BLM And MAGA Come Together To Oppose Forced Vaccination Bill In New York

submitted by christine_grab from (wakingtimes.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Not my job to help you with your argument and supposed evidence, if it exists (I looked, out of respect for the discussion; was curious; nevermind)

[–]EvilNick 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

There are a plethora of these articles out there. Stop using Google.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Good grief. Seems we're arguing over facts again. The site you metion: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/climate-change-dispatch

I appreciate that you will not like the site I've mentioned. The detailed report at this site, and its links, are more reliable than the "the take-down letter issued today to Mr. Van Zandt." It is good to see their response to Media Bias Fact Check, but as we've seen, the latter website has not removed the items that were part of the letter to Van Zandt. If Media Bias Fact Check were wrong, their report on climatechangedispatch.com would be removed or substantially updated, but this has not happened.

[–]EvilNick 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

lol more reliable because you like it more. MBFC is a completely left wing liberal shill site. They do no real research for their arguments, and it basically one guys deciding what he likes and how he feels things are leaning. Also using MBFC to make your counter argument is pretty shite.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No, Nick - this is not about emotions, or what one likes. This is about what is reliable.

MBFC provides a detailed report. You and your sites respond with the equivalent of "your counter argument is pretty shite."

You can do better. It's not terribly important. My curiosity is to see if there is any middle or common ground. Seems there isn't. Not that there should be. But this is my main curiosity at Saidit.

[–]EvilNick 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

no thats the issue, they dont provide any of that lol. The only middle ground is you like it, I dont. I dont believe it should be used in a debate at all. Its like bringing a huff post article into a non left wing convo and asking everyone to just accept it because you think its a legit source. you like them, fine, knock yourself out. Just no one is going to ever believe anything from places like there or politifact.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Don't mean to intrude, socksy, but I couldn't help but notice you are relying on a questionable site in an effort to push your premise.

When sites use cliche weaponized words to describe people they're targeting and then engage in grotesque slanders and egregious ad hominem descriptors, then they have outed themselves as being biased and unreliable for accurate information. It's almost like a teenager or someone with the mental capacity of one, is running that propaganda cess pit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's merely a site that studies political bias, along with disinformation and misinformation. Those who criticise the site cannot provide reliable evidence for their claims. It's rather simple.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like most disinfo sources, it's a mix of some accurate information with false information. But clearly they're twisting truth on many of their claims.