Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3000 on: June 27, 2018, 12:36:03 PM »
If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

If conservatives/the right was saying something rancid I would feel embarrassed to be a part of their movement.

Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Carlson generally just point out the hypocrisy and fake news, just as I have been doing. Where do you see them calling Hillary voters scum and communist killers or similar things?

Hannity admonishes Obama’s for talking to “our enemies” and praises Trump for his diplomacy. Obvious double standard is obvious.

Tucker Carlson, while defending Michael Flynn, declared privacy rights sacrosanct, but not when it came to infringing on FBI agents in the Mueller investigation.

O’Reilly claimed Univision could not fairly cover Trump because their anchor called him racist but sees no similar ethical concern when he is good buddies Trump.

By the way, calling someone a communist is the insult, just like you don’t have to call someone anything other than a nazi to insult them.

Re: Trump
« Reply #3001 on: June 27, 2018, 01:08:10 PM »
Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

lol except for all the times they don't, and then they're hypocrites, right?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3002 on: June 27, 2018, 01:12:49 PM »
Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.
Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote
Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!
See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3003 on: June 27, 2018, 01:41:51 PM »
Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.
Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote
Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!
See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/
That last post wasn't an argument. It had nothing to do with my previous posts. I saw it on twitter and posted it cause I thought it was funny and weird. If I had been trying to make an argument I would have known whether it was the media or not, and if it was not the media, which I explicitly stated  I thought it wasn't, how would it have helped my argument? I am happy to learn that it wasn't what I thought it was. It's still weird tho, no matter who those women were and why they were doing that.

Thank-you for your lesson on bias and lying. I do read some articles and sometimes just headlines. A lie is still a lie whether it's in the headline or the article. You can call the Sanders headline whatever you like. I consider it a lie or at very best a half truth. And I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm beginning to see the problem now. The media is probably made up of people like you that think deliberately misleading their consumers and posting that people said things they didn't is fine because it's not lying - it's just bias. If that's what bias is, it's not OK with me, nor ever will it be.

So given that we're including what I consider to be lying and half-truths as part of the definition for bias, I am happy to rephrase.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of "biased language" in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:14:05 PM by Boots »
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3004 on: June 27, 2018, 02:08:31 PM »
I had a think about all this and its not difficult to make an argument that using misleading headlines is hypocritical.  Its hypocritical because all these news outlets present themselves as objective journalists who are reporting researched and corroborated facts in an engaging format.  But if your headlines editorialize to the degree that they obscure these facts or their context, or make someone's position out to be something other than it is, then you are no longer what you purport to be, you are no longer presenting facts in an engaging manner.  This is hypocrisy.  You do see journalists resign over excessively editorialized journalism, like CNN's "expose" on using Sarin gas in the Vietnam War on deserters.  Presenting Sanders comments the way the Washington Post did is right on that line for me.  Its unethical journalistically to present a video with a headline and leave it at that, especially when in the video she deliberately denies the implication that the journalist tries to foist on her.  There is an argument to be made that supporting a law that breaks up families as the consequence of its application is saying it is moral to break up families, but it is not the same as saying what that headline says. 

On another note, the game of hot potato that these politicians on both sides play with the immigrants is pretty fucking apalling.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3005 on: June 27, 2018, 02:12:33 PM »
I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3006 on: June 27, 2018, 03:02:06 PM »
I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?

I do like Jordan Peterson and I agree he is constantly demonized by media outlets.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3007 on: June 27, 2018, 03:34:56 PM »
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/north-korea-making-rapid-improvements-to-nuclear-reactor-despite-tru.html

Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all. :(
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #3008 on: June 27, 2018, 03:55:05 PM »
But he showed such strength!  And he is the best negotiator!  HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?!?!?!?

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3009 on: June 27, 2018, 04:12:52 PM »
Oh. Well it's plain to see our problem then. I said the media spread lies and half truths. To me saying It's biblical to uphold the law is not the same as calling separation of immigrant families "biblical". I consider claiming that Sanders called the separation of immigrant families "biblical" based on what she actually said to be dishonest. They could just as soon have said Sanders calls abortions "biblical" because the law requires women to have access to them. If you're interpreting that as truth then sure - lies are a rarity. It's all good.
Yes, headlines are biased and manipulative.  You read the articles attached, right?  Cause if not... well... that's part of the problem.

Quote
Second, I never said that they specifically went on their news show and told deliberate and obvious lies. You're the one that's adding those qualifiers. When I say that they go into a frenzy of lies and half truths I mean that they deliberately cause the public to believe the truth is something other than what it actually is. They do it through selectively interviewing, they do it through opinion pieces, they do it through stretching the truth as far as it can be stretched without getting sued, They do it by playing up the good points of someone they like over and over and downplaying his bad points vice versa for someone they don't like, and more.
It is certainly biased and I'm happy to relabel it as such if it will make you happy. It doesn't make it it one stitch better in my opinion and according to my principles which clearly are not as loose as yours, there is plenty of dishonesty involved!
See, "Frenzy of lies" is pretty clear speach.  "They lie alot and with fever" which is not what you just said.  Example:
Truth: Donald Trump met with North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.
Biased: Donald Trump happily met with ruthless dictator Kim Jong Un.
Lie: Donald Trump openly attempted to assassinate Kim Jong Un with poisoned handshake.

I don't think this is the media but  ??? ??? ??? :

https://twitter.com/LuisPin23257352/status/1011692323225432069

It's fine that you don't like Trump but  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
And here is where I have issues taking your arguments seriously.
You grabbed some person's twitter feed which has nothing more than a statement and a picture yet seem to think it's accurate.

The image itself is from "Raising the Skirt"
https://www.raisingtheskirt.com/  (NSFW!)

Here's a link to where the image is located(or one of the spots. Haven't found the unedited image yet):
http://www.justscoopedonline.com/2018/02/21/celebrate-vagina-diversity-is-a-thing-now-raising-your-skirt/
That last post wasn't an argument. It had nothing to do with my previous posts. I saw it on twitter and posted it cause I thought it was funny and weird. If I had been trying to make an argument I would have known whether it was the media or not, and if it was not the media, which I explicitly stated  I thought it wasn't, how would it have helped my argument? I am happy to learn that it wasn't what I thought it was. It's sill weird tho, no matter who those women were and why they were doing that.

Thank-you for your lesson on bias and lying. I do read some articles and sometimes just headlines. A lie is still a lie whether it's in the headline or the article. You can call the Sanders headline whatever you like. I consider it a lie or at very best a half truth. And I see that kind of thing all the time. I'm beginning to see the problem now. The media is probably made up of people like you that think deliberately misleading their consumers and posting that people said things they didn't is fine because it's not lying - it's just bias. If that's what bias is, it's not OK with me, nor ever will it be.

So given that we're including what I consider to be lying and half-truths as part of the definition for bias, I am happy to rephrase.

And he will remain God until the media and the Dems realize that going into a frenzy of "biased language" in an attempt to discredit him is never gonna work.
First off, I never said it was an argument.  My point was that YOU were duped into spreading a lie while arguing that lies are bad.  I think that makes you are a liar.  No better than the media you hate.  Media or not, that person had an impact on you and had I not researched it (which most people didn't) you'd have thought it was true and that's that.  The problem isn't the media.  The media has always been biased.  The problem is people like you who confirm your own bias by reading the bias of others.
I can see it in your language.  Dems.  Frenzy of Lies.  Discredit him.
You're basically saying that the liberal media is evil and trying to discredit Trump.  You say you don't like him but you don't argue the opposite about how the Repubs will give a frenzy of lies to support Trump. 

And if you're really going to put bias and lies in the same category, then you must think everything is a lie.  I mean, Marketing is baiscally a lie to you.  Lawyers are liars.  Politicians are liars.  Pretty sure everyone here is a liar to you, including yourself.
Yes I know, Strawman, but if you consider manipulating information in a biased way to be a lie, then anyone who tries to argue anything is lying as they're only presenting their side. 

I'm sure you don't like Jordan Peterson but here's what he had to say when he was quoted as saying something he did not in an opinion piece in the New York Times:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011877601063759872.

But Peterson should just calm down. It was just an opinion and they included some "biased language". What's the problem?
So I looked at this, then the actual interview.The NYT opinion piece heavily used quote breaks.  You can see it.  Do I think it's dishonest?  Yes. 
Here's the actual quote in context.


I never claimed there aren't lies in opinion pieces or outright quote mines.  You see that in most of humanity, really. 


See, the issue is that the news media, being a for profit organization, needs money.  It gets money through advertisers and subscriptions.  It gets that by having catchy headlines to appeal to their audience and convicne their audience to read/view/buy the news article.  This is marketing 101: Give people what they want and what do people want?  Stuff that confirms their bias. 

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3010 on: June 27, 2018, 04:20:05 PM »
But he showed such strength!  And he is the best negotiator!  HOW DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?!?!?!?
Possibilites:
1. Fake News.  It's a lie and NK isn't doing this.2. It's the Dems fault for making Trump look weak.3. *insert another excuse by Trump*

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3011 on: June 27, 2018, 04:30:52 PM »
I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

What embarrassingly faint praise. It's become so generally accepted now that the President of the United States is an utterly foul person and an enormous liar that we've sunk to simply trying to find a few exceptions to defend him. Not literally everything he does is bad! Not literally everything he says is a lie!

I do like Jordan Peterson

Dafuq? You like Professor Incel? Fucking why?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3012 on: June 27, 2018, 04:34:02 PM »

I didn't think bias = lies and half truths until you defined it that way for me.

I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.

I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 04:36:23 PM by Boots »
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3013 on: June 27, 2018, 04:42:36 PM »
I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

What embarrassingly faint praise. It's become so generally accepted now that the President of the United States is an utterly foul person and an enormous liar that we've sunk to simply trying to find a few exceptions to defend him. Not literally everything he does is bad! Not literally everything he says is a lie!
Ironically, this outlook is probably the reason he got elected and also probably the reason he stands a chance of getting elected again.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3014 on: June 27, 2018, 04:48:46 PM »
I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

I just don't understand you. You think Trump is a schmuck but you are so quick to defend him. You don't want a celebrity to be elected president again but you put Trump on a pedestal. I can't reasonably debate you because you refuse to be consistent, even in the same post.

I can't with you, lol
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3015 on: June 27, 2018, 04:54:35 PM »
Dang, I guess Trump didn't bring peace to the Korean peninsula after all. :(
To be sure, 38 North noted that continued work at the Yongbyon facility should not be seen as having any significant impact to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize. Instead, the report says the country can be expected to proceed with “business as usual” until specific orders are issued from Pyongyang.

Come on, Roundy. There's no need to disprove your own claims within the same post. Leave some fun for the rest of us!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3016 on: June 27, 2018, 04:55:53 PM »


I didn't think bias = lies until you defined it that way for me.
Then please, do tell me, what was your original definition of bias?

Quote
I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.
It's more like "You can't take a position against lies in the media when you have issues actually identifying lies in the media, except those who confirm your bias."  Yes, you thought it was funny and didn't bother questioning it's accuracy.  Yet if it was "Trump supporters offer their vaginas for him" I have this feeling you would not have shared it.

Quote
I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.
I never said it was negative.I'm mostly referring to the fact that you reference Democrats specifically.  It wasn't "Left leading media" or "Media" or "News agencies" it was "Democrats".  So right there you've strongly implied that the democratic party is controlling news agencies and any negative media on Trump is a political ploy.  Unspoken is the lack of accountability for the other side.  Almost as though you feel that any overly positive or misleading support of Trump is fine.
Like a headline reading "Trump signs Peace agreement with North Korea!" is a biased headline as the agreement signed was not a peace agreement in the traditional sense.  But it's positive.  You seem so focused on the negative that I can only conclude that you react only to negative bias news and not positvely biased.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3017 on: June 27, 2018, 05:07:15 PM »
I don't even know what to say about Trump. He's a schmuck. I absolutely agree that he lies, but he's not lying every time mainstream media says he is. And not every single solitary thing he does is awful, evil and bad.

IMO the country should be run by competent leaders, not empty celebrities. But Trump didn't elect himself. If something doesn't change we'll likely continue to get similar results. Who's next, Oprah? Kardashian?!!!!

Point of interest: I was very excited to have Obama as president when he first got elected. I was very disappointed by the end though.

I just don't understand you. You think Trump is a schmuck but you are so quick to defend him. You don't want a celebrity to be elected president again but you put Trump on a pedestal. I can't reasonably debate you because you refuse to be consistent, even in the same post.

I can't with you, lol
Well, I think he's a schmuck not an evil villain who only ever says lies and only ever does despicable deeds. I'm not sure if you're aware of this but it's not a binary situation. There is a range between awesome and awful. Some of his polices I agree with.

I would prefer if the media were honest and the President wasn't Trump. But given the situation we have, I kind of enjoy watching him turn the media's own dishonest tactics against them. (It takes a crook to expose a crook?)
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3018 on: June 27, 2018, 05:13:00 PM »
Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

lol except for all the times they don't, and then they're hypocrites, right?

Come on, Gary. They obviously have an agenda, and as illustrated by the many examples in that link, they obviously contradict themselves depending on what they are trying to argue for at that time. It takes a lot of bias, stretching of the truth, and mental gymnastics to produce masterpieces like this:

« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 05:32:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Boots

  • *
  • Posts: 795
  • ---- Cogito, ergo sum. ---- -Descartes
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #3019 on: June 27, 2018, 05:20:14 PM »


I didn't think bias = lies until you defined it that way for me.
Then please, do tell me, what was your original definition of bias?

Quote
I am not a journalist, I took no time whatsoever to research that tweet. It was funny and weird so I posted it. So your position is you cannot take a position against dishonesty in the media unless you thoroughly research every single thing you say ever? If you want to disregard my arguments based on that go ahead, it's fine with me.
It's more like "You can't take a position against lies in the media when you have issues actually identifying lies in the media, except those who confirm your bias."  Yes, you thought it was funny and didn't bother questioning it's accuracy.  Yet if it was "Trump supporters offer their vaginas for him" I have this feeling you would not have shared it.

Quote
I say Dems because it's shorter. I was not aware of any negative connotation. I am definitely biased against the current practices of the media, you're definitely correct about that. IMO Frenzy of lies and half truths is accurate but for the purpose of this discussion I've agreed to rephrase it as "Biased language".

My complaint about the media was never confined to strictly news articles although it certainly does include them.
I never said it was negative.I'm mostly referring to the fact that you reference Democrats specifically.  It wasn't "Left leading media" or "Media" or "News agencies" it was "Democrats".  So right there you've strongly implied that the democratic party is controlling news agencies and any negative media on Trump is a political ploy.  Unspoken is the lack of accountability for the other side.  Almost as though you feel that any overly positive or misleading support of Trump is fine.
Like a headline reading "Trump signs Peace agreement with North Korea!" is a biased headline as the agreement signed was not a peace agreement in the traditional sense.  But it's positive.  You seem so focused on the negative that I can only conclude that you react only to negative bias news and not positvely biased.
My original definition was prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another. But perhaps it should include lying. It doesn't make lying any better it just makes the meaning of bias worse.

I might have posted that if it was about Trump supporters. I have made fun of them in the past as well. I'm not particularly fond of the average Trump supporter. (At least not the way they've been stereotyped)

Well the Dems and the media (Maybe not FOX I haven't checked) are attacking Trump right now, I think their attacks are backfiring. That's why I referenced them.

When I see FOX or some other outlet post a headline like "Peace Has Been Attained With NK - Nobel Peace Prize Imminent" I know it's horseshit and wouldn't be shy about saying so if it came up.
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” - George Orwell