Trump Orders Strike Killing Top Iranian General Qassim Suleimani in Baghdad

[Tik-Tok]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sources are super important, unless the story fits my narrative then who cares.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to killramos again.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sources are super important, unless the story fits my narrative then who cares.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I cant believe some are assigning a name this much credibility. Anyone ever heard of a pseudonym?

Every heard of being able to objectively verify people using freely accessible sources? Pseudonym's might as well be a non-author.

And yes, I check. Do you?

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Every heard of being able to objectively verify people using freely accessible sources? Pseudonym's might as well be a non-author.

And yes, I check. Do you?

Check what? Sources?

The same ones that told Syria used chemical weapons on their own civilians - that turned out to be another false flag by the Americans to justify invading a country that threatened the American Petrodollar cartel?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Every heard of being able to objectively verify people using freely accessible sources? Pseudonym's might as well be a non-author.

And yes, I check. Do you?

you disagree that the WP should have used Deep Throat as a source?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Check what? Sources?

The same ones that told Syria used chemical weapons on their own civilians - that turned out to be another false flag by the Americans to justify invading a country that threatened the American Petrodollar cartel?

have you ever seen this video?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ack-douma.html

there's not a lot you can trust coming out of there, but this video is pretty compelling evidence that Syria did it for that specific bombing.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Check what? Sources?

The same ones that told Syria used chemical weapons on their own civilians - that turned out to be another false flag by the Americans to justify invading a country that threatened the American Petrodollar cartel?

Re-read the conversation mate.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

you disagree that the WP should have used Deep Throat as a source?

You disagree that asking random, non-relevant questions adds value to a conversation?

[googe]

A good heuristic is any site or article claiming anything about a false flag is batshit insane fake news alex jones conspiracy bullshit

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Re-read the conversation mate.


You disagree that asking random, non-relevant questions adds value to a conversation?

Just checking on your susceptibility to narrative over consistency.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A good heuristic is any site or article claiming anything about a false flag is batshit insane fake news alex jones conspiracy bullshit

Why are false flag operations BS? The Americans (and many others) have been doing this since, well America.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just checking on your susceptibility to narrative over consistency.

Given what I do for a living (content creation + marketing), I am acutely aware of how important it is to validate information you consume as much as possible by reviewing as many sources as possible. I read Fox on the daily despite its obvious ideological bias. I stopped reading CNN a while ago and replaced it with Reuters and MSNBC.

I immediately write off content without a defined author because of how easy content is to create. As I said earlier in this thread, if a real persons name isn't on it, it's not worth consuming.

Regardless, at this point the conversation re: this subject is semantics, so let's switch it up.

How's your day? Still trying IF?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Given what I do for a living (content creation + marketing), I am acutely aware of how important it is to validate information you consume as much as possible by reviewing as many sources as possible. I read Fox on the daily despite its obvious ideological bias. I stopped reading CNN a while ago and replaced it with Reuters and MSNBC.

I immediately write off content without a defined author because of how easy content is to create. As I said earlier in this thread, if a real persons name isn't on it, it's not worth consuming.

Regardless, at this point the conversation re: this subject is semantics, so let's switch it up.

How's your day? Still trying IF?

IF? Intermittent Fatness? Yeah, it's going great. lol

To your point though: I actually differ on it. In fact the entire scientific method, and much of the progress of humanity is reliant on the fact that you don't need to know the author of the information. I realize this is a point beyond the news cycle, but much of the content you see online isn't designed to be news, but rather analysis, as you know. ZH is a good example of that. ZH presents a lot of interesting content that relates to data analysis. You can verify the data, interpret it on your own, analyze it on your own and either share or disagree with the conclusion. That does not require the benefit of knowing an author.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That does not require the benefit of knowing an author.

We'll agree to disagree here. In my view, editorial integrity requires that you stand behind what you say. I am always suspicious of any publication, blog, channel, etc. that is not willing to put their face to their words, so to speak.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

ZH presents a lot of interesting content that relates to data analysis. You can verify the data, interpret it on your own, analyze it on your own and either share or disagree with the conclusion. That does not require the benefit of knowing an author.

His point makes sense though. For people that don't know how to validate and interpret data, it is much easier to just nullify anything that doesn't have an author, and try to rely on "Journalistic Integrity" to do it's job and only present valid data. People like this don't care much about data since they don't understand it, easier to follow opinions. And if you're going to follow an opinion, then at least there is some due diligence in following an opinion of a real person that has to stand up to scrutiny, even if they do get it wrong as often as they do.

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His point makes sense though. For people that don't know how to validate and interpret data, it is much easier to just nullify anything that doesn't have an author, and try to rely on "Journalistic Integrity" to do it's job and only present valid data. People like this don't care much about data since they don't understand it, easier to follow opinions. And if you're going to follow an opinion, then at least there is some due diligence in following an opinion of a real person that has to stand up to scrutiny, even if they do get it wrong as often as they do.

Shots fired!

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

His point makes sense though. For people that don't know how to validate and interpret data, it is much easier to just nullify anything that doesn't have an author, and try to rely on "Journalistic Integrity" to do it's job and only present valid data. People like this don't care much about data since they don't understand it, easier to follow opinions. And if you're going to follow an opinion, then at least there is some due diligence in following an opinion of a real person that has to stand up to scrutiny, even if they do get it wrong as often as they do.

The amount of data supporting climate change is significant, and yet you ignore it to focus on your own opinion. You call NASA propaganda, FFS. Pot, meet kettle.

So, if we remove the underhanded bullshit of your post and get to what you're really saying (that people should review/analyze data and form opinions off of it), on that we agree. Like anything, data needs to be scrutinized and that includes where it comes from. But those organizations and sites that present data should be able to stand behind their work.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The amount of data supporting climate change is significant, and yet you ignore it to focus on your own opinion. You call NASA propaganda, FFS. Pot, meet kettle.

So, if we remove the underhanded bullshit of your post and get to what you're really saying (that people should review/analyze data and form opinions off of it), on that we agree. Like anything, data needs to be scrutinized and that includes where it comes from. But those organizations and sites that present data should be able to stand behind their work.

And here we have a perfect example. Since you have relied on opinions of climate change presented as data, you have a different opinion than someone who has actually reviewed and quantified data on the subject.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And here we have a perfect example. Since you have relied on opinions of climate change presented as data, you have a different opinion than someone who has actually reviewed and quantified data on the subject.

lol, sure, if you operate a conversation on the basis of assumptions, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

[msommers]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

lol, sure, if you operate a conversation on the basis of assumptions, I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

You must not value your time very much if you are willing to actively engage him.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You must not value your time very much if you are willing to actively engage him.

Good point.