[Tom Bishop]

Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?

So one of the die hard liberals on this site thinks it's the liberal outlet who needs to be proven wrong. Who saw that coming. 

[Rama Set]

Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

You larping as a righteous advocate for intellectual honesty and non-partisan takes is so cute. Instead of complaining why don’t you present evidence that the Hill is inaccurate?

So one of the die hard liberals on this site thinks it's the liberal outlet who needs to be proven wrong. Who saw that coming. 

Both sources would need to. I know it’s strange to you but I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable and I also am not surprised Biden would poll low. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Trump and DeSantis are worse.

[honk]

Yes, I'm sure that the openly conservative Rasmussen Reports conducted a perfectly fair and unbiased

So Rasmussen is out, but you raise no complaint about the liberal media outlet The Hill giving out opposite polling results in the post immediately prior to mine. How blatantly hypocritical and partisan of you.

The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist, and its association with pro-Trump grifter John Solomon alone should cast major doubt on any accusation of liberal bias. A media outlet not praising Trump and Republicans at all times is not indicative of a liberal bias. And it wasn't even The Hill that did the survey in the first place, they just wrote a story on it. Marquette Law School did the survey, like the article says. In any case, while I'm sure their methodology was far more honest than Rasmussen's, I'm not taking their results much more seriously. Neither Trump nor DeSantis have truly started campaigning yet, Bernie is probably going to run and split the Democratic vote yet again, and the media will be quick to soften the Republicans' anti-democratic positions with frantic both-sides equivocation.

I know Rasmussen tends to be pretty reliable

In previous elections, yes. But years have passed since then, and I would argue that them advocating that the vice-president should overturn the results of the election and keep Trump in power is very strong evidence that they are no longer reliable.

[Tom Bishop]

The Hill is widely regarded as generally centrist

Sure they are. 

https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Hill

[honk]

Conservapedia? Is this a joke?

[stack]

Never heard of ‘conservapedia’ before. Looks like their aim is to fight liberal bias with conservative bias. In essence canceling themselves out.

Conservapedia is a clean and concise resource for those seeking the truth. We do not allow liberal bias to deceive and distort here. Founded initially in November 2006 as a way to educate advanced, college-bound homeschoolers, this resource has grown into a marvelous source of information for students, adults and teachers alike

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Since you don't actually have a rebuttal to the content we can see that your argument is a failure. "They are conservative" isn't analogous to "lying". Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative. This is a terrible argument. You are discrediting yourself by claiming such nonsense in your failure to produce a legitimate argument.

[Shifter]

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Since you don't actually have a rebuttal to the content we can see that your argument is a failure. "They are conservative" isn't analogous to "lying". Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative. This is a terrible argument. You are discrediting yourself by claiming such nonsense in your failure to produce a legitimate argument.

It's just that so many conservitard sites are dishonest. Breitbart, info wars, Fox etc. Lying and disinformation is at the core of how they operate.

What's a website or news organisation that is unapologetically far left of politics? I'm pretty sure it's just as much full of shit as the far right gtoups

Take politics and bias out and you are left with neutrality and maybe a hint of truth.

[Tom Bishop]

Priests are often conservative. Are all priests liars?

Plumbers and construction workers are often conservatives. Are all plumbers and construction workers liars?

This conservative=liar argument is a bad one.

[Lord Dave]

"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?

[Tom Bishop]

"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?

No, they have their honest moments.

[AATW]

"Sites like Rasmussen or  Conservapedia are not discredited by merely being conservative."

But liberal sites like CNN, snopes, TheHill, and wikipedia are discredited, yeah?

It doesn’t matter what the source is.
To Tom the only thing that matters is that they say what he wants so he can cherry pick from it. Although obviously the sources which lean the way he does more often provide him with the trolling material he posts on here

[stack]

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias. A little background:

Conservapedia (/kənˌsɜːrvəˈpiːdiə/) is an English-language wiki-based online encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative[2] and fundamentalist Christian[3] point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias in Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system for content generation.

Had I known it is the spawn of phyllis schlafly I would have just killed my browser in hopes that would somehow de-slime my soul.

It only gets better:

Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former US President Barack Obama—including belief in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories[8]—along with open criticisms of atheism, homosexuality, the Democratic Party, and evolution. Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises a number of Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works that it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and accepts fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[10][11]

Yep, no bias there.

[Rama Set]

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

You and Thork cite things incorrectly all the time. Just citing sources doesn’t make you reliable or correct.

 

In previous elections, yes. But years have passed since then, and I would argue that them advocating that the vice-president should overturn the results of the election and keep Trump in power is very strong evidence that they are no longer reliable.

I didn’t know this. Thanks.

[Tom Bishop]

Not all wikis are created equally. Like I said, I’d never heard of this one until today. But it is rich with bias.

Bias does not equal incorrect. Astronomers are biased against astrology. Does that make astronomers incorrect?

And the innaccuracy of one article by one person on a public wiki doesn't mean that another article by a different person is inaccurate, just as one Wikipedia article or even article section does not affect another.

You are posting gibberish arguments for why you shouldnt argue to avoid actually addressing the content presented to you.

Actually, you need to learn more about public Wikis. It's not an outlet with specific editors who are specifically dishonest. It's a publicly editable Wiki, and its statements are validated with linked references like Wikipedia.

You and Thork cite things incorrectly all the time. Just citing sources doesn’t make you reliable or correct.

Actually it usually means that I presented an argument to you and you ran away from it. Claiming that an argument and sources presented to you "could" be incorrect is really one of the worst ways to argue.

You need to turn that "could" to "is", and you lot usually choose to just make some excuse to avoid addressing the arguments directly.

Arguing about what you don't need to argue against is also off topic to Joe Biden. I posted a Joe Biden video in my last post and you chose to argue about something else. Maybe the answer to that one is that the author is a conservative so everything he says is inherently a lie?

[Rama Set]

I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable? That’s a silly non sequitur, besides Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki. The Hill also frequently criticizes Biden in its opinion section, go look for yourself. Basically you just seem upset because I’m not shitting on Biden in your preferred way. You seem kind of fragile.

[Tom Bishop]

Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect.

Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology. This does not make Astronomers incorrect about astrology.

Mothers are often biased against teen drinking. This does not make mothers incorrect.

Every person or group has its own biases and that alone does not mean that they are incorrect. "They're biased!" is mostly a liberal excuse to avoid having to address the arguments given.

[Rama Set]

Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect. Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology. This does not make Astronomers incorrect about astrology.

Astronomers are biased against the practice of astrology?  Like all of them?  Sounds like you are making shit up.  They know its bull shit pseudoscience, but that doesn't mean they are all against it being practiced.

Every person or group has its own biases and that alone does not mean that they are incorrect. "They're biased!" is mostly a liberal excuse to avoid having to address the arguments given.

Who have I said is incorrect?  You are doing that Thork thing where you are inventing  position for me and arguing against that instead of what I have actually said.  It's pretty incredible when you go look at that shitty article about the Hill on conservapedia though.  The stretches they have to make to try and put across a point would make even the laziest university essay writer blush.  For example they assert "The site has continuously labeled anti-establishment Republican candidates for Congress as "far-right" (including Laura Loomer and Bob Good) while giving far-left Democrats (such as the Squad) a free pass.[6] " but when you read their source for this, you see that there is bipartisan consensus on the shittiness of these candidates and you also see there is no substantiation that they give the Squad, a free pass. 

In the next sentence they assert "They also disparage QAnon while ignoring the violence of BLM thugs and Antifa terrorists." without citation.  In fact The Hill published an opinion piece that urged BLM to change their ways or risk damaging their reputation as justice activists.  So it seems The Hill has been critical of BLM and Antifa but this doesn't even address the false equivalency being made between Qanon and BLM.  Qanon supports any number of deranged and fanciful ideas including Majorie Taylor Green, a member of congress, whispering about the dreaded "Jewish Space Laser".  Comparing the concern of Jewish Space Lasers to the continuing plight of Black Americans is absolutely reprehensible.

So what other charges does your super reliable wiki lay against The Hill?  That the Hill labelled some dems centrist because they voted in favour of impeachment and didn't vote against a climate change bill or a gender and sexual orientation bill.  This obviously ignores that impeachment popularity sat just below 50% (areound 47%), a majority support improving gender and sexual orientation based rights and are concerned about climate change.  Impeachment was obviously heavily partisan, but the other two issues are about as centrist as it gets.  It is worth pointing out that conservapedia labels the bill about climate change a "climate alarmist" bill and calls equal rights bills "liberal fascism" simply because they don't like it.

The "reliable wiki" claims that The Hill does not call out "the far left" despite The Hill acknowledging that the Squad and Sanders are the far-left of the democratic party.  They call the Seatlle autonomous zone a debacle and declare that liberal policies being pursued are irrational and damaging.  Conservapedia also took umbrage with the Hill calling enclosures in a texas facility "cages" (which was a quote from a source) but not declaring the entire facility, which Biden was promising to close, the same.  They again are trying to make a false equivalency.  Finally, the wiki attempts to pin the behaviour of their commenters on the website itself.  This is obviously moronic; everyone and their dog knows comment sections are toxic cesspools no matter which site you go to.

So what does all this add up to?  A pretty clear picture that conservapedia employs the same cherry picking tactics that you do as they dishonestly try to paint a picture of The Hill as a liberal boogeyman simply because the site doesn't agree with the editors of it's article.  It's sad that you try and pass this off as reliable.

Notice to readers:  Sorry I didn't annotate this better.  I am at work and didn't really have time to do it.  Suffice it to say that simple keyword searches on thehill.com will provide ample evidence.

[Pete Svarrior]

I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?

I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.

However, in this case verification is trivial. Both articles are linked within the Conservapedia page. You can just, like, go to them and find out whether they did or didn't use the specific wording alleged.

I've done just that, and so now I know that the claim was true. Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is. Tom could have just as well re-typed the same argument by hand, and then it would suddenly not be a Conservapedia link. The source doesn't automatically discredit a position.

But hey, since we're all on watchlists for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta article.

[AATW]

Stack already did a fine job pointing out the inherent bias present in the wiki.

Being biased has nothing to do with being incorrect.

Astronomers are biased against astrologers and the practice of astrology.

I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.
So they form conclusions based on that empirical evidence, or lack thereof. That isn’t bias, it’s how everyone should be coming to conclusions.

You have in the past derided sources which you feel are biased against your position. You’re fine with sources which say what you want. Cherry picking, as usual.