|
Has this thread covered those awful media bias charts that get put on social media by Ad Fontes?
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
I can't tell if my favorite part is the Daily Heil being considered "moderate" along with their avowed enemies the also just as moderate BBC. Or that The Root is considered extreme left because they write about black people.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Corky Romanovsky posted:The next post will downgrade the qualifier to "potentially". Stop the gishgallop and cite the false documents. That's not a gish gallop it's goalpost moving/misrepresenting 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Nothing in there says they published specifically incorrect things. At best you've give some evidence that they might have potentially been targeted with some propaganda but you made a much stronger claim that you're now walking back. There's not really a question of whether Assange is a rapist prick with an agenda. He is. But that isn't the claim you've been asked to support.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'll get with the FSB and let you know, since they were the source of the leak. Or are we ignoring that it was largely a political hit job to help push Russian disinformation to help swing an election. Hey so if you can't support your claims, maybe don't make those claims as strongly as you did.  The correct phrasing you were looking here is "I can't prove this but I strongly believe" HTH
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Which rapist are you referring to here? Biden? Trump? Putin? Help me out. I'm also curious which rapist it was referring to because in a media analysis discussion it would help for there to be exact terms used and probating this post was bad.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 20:06
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It's actually incredibly obvious from the context who they are referring to. You literally only need to read the post to figure it out. That post was so vague and snipey as to merit a moderator warning, but no action. I agree that rapist is sadly too broad a term to be specific in world politics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Who is honestly arguing that we give Wikileaks “our unshakable trust and faith in every context . . .”? 90% or more of the arguments in this subforum come from people disagreeing on something and assuming that disagreement is because the person holds the opposite belief.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I’m starting to lose track. Is this an argument between people who think the DNC leaks were accurate and those who don’t? Are there posters here who believe that inflammatory emails from that set of leaks were fabricated by Wikileaks/Russian intelligence? Last I saw, it was an argument between people who believed that Wikileaks was a very unreliable source on certain subjects due to it's stated bias, and people who thought it was a reasonably reliable source in spite of or because of it's stated bias. Because people are having a slight disagreement on an esoteric topic, they seem to have decided that the person who disagrees with them is actually all that is wrong with society, as often happens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Holy poo poo shut the gently caress up with the "You can't read" ad homs guys. Oh hey since we're in the media literacy lets get into this particular misuse of logical fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is defined as: quote:Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". This is the most basic form, there's a lot of variations and you can go to Wikipedia or whatever for more details, many of which are relevant to this thread. But the version you're referring to, and misusing, is the idea that attacking a person or being snarky invalidates a point of view, or is a logical fallacy. It's not. It's using that attack as a reason to dismiss an argument, without addressing the actual point of contention that is what the fallacy refers to. A basic example: 1. "You're wrong because you smell bad!" - this is an ad hom fallacy 2. "You're wrong because of [Facts A, B, C], also you smell bad!" NOT an ad hom fallacy. At best you can complain about tone or politeness here. The quote you're referencing appears to be saying that DV must not be able to read because they don't understand the argument or material they is referencing. That's more of just being insulting than actually using an ad hom. While we're here, though there's a variation on the ad hom: quote:Appeal to motive is a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument in which an argument is challenged by calling into question the motives of its proposer. That appears to be what you and several other posters were doing with regards to Wikileaks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Basically the foundation of the argument is: why the hell would anyone have to lie to make anti-American propaganda? Separate from the actual discussion of Russia etc, the answer is "because it serves their purposes to do so". You could choose to be trying to vilify America on things it's actually OK-to-good at, for your own ends, and need to lie to accomplish that. Or, you could be lazy and not aware of certain historical facts or truths that make your argument easier.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 20:36
|
|