Relotius Case: Fraudulent Reporting in Spiegel

121 posts in this topic

Democrats and KKK.   Ralph Northam, current Governor of Virginia.    I maintain that the KKK has almost no influence, but this is pretty surprising.   

 

HuffPo (which fired its Opinion Page staff last week) focuses on the mechanics of the apology rather than the content, but there are calls for resignation far and wide.    WTF kind of medical school puts this type of content in the yearbook?  

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ralph-northam-response-racist-yearbook-photo_us_5c54bca6e4b0871047536bed

 

When the video below went viral this week, an army of people started overturning every stone on Kathy Tran and Ralph Northam.   The 2020 election cycle is going to be ugly.   

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019, 3:49:54, El Jeffo said:

And you're not a sockpuppet just because someone has their hand up your ass.

And you're the one to talk about sticking something up one's ass...  Assuming you could get through all that fat...

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:39:36, balticus said:

You are not really paranoid if everyone is plotting against you.    LMAO

That pretty much sums it up.  You're new here but just to fill you in El Zero thinks pretty much everybody who disagrees with him is some sort of paid Russian troll sent by Putin to ruin his happiness.  If you stay away from politics he, at times, seems like a half decent guy but as soon as you counter his worldview all hell breaks loose.  The problem is that his raison d'etre is so closely tied to his view of the world that I suspect that a slight contradiction of one of his axioms would result in a nervous breakdown (if you saw the movie Monkey Trial you would know what I'm talking about).  That's why he shuts down and yells insults whenever somebody attempts to debate him; my theory is that it's some sort of defense mechanism.

 

But don't waste too much time on him.  He's a 50+ year old nobody whose ramblings are best seen as background noise.  He tries to be edgy but for somebody 20 years younger than him, like myself, he simply sounds like a grumpy old fart yelling at "young punks".

 

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/26/2019, 11:44:09, alderhill said:

No, I'm telling you where doxxing started, in case there is any attempt to pin it on Leftists™ (as has been happening in this thread: everything bad is Leftist™!). This is why each individual needs to have high standards. When something is tolerated or done on a small scale, it will eventually be so on a large scale. It's wrong to call for violence against anyone, much less minors, whatever their supposed transgression. The problem is that some people can't take a joke, and some people don't mean it as a joke. Whatever the solution, I prefer a hands off approach.

 

 Are you sure doxxing was started by the right?  As far as I can remember Anonymous and its predecessors did it to certain shady individuals and organizations 15+ years ago and they are more left leaning.  I couldn't find any extensive information on the history of doxxing though.

 

 

On 1/26/2019, 11:44:09, alderhill said:

Agreed. Unfortunately, they are forced to compete with high-turnover news cycles. Fewer and fewer people pay for long-form investigative journalism. It's a quicker buck to muck-rake, and it makes people feel they're at the cutting edge of "happenings" when their favourite reality-recycler tells them about it first.

Nonetheless a few bad apples can ruin an entire industry's reputation.  Since you're Canadian, do you remember Premier Fitness and its shady practices?  People were pressured to write them VOID checks and their bank accounts were be debited even after they had cancelled their membership.  Such practices hurt their competitors as well.

 

On 1/26/2019, 11:44:09, alderhill said:

Some never were trustworthy.

But some were before and now they're not.  I used to think highly of CNN but I have the impression that they, now, hire 3rd rate journalists and pundits.  Jim Acosta, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, (squeaky voiced) Brian Stelter?  Where do they find these bozos?  A CNN pundit actually accused a conservative black man of having white privilege.  Is there no standard anymore?

 

On 1/26/2019, 11:44:09, alderhill said:

Nowhere did I say KKK are more influential on campuses, nor was that was the argument. Of course it would be absurd. Read from the beginning (if you can stomach it). WiccaChica claims that some radical fringe SJWs are more influential (where exactly was never specified, presumably on society "in general") than the KKK ever were -- now THAT is absurd. If she cares to make a clarification, she is welcome to do so. The KKK and white supremacist racist identity politics were far more influential than any SJW kiddos on their insulated safe space campus environment. There is a danger there though, I'd agree.

 

I must have misunderstood what you said.  In any case I still believe that the SJWs are more influential than the KKK are at present (both on and off campus).   In 2019 the KKK have no power and I don't know of one person who would want anything to do with them.  I also didn't catch where @WiccaChica stated that the SJWs are more influential than the KKK ever were; my impression was that she was talking about the present day and not present day SJWs vs. 1920s KKK.  Perhaps I was mistaken?

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, J0ker said:

But some were before and now they're not.  I used to think highly of CNN but I have the impression that they, now, hire 3rd rate journalists and pundits.  Jim Acosta, Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, (squeaky voiced) Brian Stelter?  Where do they find these bozos?  A CNN pundit actually accused a conservative black man of having white privilege.  Is there no standard anymore?

 

J0ker I reckon Acosta has flipped and is now a placement to make the MSM look stupid. His name is not on the list of journos from Mockingbird facing RICO charges. The huge graphic is over on Qanon. They are in short f*cked.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jeremytwo said:

north.jpg

 

Apparently, there will be a documentary made about Northam's controversies during the past week called "Afterbirth of a Nation".  

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019, 11:32:18, WiccaChica said:

You did it again. You've deliberately misquoted me. I mention that the KKK had ties to the Democratic and you quoted it as me saying "the KKK are Democrats". And you talk about "moving goalposts".

Now you're back-pedalling, too. I'll take that as you trying to change your position, at least. If you're going to water it down that much, we might as well say the KKK had connections to almost everything, including, like, y'know, conservatives. 

 

The "KKK are Democrats" (sorry, "ties to the Democratic") thing is nonsense that Republicans/conservatives rehash as grossly simplified historical revisionism for dummies. Either you know it and are purposely repeating falsities, are now pretending not to know, or you are once again highlighting your lack of knowledge. Keep digging that hole.

 

Quote

Let me rephrase. The KKK have negligible influence on anything in the present era.

Yea, and that's still moving the goalposts. You still can't bring yourself to say in plain English that the KKK is an example of a conservative identity politics group. Now you're claiming the KKK are actually Leftists™! This says reams about you.

 

Quote

What good would proof do when you would outright dismiss it?

You admit you can't prove it. Are we done here yet?

 

Quote

More misquotations...

Accusations, actually.

 

Quote

I might say the same thing for you.

Yea, nah, I don't see any conspiracy theories; you do, that's the difference. 

 

Quote

I don't know why I bother.

You really shouldn't with junk like that. Gee, a firmly right-wing website posts an editorial that all Democrats are for open borders, because Democrats collectively rolled their eyes at an obvious stunt.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/

 

Quote

Just plain YES. The SCOTUS' decisions have been sliding progressively leftwards for decades. Some of those decisions I agree with and others not.

Putting aside for the moment the historical differences between what "left" meant over the last several decades, NO, you're still mistaken. But let's entertain your idea, why do you think those changes happened?

 

Quote

I have posted two examples and would give you more if I was convinced it would be worthwhile.

Lazy. But you're right enough that at this stage, you've so proven yourself incapable of objectivity that I have little interest in your examples. Were I you, I'd stop embarrassing myself.

 

It's ironic that someone so deeply flustered by various newsmedia bias is so incapable of objectivity herself, either presenting it or recognizing it (or rather, the lack thereof).

 

Quote

Corrected.

Yea? Details. You have established no credibility here. 

 

Quote

What I don't do is make dishonest statements about the person I'm talking to.

Accusations, which are opportunities for you to clarify your position (as I've asked of you a few times -- which you always conveniently sidestep).

 

Quote

I'm not talking about any conspiracy theories.

Yes, in fact you are. You probably don't want to come right out and say it publicly because this isn't the place, and conspiracy theory has negative connotations, but it's clear enough at this stage. 

 

Quote

There we have it. I'm a troll then? Conspiracy theory maybe?

Trolls are simply trolls. 

 

Quote

The KKK have more in common with the "Left™" than with conservatives. The KKK believes white people should have special privileges and the "Left™" supports positive discrimination. Mainstream conservatives, however, do not believe in racial discrimination negative or "positive".

Oh boy... :unsure: Get a load of this. The KKK are actually Leftists™!

 

More of the 'my conservative homeboys can do no wrong' from you. How convenient. Shameful to see you trying to worm your way around it. That's what happens when you suffer from cognitive dissonance and a particularly strong case of confirmation bias.  

 

Next, you'll be trotting out that the Nationalist-Socialists were Leftists™.
 

Quote

It is the facts that matter and the fact is that the public was misled with false information. Fake news. False narrative. Call it what you will.

More conspiracy theory.

 

Quote

So you agree that it was no accident that this story was steered in a certain direction? Just as long as I agree that the conservatives do the same?

As we've already established at the beginning of this thread, all newsmedia have their particular POV, it's what differentiates them for their respective consumers. Some aim more for neutrality or objectivity (although it's a shrinking field), some straight up pander to their incitable audiences. I do not agree that it was "steered", and you have no objective evidence that it was. It's your belief, nothing more. All available evidence points to an accident. Based on some unfair tropes perhaps, but there is some truth in it. Zimmerman lost his defamation suit. End of.

 

Quote

To the best of my knowledge there are no technical restrictions on Russian nationals accessing any of those VPNs. In other words any Russian should be able to use them.

You are either very naive, or turning a blind eye. (That's putting it politely.)

 

Quote

My point was that foreign media outlets can be accessed from Russia even without a VPN.

It's a completely useless point, since we're referencing the relative freedom (or not) of newsmedia. It doesn't help Russians or Chinese to report freely WITHIN their own country ABOUT their own country without government meddling because they can (to a degree) access WaPo, Fox News, BBC, RT, People's Daily or whatever else (Well, it does help that they can, to varying extents, access the outside world, but since there are heavy restrictions on what can be said in newsmedia and social media IN the country, it's a moot point.) 

 

You dismissed the lack of press freedom in authoritarian states by implying they can access foreign media (which they can only to an extent). If abortion were illegal in your country, who cares, you can just travel to where it's legal, so no big deal. Homosexuality illegal in your country? Just hop the border to get gay married, no biggie. If you can't access a vital medicine from your local health provider, whatever, you can just order it online, so no big deal. You can move with your feet, and after all that's what refugees are doing, so what's your objection?

 

You claim that a Leftist™ cabal (my words, yes, but wink wink, close enough to what you believe) is trying to control what we all think and how we act. Neither in Germany, the US, nor ol' Blighty is anyone from the state, nor goons at arm's length from the state, in any way threatening or acting against you because you think (as you do) major political parties (who aren't even in office) and their puppet newsmedia are plotting against society to _________________ [insert rest of your conspiracy theory here]. But when presented with states where what you're railing against actually occurs, you wave them off because VPNs. You're a hypocrite.

 

Quote

So we are talking about accessing Western newsmedia from these countries.

You are, in an attempt to move goalposts. We are not. 

 

Quote

The subject of our discussion was whether or not Western media creates fake news,

Not much of discussion since "Western media" is such a broad category, and there are certainly many junk media sources in the West. You clearly rely on a lot, and it's obvious where you stand on what's what. I disagree, and am not convinced of a widespread Leftist™ elitist plot or whatever. 

 

Quote

not Russia or China. Saying that those countries score low on the freedom index is trivial so why would I repeat it?

Glad you acknowledge it, if barely.

 

Quote

In North Korea people who didn't cry hard enough after Kim's death were detained. Notice what you're doing? You are criticizing me for not criticizing Russia and China hard enough.

No, I'm criticizing you for trying to -- disingenuously -- shift the focus. 

 

Quote

You've also told a lie about how I dismiss the actions of these governments.

You did dismiss them. They literally engage in abundant actual "fake news" for their domestic audiences who have little choice in what newsmedia to consume, and they export in English and in other countries, and also on social media. But who cares, their inhabitants can maybe read Western media, so no big deal. 

 

You can believe what you want, even if it's a bunch of deception and lies, and say so openly. In many countries of the world, you literally cannot. The danger is when people, and that includes you, gobble up garbage and lies as some kind of transcendent truth. 

 

Quote

So is it really me who's digging a hole?

Yes.

 

Quote

What mistake was that? Whatever it was. I didn't make dishonest statements about you.

Incorrectly editing the transcript, obviously. HELLO, it's the drum you keep beating. This is what I mean, you make claims and then by the next post, you don't even seem to know what the heck you said before, and you shift anyway. You have the memory of a goldfish and the slipperiness of an eel.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, let's have a look at that conspiracy theory that the KKK are right wing shall we? Over on Q they've dug up the origins of that lovely org Planned Parenthood. Who founded it? Margaret Sanger. What does it say in her own book?

 

sanger%2Bbook.jpg

 

Here is a quote from an article by this lovely lady:

 

Quote

“How are we to breed a race of human thoroughbreds unless we follow the same plan? We must make this country into a garden for children instead of a disorderly back lot overrun with human weeds.” [3]

 

Oh dear.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, alderhill said:

Now you're back-pedalling, too. I'll take that as you trying to change your position, at least. If you're going to water it down that much, we might as well say the KKK had connections to almost everything, including, like, y'know, conservatives.

No mate. My position has been consistent from the beginning while your position was dependent on misquoting and making false statements with regards to my past posts and hoping that nobody would notice. May I also state that you commit logical fallacies in nearly every paragraph?

 

Quote

The "KKK are Democrats" (sorry, "ties to the Democratic") thing is nonsense that Republicans/conservatives rehash as grossly simplified historical revisionism for dummies. Either you know it and are purposely repeating falsities, are now pretending not to know, or you are once again highlighting your lack of knowledge. Keep digging that hole.

Really?  Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

 

Quote

Historian Eric Foner observed: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.

 

Quote

Klan violence worked to suppress black voting, and campaign seasons were deadly. More than 2,000 people were killed, wounded, or otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868. Although St. Landry Parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071, after the murders, no Republicans voted in the fall elections. White Democrats cast the full vote of the parish for President Grant's opponent. The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 black Republicans, hunting and chasing them through the woods. Thirteen captives were taken from jail and shot; a half-buried pile of 25 bodies was found in the woods. The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact.

 

Quote

By the 1920s, most of its members lived in the Midwest and West. Nearly one in five of the eligible Indiana population were members.[112] It had a national base by 1925. In the South, where the great majority of whites were Democrats, the Klansmen were Democrats.

 

Quote

In the South, Klan members were still Democratic, as it was essentially a one-party region for whites. Klan chapters were closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. Due to disenfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites around the start of the 20th century, the only political activity for whites took place within the Democratic Party.

Still think that the KKK having ties to the Democrats is nonsense? You must feel like a wally right now.

 

11 hours ago, alderhill said:

Yea, and that's still moving the goalposts. You still can't bring yourself to say in plain English that the KKK is an example of a conservative identity politics group. Now you're claiming the KKK are actually Leftists™! This says reams about you.

No that was my position from the start: the KKK have very little present day influence. Your position was loaded with strawmen. And is it not true that the thing that the KKK and the left have in common is that they both believe in racial privilege? (KKK being pro white while the left believes  in positive discrimination)

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You admit you can't prove it. Are we done here yet?

This pretty much describes your statement:

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/57/Argument-from-Silence

 

I stated it, it would be a waste of time to prove anything to you because you bury your head in the sand when confronted with evidence counter to your position. Conveniently you offer no evidence of your own but just attempt to weasel your way out by throwing insults. So why would I bother? It's a waste of time.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Yea, nah, I don't see any conspiracy theories; you do, that's the difference.

Yes you do. You dismiss any source you don't like as being "right wing" and see anybody whose disagrees with you on the extent of the KKK's influence as being a sympathizer. That sounds paranoid to me.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You really shouldn't with junk like that. Gee, a firmly right-wing website posts an editorial that all Democrats are for open borders, because Democrats collectively rolled their eyes at an obvious stunt.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/investors-business-daily/

Media Bias Fact Check is so professional.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

 

Quote

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and the owner of the site, Dave Van Zandt, as an "armchair media analyst."

 

Sounds amateurish to me.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Lazy. But you're right enough that at this stage, you've so proven yourself incapable of objectivity that I have little interest in your examples. Were I you, I'd stop embarrassing myself.

 

It's ironic that someone so deeply flustered by various newsmedia bias is so incapable of objectivity herself, either presenting it or recognizing it (or rather, the lack thereof).

I focus on facts while you focus on logical fallacies such as the ad hominem attack that you are attempting right now. I've given you two examples and your only defense was "that's not a typical example" while providing no counter evidence. This only leads me to conclude that you have no interest in my examples because you are unable to counter them.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Yea? Details. You have established no credibility here.

Nope I will not provide you with any personal details for your perverse entertainment. It suffices for you to know that I have been to the USA and know the country better than you assumed. May I make an assumption of my own? I assume that you are a short stocky bald loser with a tiny and non-functioning prick and your only hobby in life is trolling people with non-facts and false statements online. Am I correct? No details please.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Accusations, which are opportunities for you to clarify your position (as I've asked of you a few times -- which you always conveniently sidestep).

I'm not stupid enough to play this game so I won't respond to your unfounded lies about me.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Oh boy... :unsure: Get a load of this. The KKK are actually Leftists™!

 

More of the 'my conservative homeboys can do no wrong' from you. How convenient. Shameful to see you trying to worm your way around it. That's what happens when you suffer from cognitive dissonance and a particularly strong case of confirmation bias.  

 

Next, you'll be trotting out that the Nationalist-Socialists were Leftists™.

Please see above about what the left and KKK have in common. And another argument from silence fallacy from you.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

More conspiracy theory.

Nope I stick to facts. Conspiracy theory and denial are your tactics.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

As we've already established at the beginning of this thread, all newsmedia have their particular POV, it's what differentiates them for their respective consumers. Some aim more for neutrality or objectivity (although it's a shrinking field), some straight up pander to their incitable audiences. I do not agree that it was "steered", and you have no objective evidence that it was. It's your belief, nothing more. All available evidence points to an accident. Based on some unfair tropes perhaps, but there is some truth in it. Zimmerman lost his defamation suit. End of.

In other words it was just a coincidence? You must admit that coincidences happen far too frequently.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You are either very naive, or turning a blind eye. (That's putting it politely.)

Alright then. Which one of the VPNs that I have listed suffers technical restrictions in Russia?

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

It's a completely useless point, since we're referencing the relative freedom (or not) of newsmedia. It doesn't help Russians or Chinese to report freely WITHIN their own country ABOUT their own country without government meddling because they can (to a degree) access WaPo, Fox News, BBC, RT, People's Daily or whatever else (Well, it does help that they can, to varying extents, access the outside world, but since there are heavy restrictions on what can be said in newsmedia and social media IN the country, it's a moot point.)

You are moving goalposts and throwing a straw man at me (another logical fallacy). My initial statement was that Russians are able to access foreign media and then you attempted to shift the focus. It seems you have the memory of a goldfish.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You dismissed the lack of press freedom in authoritarian states by implying they can access foreign media (which they can only to an extent). If abortion were illegal in your country, who cares, you can just travel to where it's legal, so no big deal. Homosexuality illegal in your country? Just hop the border to get gay married, no biggie. If you can't access a vital medicine from your local health provider, whatever, you can just order it online, so no big deal. You can move with your feet, and after all that's what refugees are doing, so what's your objection?

 

You claim that a Leftist™ cabal (my words, yes, but wink wink, close enough to what you believe) is trying to control what we all think and how we act. Neither in Germany, the US, nor ol' Blighty is anyone from the state, nor goons at arm's length from the state, in any way threatening or acting against you because you think (as you do) major political parties (who aren't even in office) and their puppet newsmedia are plotting against society to _________________ [insert rest of your conspiracy theory here]. But when presented with states where what you're railing against actually occurs, you wave them off because VPNs.

The argument from silence fallacy yet again. Mate this is easy.

 

Quote

You're a hypocrite.

And you are a liar.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You are, in an attempt to move goalposts. We are not.

It was my initial statement that led to you bringing out your strawman. So once again you're the one moving goalposts. In fact you've left the pitch. You're criticizing me for something that you do. Now that's hypocritical.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

You did dismiss them. They literally engage in abundant actual "fake news" for their domestic audiences who have little choice in what newsmedia to consume, and they export in English and in other countries, and also on social media. But who cares, their inhabitants can maybe read Western media, so no big deal. 

 

You can believe what you want, even if it's a bunch of deception and lies, and say so openly. In many countries of the world, you literally cannot. The danger is when people, and that includes you, gobble up garbage and lies as some kind of transcendent truth.

Another argument from silence. Logic wasn't really your strong point. But let me try something you've tried on me. Please prove to me that China engages in actual fake news by using only sources approved by the People's Republic of China. You will probably accuse me of being bed in with the Chinese and defending them but I would just like you to have a taste of your own medicine.

 

12 hours ago, alderhill said:

Incorrectly editing the transcript, obviously. HELLO, it's the drum you keep beating. This is what I mean, you make claims and then by the next post, you don't even seem to know what the heck you said before, and you shift anyway. You have the memory of a goldfish and the slipperiness of an eel.

More rubbish. It was you who deliberately misquotes me and creates false statements (i.e. that I'm a defender of the KKK).

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/02/2019, 22:06:17, WiccaChica said:

No mate. My position has been consistent from the beginning

Consistently partisan and paranoid, yup. Watch out, there's a Leftist™ behind you!

 

Quote

Still think that the KKK having ties to the Democrats is nonsense? You must feel like a wally right now.

Still backpedaling, Professor Wikipedia? Prophetically enough, I already covered my answer to this earlier in the thread, weeks ago.

 

Quote

And is it not true that the thing that the KKK and the left have in common is that they both believe in racial privilege?

No, it is not true.

 

This coming from a troll who's been strawmanning with Leftists™ since the beginning of this thread! Very rich indeed.

 

Quote

I stated it, it would be a waste of time to prove anything to you because you bury your head in the sand when confronted with evidence counter to your position.

A right-winger's editorial is not proof that all Democrats want open borders. 

 

As per usual, your evidence is junk. My "position" is that you're an idealogical partisan hypocrite, and then you go and post more evidence proving that you're just that.

 

There are multiple media bias and fact checking sources, but you'll stick your head in the sand if they don't confirm your bias. Have another, https://www.allsides.com/news-source/investors-business-daily. However, I don't need those sorts of sites to know your source (was that your best shot?) is a right-wing partisan screed. It's plainly obvious from the way it's written. You clearly don't see the deep inconsistencies in what you're trying to argue. Probably a combo of your ignorance and your glaring confirmation bias. You can try to hide behind "arguing from silence" accusations or whatever, but it's clear to me that you're oblivious to how little you know. You're simply not worth the time. 

 

Quote

Conveniently you offer no evidence of your own

It's your conspiracy theory, you prove it.

 

Quote

Yes you do. You dismiss any source you don't like as being "right wing"

Nope, just the actual right-wing sources, which you keep using. Funny how that works... They are biased and wholly unreliable sources for the things you are trying to use them to prove. I've been assuming that you aren't actually that stupid. It's fascinating that someone so triggered by alleged newsmedia bias and influence is herself so gullible and regurgitates low-quality partisan newsmedia. 

 

Quote

and see anybody whose disagrees with you on the extent of the KKK's influence as being a sympathizer.

The extent of the KKK's influence was never the issue, notwithstanding your attempt to move goalposts to make it the issue.  Are the KKK a conservative identity politics group? The answer: yes they are. This shouldn't be controversial, but you have repeatedly shown the lengths you'll go to say otherwise. The KKK are Leftists™. That they are (obviously, in 2019) a shadow of what they were is besides the point. The SJWs™ and Leftists™ you rail against are a boogeyman, and today not more influential than the KKK were. They're apples and oranges anyhow. By legacy the KKK is still influential, or else no one would care about decades-old crass college pranks involving white hoods.

 

Your "argument" is not convincing. To the contrary, it's absurd. Keep digging that hole.

 

Quote

I focus on facts

I seriously LOL'd at that. You mean alternative facts, right?

 

Quote

I've given you two examples and your only defense was "that's not a typical example"

That wasn't my only defence, but it is true they aren't. Then you go embarrass yourself further, making yourself even less trustworthy, by dressing these up with your frothing ideological spin. That might work in the echo chamber circle-jerks you're used to.

 

Quote

while providing no counter evidence.

It's your conspiracy theory, you prove it.

 

Quote

This only leads me to conclude that you have no interest in my examples because you are unable to counter them.

It's your conspiracy theory, you prove it. 

 

Quote

Nope I will not provide you with any personal details for your perverse entertainment. It suffices for you to know that I have been to the USA and know the country better than you assumed.

I highly doubt it, and even still, your one trip to Disney when you were 12 isn't worth much. It's obvious you base everything you say on the standard conservative blogosphere buzzpoints. 

 

Quote

May I make an assumption of my own? I assume that you are a short stocky bald loser with a tiny and non-functioning prick and your only hobby in life is trolling people with non-facts and false statements online. Am I correct? No details please.

You sound awfully frustrated.

 

That you sputter and resort to stock insults when you run out of ideas doesn't surprise me. Your appearance is irrelevant, no matter how hairy your wart is on your big green nose, just as my appearance should be to you (you'll be happy to know, you're way off). What is relevant is your shoddy reasoning, poor evidence and glaring partisan bias. There are plenty of these on display, so it's fair for criticism.

 

Quote

In other words it was just a coincidence? You must admit that coincidences happen far too frequently.

Conspiracy theorists just loooove coincidences. Well you know the drill: it's your conspiracy theory, you prove it.

 

Quote

Alright then. Which one of the VPNs that I have listed suffers technical restrictions in Russia?

Yea nah, that's your irrelevant argument, remember. 

 

Quote

You are moving goalposts and throwing a straw man at me (another logical fallacy). My initial statement was that Russians are able to access foreign media and then you attempted to shift the focus. It seems you have the memory of a goldfish.

Your "initial statement" was a direct reply to me, and that was your attempt to shrug off the lack of domestic press freedom in authoritarian states. Are you short on your ritalin? This is another point you have no answer for. No one is restricting your free speech here, and you're digging your hole deeper with more apologia for actual censorious authoritarian states. You've totally lost the plot. 

 

Quote

Please prove to me that China engages in actual fake news by using only sources approved by the People's Republic of China.

Easy enough to look it up yourself (not that you can be trusted), and I'll do it once you address my challenges to you.

 

Quote

More rubbish. It was you who deliberately misquotes me and creates false statements (i.e. that I'm a defender of the KKK).

You really are thick. Read back to when I first said that you defend the KKK. You've only dug yourself deeper since then. 

 

You had the benefit of my doubt early on, but you've only proven yourself paranoid, still peddling conspiracy theories (receiving cheers from the other conspiracy theorists ITT says it all), still firmly ideological, still suffering from confirmation bias, still a hypocrite. What should I expect after all, conversing with someone who considers herself a witch?

 

So really, what's to gain here? You have nothing intelligent or original to say. You can't prove your points without parroting tired partisan buzzpoints, conspiracy theory, hocus pocus, fake news or simply dodging away from what you can't answer (quite a lot now). As I've already said, there's only so much time in life to spend arguing with dogmatic internet crackpots.

 

The last word is yours, so make it count! ;) 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2019, 10:16:15, jeremytwo said:

Wicked Wiki-countering arguments by Wicca! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Gosh I got a headache from trying to follow this:

 

On 2/6/2019, 9:16:31, alderhill said:

The "KKK are Democrats" (sorry, "ties to the Democratic") thing is nonsense that Republicans/conservatives rehash as grossly simplified historical revisionism for dummies.

 

 

@WiccaChica

 posts a Wikipedia link that shows the KKK did indeed have ties to the Democratic party. And this is the response :

 

On 2/10/2019, 11:51:57, alderhill said:

Consistently partisan and paranoid, yup. Watch out, there's a Leftist™ behind you!

 

Still backpedaling, Professor Wikipedia? Prophetically enough, I already covered my answer to this earlier in the thread, weeks ago.

 

Apparently alderhill studied journalism and after reading this post it's small wonder most Americans don't trust the press anymore.

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Svetlana.Petro said:

 posts a Wikipedia link that shows the KKK did indeed have ties to the Democratic party. And this is the response :

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. 

 

Quote

Apparently alderhill studied journalism and after reading this post it's small wonder most Americans don't trust the press anymore.

 

Outstanding line of reasoning. You were top of your class, weren't you? You sure all those words didn't give you a headache?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, alderhill said:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. 

 

 

Outstanding line of reasoning. You were top of your class, weren't you? You sure all those words didn't give you a headache?

I really don't have time to help losers get over their complexes. The weekend's coming up. Have fun being all alone.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Svetlana.Petro said:

I really don't have time to help losers get over their complexes. 

 

What a pity, your friend RF urgently needs this ... more necessary than your green dots!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now