this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
3178 points (98.3% liked)
Asklemmy
43980 readers
722 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn’t make sense to inquire why a few things are singled out as dishonest when the entity in question is big media which takes a myriad of forms?
No, your question was
... As opposed to?
Which makes no fucking sense. Like it's a cute little snide smuglord gotcha that you can throw out, but what the fuck are you actually asking?
It’s an honest question with relevance to the discussion. You either can answer it or not. And I already elaborated.
Would you rephrase your question then? Because as I've made clear, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.
You said the source brands I speak of can be said to lie about what’s going on and spin it to something of their liking. Here, the question “as opposed to what” is asked because anyone in any position might argue that the sources they disagree with are lying, so in the spirit of the critical thinking mindset which you say I haven’t learned yet, I’m asking what does one source called out as lying have to indicate it might be lying that the other sources anyone else can call out for lying don’t have.
I then highlighted why and showed examples of them having done so.
Lying as opposed to observable reality, for example with regards to the Iraq war and stories about North Korean haircuts. With regards to the Iraq war they themselves have admitted to it, the untruths are well known. With regards to North Korean haircuts this lie has been highlighted by people reporting on the ground, showing it to be untrue.
The source "called out for lying" has been proved to have lied. The others have not. You are welcome to prove so - which you do by showing them lying, not by posting some us state dep ghoul saying "oh they're lying".
You gave disagreements, it isn’t as if you pointed out holes or contradictions. Anyone can do that.
Are you saying you’ve observed them or that I have the power to observe them? If it’s the former, is this something you can prove? If it’s the latter, I’m more than happy to observe when you’re ready (and no, “sources” are not “observation”).
Based on what? Based on external sources? That brings us back here.
Alright, this is going in circles, it's obvious you're not acting in good faith, so I am going to disengage
At least I'm not responding with insults about pigs and brickheadedness.
It's not an insult when it's true
Then it's a good thing it's not true.
Disengage
...as opposed to?