-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
I see a couple of hundred people booed and walked out of Amy Schumer's show after she starting ranting against Trump and fluffing Hilary. Which is amusing to me as I can't stand that woman, but again shows how divisive this election has been to the USA. If I was in the entertainment industry I'd be keeping my views to myself lest I lose half my viewership...
I imagine you would be pretty pissed paying for a comedy show and ending up at a political rally.
-
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
Yeah @No-Quarter but principles n shit. I don't think anyone inside is looking at this rationally.
A fair few outside aren't, either.
Yeah for sure. Both candidates have so much dirt that it's very easy to be irrational. Ignore/downplay the shit about Trump and focus on Hilary's past. Or ignore/downplay the shit about Hilary and focus on Trump's past. And let the shitfight ensue.
Also what @gollum says about social media is bang on. Which is why I stay the hell away from it.
-
WND is about the worst source there is.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga
have we really got back to attacking the source and not the content??
FFS give it a fucking rest.I reckon jegga's spot on in this case - the content is known by the company it keeps. I've deleted the Guardian for similar reasons - increasingly far too much nonsense to sort through to attempt to trust the better stuff.
-
@Tim said in US Election Thread 2016:
WND is about the worst source there is.
I know nothing about it, havent read any of the links. But I do know 'worst' is subjective, and attacking an article because of the source is lame, incredibly boring and just an invitation for more illogical argument.
-
@Donsteppa said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga
have we really got back to attacking the source and not the content??
FFS give it a fucking rest.I reckon jegga's spot on in this case - the content is known by the company it keeps. I've deleted the Guardian for similar reasons - increasingly far too much nonsense to sort through to attempt to trust the better stuff.
So many news sites have such a large mixture of click bait and sponsored content, it's becoming increasingly time consuming trying to find something that is just reporting the facts. Which is a massive pain in the arse when all you want to do is keep up with the worlds current affairs.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback You should check it out then.
-
We really going to get the point where someone posts an article and the argument against that article is going to the site came from and finding stupid articles??
Really? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah, you make a valid point Baron, but we've all know some guy who just talks bollocks all the time and it gets to the stage where you really don't want to listen to his load of bollocks again and avoid him. There must surely come a time when it is valid to criticise something due to the source because that is evidential?
-
@No-Quarter said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Donsteppa said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga
have we really got back to attacking the source and not the content??
FFS give it a fucking rest.I reckon jegga's spot on in this case - the content is known by the company it keeps. I've deleted the Guardian for similar reasons - increasingly far too much nonsense to sort through to attempt to trust the better stuff.
So many news sites have such a large mixture of click bait and sponsored content, it's becoming increasingly time consuming trying to find something that is just reporting the facts. Which is a massive pain in the arse when all you want to do is keep up with the worlds current affairs.
Yep, I'm increasingly limited to NBR and a skeptical browse of the NZ Herald/Stuff headlines...
-
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah, you make a valid point Baron, but we've all know some guy who just talks bollocks all the time and it gets to the stage where you really don't want to listen to his load of bollocks again and avoid him. There must surely come a time when it is valid to criticise something due to the source because that is evidential?
Bingo, even the village idiot is ocassionally spot on, but you'd still like to hear it from a second person to be a bit more certain...
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Tim
Why? I am not interested in a discussion on how good a site they have, or how many rubbish articles they have.So you don't find yourself defending an op-ed from one of the kookiest christian nutcase sites on the internet.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback much of the article was sourced from Wikileaks and the site itself is a fringe one that makes whaleoil look restrained and measured so I think it does matter.
-
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah, you make a valid point Baron, but we've all know some guy who just talks bollocks all the time and it gets to the stage where you really don't want to listen to his load of bollocks again and avoid him. There must surely come a time when it is valid to criticise something due to the source because that is evidential?
It is evidence that he talks a lot of crap, not that he is always wrong. If the 'bullshit talker' said 2 + 2 = 4.. and the response by anther retard was.. nah it doesn't because you believe in chem trails, homeopathy and clairvoyance ... which one is the retard? Both?
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Catogrande said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Yeah, you make a valid point Baron, but we've all know some guy who just talks bollocks all the time and it gets to the stage where you really don't want to listen to his load of bollocks again and avoid him. There must surely come a time when it is valid to criticise something due to the source because that is evidential?
It is evidence that he talks a lot of crap, not that he is always wrong. If the 'bullshit talker' said 2 + 2 = 4.. and the response by anther retard was.. nah it doesn't because you believe in chem trails, homeopathy and clairvoyance ... which one is the retard? Both?
... If the bullshit talker said 2 + 2 = 4, you'd know instantly that he's right...
-
I am not defending it! Please show me where I have defended it. I am saying to debunk an article takes more than attacking the source.
Not only did I not defend the web site, I ahvenet even defended the article, I am just pointing out the stupidity of attacking an article based on who posted it rather than what it says.Nearly every single article in media could be attacked exactly the same way nowdays.
-
Any validity that op-ed can claim to have depends on the validity of its "facts". It is very difficult to have any confidence in a summary of facts from such an inaccurate, biased, and down-right fallacious website.
It isn't stupid to dismiss an article from WND out of hand.
-
No apparently not according to you lot. he is a bullshit talker, therefore anything he says is dismissed out of hand..
Kind of my point.
US Politics