aconsent t1_ja8kwmx wrote
What happened to actually reporting the full context of the story?
Blindly telling people what to think is not journalism, its indoctrination.
​
We have had enough of that from the news media over the last few years.
NanceGarner66 t1_ja91ez0 wrote
I knew there'd be one. You've hooked you're wagon to quite the mule, buddy.
Fake_Engineer t1_ja9uqa1 wrote
I have been drinking coffee from the same Dilbert mug for 20ish years now. Even I'm shocked someone showed up to defend Scott's racist shit.
FITM-K t1_ja8r76k wrote
What context do you think it's missing? Here's just some of what he said:
> I would say, based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from Black people. Just get the fuck away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed.
>So I don’t think it makes any sense as a white citizen of America to try to help Black citizens anymore. It doesn’t make sense. There’s no longer a rational impulse. So I’m going to back off on being helpful to Black America because it doesn’t seem like it pays off.
All because of the results of a single, small survey. A survey in which most people, including most black people, agreed with the statement that "it's OK to be white."
aconsent t1_ja8u08f wrote
You said it yourself 'just some of what he said'. That is actually the defnition of LACK of CONTEXT:
FITM-K t1_ja8uoju wrote
> You said it yourself 'just some of what he said'. That is actually the defnition of LACK of CONTEXT:
So you would only consider it acceptable reporting if they print the full transcript to that 70+ minute video, and the follow-up? lmao.
There's plenty of context to understand:
- What he said
- Why he said it
So instead of vaguely demanding more context, why don't you explain to the class specifically what missing context you're talking about?
You know, the "context" that makes it OK to say that white people should "get the fuck away" from black people, and that it's irrational for a white person to try to help a black person?
aconsent t1_ja8u5hi wrote
If you want to inform yourself rather than listening to the same media who have lied to you over and over, try this for context:
FITM-K t1_ja8y7fo wrote
So I actually did watch some of this, and it's mostly complete bullshit.
For example, around ~8:30 he's claiming that most news stories about this didn't list the reason he said those things. Bullshit. The story linked here mentions the reason, and so does every other article I've seen about it. Just for fun, I checked articles from CNN, Reuters, and the Daily Beast – all of them explain why he said it, and that he was responding to that Rasmussen poll, what the poll said, etc.
~13:30 - now he's talking about the economics of cartooning, fucking kill me
16:50 - here's the part where he intimates that any black people who are mad at him are mad because they hate white people, not because of what he said. "You can tell by the comments," he chuckles, offering zero evidence or support for that statement.
17:45 OK, so here he seems to be trying to argue that what he said is just "don't hang out with people who don't like you," and that because people don't disagree with that general idea, that means nobody actually disagrees with what he said, just with "the way he said it". But that's not what he said at all. He's saying white people shouldn't be near black people because – per this poll – a small percentage of black people think it's "not ok to be white." He's not saying stay away from those people, he's saying stay away from ALL black people.
21:00 and now we're at the classic right-winger thing where they pretend EVERYONE agrees with them, but just secretly, because they're too afraid to say it. The fact that almost no one actually agrees doesn't matter because they're "NPCs".
Throwing in the towel around 25 minutes because that's as much of this prick as I can stomach, even at 2x speed. I saw absolutely nothing that explains or justifies what he said.
aconsent t1_ja9443r wrote
You probably still refuse to believe that the source of Covid has now been found to be the Wuhan Institute of Virology - whether a leak or intentional.
Sorry to inform you 2.5 years later that all of the so-called facts on which your opinions were based for all of this time are now debunked, completely.
Clearly we know who the NPCs are.
FITM-K t1_ja98zbw wrote
lmao, I love the WILD swing to a completely unrelated topic because you didn't expect anyone to call your bullshit and actually watch that fucking drivel.
> Clearly we know who the NPCs are.
NPCs are non-player characters in a video game. In my experience, people who apply that term to other humans tend to have the IQ of a turnip. It's a coping mechanism, convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with you just isn't a person, and it is truly pathetic.
aconsent t1_ja9d0xh wrote
Now that is textbook projection.
For another laugh:
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1629990019225235457?s=20
You are yelling at steam from the dryer vent of the media gaslighting you into hating a comic for telling the truth. READ THAT AGAIN.
FITM-K t1_ja9d9i4 wrote
I can and did name the disagreement, but I can see you're not a big "reading comprehension" guy so I'm just gonna move on with my life at this point.
aconsent t1_ja9fide wrote
Sad because what you have said is 'the disagreement' is taken OUT OF CONTEXT so that your shallow intellect can be exploited by the media in the same way that they exploited you into believing for 2.5 years that Covid was a naturally occurring bat virus. Just another example of many that definitively show us how we have been deceived. I sent you the links to help educate yourself but you are too lazy to watch the whole video in order to understand that if you were not some rabid woke creature you would see is entirely truthful and reasonable.
Get yourself some help. If you get the chance read Platos 'Allegory of the Cave' & try to comprehend it.
aconsent t1_ja9gyo5 wrote
aconsent t1_ja93ogp wrote
So you are yourself admitting that you don't care enough about context to actually watch a video (crikey!). A perfect example of the typical lazy keyboard warrior who wants to be told what to think. Thus you are falling in line with the woke mob because 'pOpUlAr'.
With regard to your other so-called 'sources' - all of which are perfectly aligned with if not the leaders of your woke mob, please do us all a favor and tune in to a source that disagrees with them if you are too lazy to do the work yourself.
FITM-K t1_ja99pl4 wrote
> So you are yourself admitting that you don't care enough about context to actually watch a video (crikey!).
I did watch ~25 minutes of the video. Crikey! Try reading the comments you reply to?
> A perfect example of the typical lazy keyboard warrior who wants to be told what to think.
Like I said, I watched the video. 25 minutes of unfiltered Scott Adams explaining things in his own words did absolutely nothing to change my opinion. The fact that I watched it and still don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm being "told what to think," it means that I don't agree with you.
Believe or not, different people can have different opinions!
> With regard to your other so-called 'sources' - all of which are perfectly aligned with if not the leaders of your woke mob, please do us all a favor and tune in to a source that disagrees with them if you are too lazy to do the work yourself.
Yeah I fucking did, I watched a bunch of the video YOU recommended. It sucked.
No_Act_920 t1_jaacgd1 wrote
So.
In your view the best defense of shitty behavior is best obtained from the guy with shitty behavior?
Thanks for the tip!
aconsent t1_jacw0x3 wrote
Did you see Scott Adams interview with Hotep Jesus?
​
Didnt think so.
https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1630566204145537025?s=20
No_Act_920 t1_jadi3qk wrote
You again cite the source as evidence. That’s bias.
Trump defending Trump proves nothing. Same for Biden defending Biden etc etc etc.
If you’ve ever written anything that requires a cited source you should know that you cannot cite yourself as the source - for the excellent reason that you may be biased in favor of yourself. As Scott Adams is.
aconsent t1_jadwa14 wrote
When someone gets cancelled for having spoken the truth there is no other source to be referenced other than what that person actually said.
You cannot cite a biased so-called news outlet and allow them to assign to you whatever conclusions they are telling you to have. Dont be a bot.
No_Act_920 t1_jaewf4g wrote
Well…. You cancelled me for speaking the truth. I defended myself so you now believe me right? Because I’m the best most reliable unbiased source about me!
Yay! I convinced you!
aconsent t1_jae4e1a wrote
Here is a good illustration for those of you who prefer pictures to reason and logic:
https://twitter.com/JeffYoungerTX/status/1630429228213698561?s=20
cepheus42 t1_ja9v3i8 wrote
Aren't you the same guy not reporting the "full context" of the Wuhan lab story that just came out? You know, the context where one agency said "based on our knowledge of how labs work, without actually visiting the Wuhan lab, we believe it's this," and how EVERY OTHER AGENCY read their report and said "No, that's incorrect," and how everyone is listing it as "low confidence." There's only three confidence levels for these types of reports: High, Medium, and Low.
High = Yep, the evidence is pretty clear and the conclusions are reasonable. We all agree on this. (Russia is planning to invade Ukraine, reports say, with high confidence levels, and that proved true)
Medium = There's some evidence, but also a lot of holes, and the evidence could be read other ways. Still, it seems pretty possible (Iraq war... which, as we now know, turned out to be FALSE, so even MEDIUM levels aren't necessarily truths)
Low = I mean, sure... it's plausible. Unlikely, you've not actually proven it, but it might have happened that way. You need to provide some actual, you know... evidence of what you're saying. Beyond just "trust us, we work in a lab environment, too, so we totally can guess." (This report)
If you're going to lean on the "we don't have the full context" of a video for which many people have SEEN the full context in all it's long winded, racist glory, you better make sure to provide full context for the stories you do cherry pick from.
aconsent t1_ja9xmh8 wrote
Provide sources please
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments