can differentiate you as a debater from you with a badge. In public view. A level playing field that conforms to the rules would also include a disclosure that there is a censorship war between you, me, and the "liker" behind the scenes and out of public view, but with details and actions being kept confidential for your benefit, as per da rules.

This isn't a debate. This is your backhanded jabbing at lefties. We can treat is as яuch, but a debate thread it is not. And since you're actively trying to elicit something other than debate...I have both hats on presently

There is no censorship war..(you're crafting again)..nobody really cares..

 

[condorkristy]

Do you plan to use your administrative powers to assist this member debate? Do you plan to use it to redefine my content as breaking rules to justify censorship and cancel culture? I can't tell the difference between you as a debater and you with your badge. Who are you on this thread? Can you go head to head with me without reminding me of your badge? I STILL won't break any rules, but we can't function here with me trying to debate as a common member against you and your badge. A level playing field is where I can differentiate you as a debater from you with a badge. In public view. A level playing field that conforms to the rules would also include a disclosure that there is a censorship war between you, me, and the "liker" behind the scenes and out of public view, but with details and actions being kept confidential for your benefit, as per da rules.

Victimization at it's finest.

 

[EvMetro]

Victimization at it's finest.

Lol, here is what will NEVER happen on this thread:

1. Lefties will NEVER discuss the difference between objectively searching media for the actual truth and subjectively searching it for stuff that validated what you believe the truth is.

2. Nobody will EVER quote something that I've said in this thread prior to the administrative intervention and flexing of muscles and explain how it breaks site rules.

3. Nobody will EVER be able to quote an insidious attack on anybody that isn't just political debate and pointing out what is apparent.

In spite of items 1, 2, and 3, this thread will end in censorship or cancel culture. Watch.

 

[condorkristy]

Lol, here is what will NEVER happen on this thread:

1. Lefties will NEVER discuss the difference between objectively searching media for the actual truth and subjectively searching it for stuff that validated what you believe the truth is.

I asked you what we should be reading to get "close to the truth". You never answered.

Just list some sources you use and stop with the "woe is me" victimization ploy.

 

[EvMetro]

I asked you what we should be reading to get "close to the truth". You never answered.

Opening post specifies ALL media. Answered your question before it was asked.

Just list some sources you use and stop with the "woe is me" victimization ploy.

Opening post specifies ALL media. Question was answered before it was asked.