Black Lives Matter has increased racial tension, 55%

[Dashinka 24,687]

10 hours ago, moxy said:

"The Democrats did it" seems a poor defense. Trump was supposed to "drain the swamp," not join them.

Didn't say it was a defense, but it was clear that the media and the Left excused the Democrats for what they did after 2016.

[Dashinka 24,687]

It seems it always comes down to the money.

 

BLM faces revolt as local chapters allege power grab, murky finances

 

Some Black Lives Matter chapters are revolting against the organized movement's national arm, accusing leaders of providing little financial transparency and not much in the way of financial support. 

 

Ten local chapters issued a statement Monday outlining concerns regarding financial disclosure, decision making, and accountability since the establishment of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation.

 

"Despite years of effort, no acceptable internal process of accountability has ever been produced by BLMGN and these recent events have undermined the efforts of chapters seeking to democratize its processes and resources," the statement said. 

 

Messages to the Black Lives Matter Global Network were not immediately returned. 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/blm-chapters-power-finances

[Boiler 45,837]

how surprising

[moxy 1,051]

8 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/a_compilation_of_twenty_alleged_election_facts_that_dont_pass_the_smell_test.html

You're going to use some fringe blog posting an opinion piece called "alleged election facts" as evidence? To quote the guy that won, "come on man."

[Boiler 45,837]

Just now, moxy said:

You're going to use some fringe blog posting an opinion piece called "alleged election facts" as evidence? To quote the guy that won, "come on man."

May help if you could list approved sources.

[moxy 1,051]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

May help if you could list approved sources.

Not sure why it would be up to me, but I typically place more trust in mainstream outlets (news organization, not opinion pieces, not extreme partisans--OANN or Daily Kos would be extremely suspect), well-sourced fact-checkers (Politifact, Snopes, etc), government websites, court documents, the list goes on. I could probably try to be comprehensive, but I'm sure I'd miss a lot. Essentially, if you wouldn't be able to use it as a source in a college essay, it might not be a good source for your arguments. The exception (imo) is Wikipedia, which actually gets it right nowadays much more often than it gets it wrong. But Wikipedia is typically very well sourced, so you can usually trace back to a source you could use on a college essay. (btw I listed a few examples here, these are not intended to be exhaustive)

 

And before we get into the "mainstream is lamestream fake news" argument, they sometimes do get the facts wrong. When they do, they publish retractions, but often that's after the horse has already left the barn, so it gives an opportunity to bad-faith actors to attack them as fake.

 

If you (generic you) are backing up your arguments with fringe blogs, OANN, Daily Kos, etc, then your argument just has no credibility. Those outlets are designed to spoon feed a person their own biases, not actually offer up factual reporting.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

44 minutes ago, moxy said:

Not sure why it would be up to me, but I typically place more trust in mainstream outlets (news organization, not opinion pieces, not extreme partisans--OANN or Daily Kos would be extremely suspect), well-sourced fact-checkers (Politifact, Snopes, etc), government websites, court documents, the list goes on. I could probably try to be comprehensive, but I'm sure I'd miss a lot. Essentially, if you wouldn't be able to use it as a source in a college essay, it might not be a good source for your arguments. The exception (imo) is Wikipedia, which actually gets it right nowadays much more often than it gets it wrong. But Wikipedia is typically very well sourced, so you can usually trace back to a source you could use on a college essay. (btw I listed a few examples here, these are not intended to be exhaustive)

 

And before we get into the "mainstream is lamestream fake news" argument, they sometimes do get the facts wrong. When they do, they publish retractions, but often that's after the horse has already left the barn, so it gives an opportunity to bad-faith actors to attack them as fake.

 

If you (generic you) are backing up your arguments with fringe blogs, OANN, Daily Kos, etc, then your argument just has no credibility. Those outlets are designed to spoon feed a person their own biases, not actually offer up factual reporting.

The academic sourcing spiel of two decades ago holds no water today.. the mainstream media has no credibility. Zero. They took a stick of dynamite to it over the last four years, for those who weren't convinced during the Bush and Obama years that they were dumpster bin material. The concept of an even remotely unbiased media is mythological. The only respect I have in journalism is those who at least tend to get the things they're biased about right and have the ethics to occasionally go after the people they side with when they lie. 

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The academic sourcing spiel of two decades ago holds no water today.. the mainstream media has no credibility. Zero. They took a stick of dynamite to it over the last four years, for those who weren't convinced during the Bush and Obama years that they were dumpster bin material. The concept of an even remotely unbiased media is mythological. 

Cool. What are your thoughts on biased, unsourced fringe blogs being passed off as factual?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, moxy said:

Cool. What are your thoughts on biased, unsourced fringe blogs being passed off as factual?

No different than the mainstream media being passed off as factual. Alternative media becoming more popular is specifically because trust in the mainstream media is non existent outside certain segmented information bubbles. They've buried themselves with dishonesty and idiotic self defeating efforts to censor others who have the temerity to do actual journalism. 

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

No different than the mainstream media being passed off as factual. Alternative media becoming more popular is specifically because trust in the mainstream media is non existent outside certain segmented information bubbles. They've buried themselves with dishonesty and idiotic self defeating efforts to censor others who have the temerity to do actual journalism. 

Just so I understand. As you see it, blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence, is "actual journalism" that the MSM is trying to bury. Do I have that right?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Just so I understand. As you see it, blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence, is "actual journalism" that the MSM is trying to bury. Do I have that right?

The MSM, long being gatekeepers to information, have been repeatedly caught omitting information to preserve their special corrupt relationships (power orthodoxy). This much was never more obvious during the Iraq War and has only escalated since. Then when people from other media (whether it be in the form of blogs, social media, etc) come along and responsibly do journalism, making the media look bad, they wind up attacked, censored, and so on. The media is no better than the supermarket aisle tabloids. 

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The MSM, long being gatekeepers to information, have been repeatedly caught omitting information to preserve their special corrupt relationships (power orthodoxy). This much was never more obvious during the Iraq War and has only escalated since. Then when people from other media (whether it be in the form of blogs, social media, etc) come along and responsibly do journalism, making the media look bad, they wind up attacked, censored, and so on. The media is no better than the supermarket aisle tabloids. 

Just so I understand. As you see it, blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence, is "actual journalism" that the MSM is trying to bury. Do I have that right?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

Just so I understand. As you see it, blogs with biased agendas citing information fabricated of whole cloth, feeding their readers a narrative that is bereft of critical thought or factual evidence, is "actual journalism" that the MSM is trying to bury. Do I have that right?

The MSM, long being gatekeepers to information, have been repeatedly caught omitting information to preserve their special corrupt relationships (power orthodoxy). This much was never more obvious during the Iraq War and has only escalated since. Then when people from other media (whether it be in the form of blogs, social media, etc) come along and responsibly do journalism, making the media look bad, they wind up attacked, censored, and so on. The media is no better than the supermarket aisle tabloids. 

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

The MSM, long being gatekeepers to information, have been repeatedly caught omitting information to preserve their special corrupt relationships (power orthodoxy). This much was never more obvious during the Iraq War and has only escalated since. Then when people from other media (whether it be in the form of blogs, social media, etc) come along and responsibly do journalism, making the media look bad, they wind up attacked, censored, and so on. The media is no better than the supermarket aisle tabloids. 

Ok, so you won't answer the question. I wouldn't either, it's a completely indefensible position.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Just now, moxy said:

Ok, so you won't answer the question. I wouldn't either, it's a completely indefensible position.

I not only answered about blogs but I answered about the media burying things. Not liking the answer and trying to force one that appeals to your own biases is what's indefensible but that's the sort of thing the mainstream media does. A fitting dialogue.