President Biden thread

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Your assumptions about what we/I will read actually flies in the face of the behavioral history evident in these threads.  That makes it an excuse to continue sharing unsupported feelings and beliefs rather than discussing the information that influences you to feel as you do. 

 

Nah... I'm referencing your response to the 60% data that I'm also familiar with. 

I was specific about what I called "hysterical thinking" relative to guns and life. Did you not understand my meaning or are you trying to twist my words rather than address my actual meaning? I'd be happy to explain what I mean. 

From your linked article:

The article then went on to list other states which have gun laws and Illinois was in that list.  Why do you think that state level gun laws, rather than national laws, are not efficient at reducing gun violence in in individual states?

I linked the article to demonstrate gun laws, that's it. How do you come to the conclusion about what I think? 

Again, insinuating I'm irrational because I'm "emotional" is a poor argument. Perhaps your feelings are what's causing you to assume that? 

It's because of what I've read in these threads that my belief about what you will read and not read. Anyone can do a 5 second Google search and find something that supports their opinion. Then another person can find another to contradict that. 

Using citations when analyzing data is worthwhile. Posting a citations that agrees with oneself is pointless. I prefer independent thinking and opinions. 

5 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Using citations when analyzing data is worthwhile. Posting a citations that agrees with oneself is pointless. I prefer independent thinking and opinions. 

I can't say I agree unless it truly is an opinion.  

Sometimes when I see or hear something I'd like to know how they come to that opinion and conclusion and might ask for links.  I often Google these things myself if it's an idea I don't necessarily support or have never heard of, but asking someone to provide a source for how you come up with your opinion through independent thinking is reasonable.  

I will say some here then are quick to jump on the source as propaganda and dismiss what you're saying and that isn't always fair.  

2 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I already did. Biden could help marginalized communities instead of political postering. Instead of making a big deal about selecting his Judges by their race and gender, he could focus on the problems of marginalized communities like Chicago and the gun violence. What type of citation do you require? 

Insinuating any opinion you disagree with as "emotional" doesn't add to the discussion. 

Nah... I quoted you asking what the children in places like Chicago were being taught by their parents... remember?

I don't require anything,  I'm merely pointing out that if you only share opinions which are in conflict with facts or data without any manner of citation to discuss, it leaves us to discuss the opinion which is (apparently) based upon something else... things like emotion, or anxiety or grievances or misinformation.

2 hours ago, Tweety said:

I can't say I agree unless it truly is an opinion.  

Sometimes when I see or hear something I'd like to know how they come to that opinion and conclusion and might ask for links.  I often Google these things myself if it's an idea I don't necessarily support or have never heard of, but asking someone to provide a source for how you come up with your opinion through independent thinking is reasonable.  

I will say some here then are quick to jump on the source as propaganda and dismiss what you're saying and that isn't always fair.  

 

 

Are you saying that it's unfair to correctly identify media sources as inaccurate,  unreliable, and known to use intentionally manipulative language (like propagandists do)?  

2 hours ago, Tweety said:

I can't say I agree unless it truly is an opinion.  

Sometimes when I see or hear something I'd like to know how they come to that opinion and conclusion and might ask for links.  I often Google these things myself if it's an idea I don't necessarily support or have never heard of, but asking someone to provide a source for how you come up with your opinion through independent thinking is reasonable.  

I will say some here then are quick to jump on the source as propaganda and dismiss what you're saying and that isn't always fair.  

 

 

I take a time to find reliable sources which are not flagrantly biased.  It makes a difference when one is careful rather than careless when it comes to sources.  People should be called out for quoting from rags. YOU make the effort, so why shouldn't everyone else.  If people here just regularly quote trash, I just put them on "ignore" since time is too valuable.

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Are you saying that it's unfair to correctly identify media sources as inaccurate,  unreliable, and known to use intentionally manipulative language (like propagandists do)?  

The way you spin makes me dizzy sometimes.  But I can't tell you how to interpret what I wrote, nor do I feel the need to clarify.  

I have seen you shoot down legitimate stories as being propaganda which in my opinion makes people hesitate to bother sourcing their posts.

I've been on the receiving end as well from a poster no longer here.   I remember posting an article and getting a "Huffington Post LOL"

8 minutes ago, Tweety said:

The way you spin makes me dizzy sometimes.  But I can't tell you how to interpret what I wrote, nor do I feel the need to clarify.  

I've been on the receiving end as well.   I remember posting an article and getting a "Huffington Post LOLOLOLOL"

What you may call spin I simply consider a different perspective that is informed by a wide variety of sources. I am surprised that you would think that it's unfair to identify propaganda when it's offered as fact.  We have seen how dangerous inadequately challenged propaganda can be as it influenced the thinking of Americans during this pandemic.  It's no less dangerous when it comes to politics.  

As far as getting harassed for citing HuffPo, psychological projection is a real and common thing today. 

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

 I am surprised that you would think that it's unfair to identify propaganda when it's offered as fact. 

I'm surprised that you would believe this about me.  I said it was a spin, and that you shoot down legitimate sources as propaganda.  But let me be a little more clear:  you're wrong and I never said it was unfair to identify legitimate propaganda.  However, it's quite clear that you take a different view as to what's propaganda than I do.  

Admittedly there are some sources posters use here like Daily Caller or New York Post that I can't take seriously, but when they are sourced here I investigate further by looking for a better more neutral source.  Sometimes I find it spinning and call the person out.  Other times they post the truth.

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

I'm surprised that you would believe this about me.  I said it was a spin, and that you shoot down legitimate sources as propaganda.  But let me be a little more clear:  you're wrong and I never said it was unfair to identify legitimate propaganda.  However, it's quite clear that you take a different view as to what's propaganda than I do.  

Admittedly there are some sources posters use here like Daily Caller or New York Post that I can't take seriously, but when they are sourced here I investigate further by looking for a better more neutral source.  Sometimes I find it spinning and call the person out.  Other times they post the truth.

So it's different when you call them out because you don't call some of the information propaganda? All media gets things wrong from time to time.  Propagandists sometimes share things that are true or partly true.  

12 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So it's different when you call them out because you don't call some of the information propaganda? All media gets things wrong from time to time.  Propagandists sometimes share things that are true or partly true.  

Fair enough.

Since propaganda means "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."  Much of what we read is going to be propaganda.  

I suppose when I think of propaganda, I lean towards more dishonest reporting and misinformation rather than bias.   Some MSNBC reporters are biased towards the left and Fox News obviously is biased towards the right but I don't consider them propaganda.  

So when Fox News is making a big deal about Biden not acknowledging D-Day again it's not propaganda.  It's true.