Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Nope. I called him a jackass, which is perfectly appropriate given the contents of his video. He expected to be taken seriously as a commentator when he demonstrated that he hadn't bothered to read the story he was commenting on. If that doesn't make someone a jackass, I don't know what does.
Ah, so it's ok in your eyes to insult someone with whom you disagree, as long as it's your ideology that people agree with.
Wrong again. There's lots of people whose ideology I disagree with, and yet who I have great respect for.
Conrad Black, for instance. I disagree with his position on almost everything. I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone I disagree with more. And yet, I have no desire to insult Conrad. I have great respect for his writing, love to read his columns. He's erudite, he's reasonable, he's eloquent. Even when he says things that I disagree with 100%, I love to read them because they are beautifully crafted pieces of writing.
Not so with the ranting jackass in your video. Barely coherent, not eloquent, not reasonable, and above all someone who spouted an opinion that wasn't grounded in facts.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Now I know you're part of the authoritarian crowd as well, similar to jimboston.
I really have to shake my head at that one. I've had my own disagreements with Jim, but the last thing on earth that I would call him is authoritarian.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Duk, he did bother to read the story, and is calling out the MSM for pushing the fake narrative that she was in her bed sleeping when she was shot, or that she was an innocent EMT doing nothing wrong. They had probable cause to suspect she was involved in a drug-lord operation.
He was calling them out for a lot more than that. For one thing, he stressed at the beginning that the police were lawfully executing a warrant against Walker. He STRESSED that. It was not some minor "misspeak" as you would have it. It was the keystone of his argument. When he read down to the part that contradicted him, he was surprised and momentarily speechless. This proves two things: that his keystone argument was wrong, and that he hadn't actually read the article before he started commenting on it.
At that point, he did apologise for being wrong, and I did give credit where credit was due, and said "to his credit, he did apologise when he found out he was wrong"
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:I didn't look at your second link the first time around, but I did now. Looks like they did exactly like the Post: they evaluated the story (as they should), they consulted with experts (as they should) and then they decided the story is probably false and fairly reported it as such. That's exactly what a good newspaper does: checks out a story, consults with experts about the technical details, and brings its readers a fair assessment. This includes pronouncing stories as probably false if that's what they are. So, again, I ask: which part of this do you think they should not have done?
Dude. You had MSM people saying it
was a green screen, not saying they would investigate whether or not there was a green screen.
If that's the case, you've presented no evidence of it. Both the links you posted pointed to stories where the relevant media outlets investigated the story and clearly indicated it was false.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Two different things... A good media source checks out a story, consults with experts, then publishes it if it turns out to be true.
That might be the case if they are brought a story in confidence. Then yes, they investigate and find out if it's true before publishing. But if the story is already publicly circulating, then people are already asking themselves if it's true or not. At that point, it's the media's job to respond and answer the question.
Jdsizzleslice wrote: A bad media source pushes out stories ahead of time, offering no correction when proven wrong, or outright pushes out fake news in order to deceive. The MSM is mostly made up of bad or fraudulent media sources today. So many articles today are conspiracy theories or smear pieces.
Absolutely wrong. The fact that you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Most media outlets work hard at verifying the facts they publish.
Jdsizzleslice wrote:Dukasaur wrote:As for your last part, I left it in the quote, though I don't know what to make of it. How would it cause me to freak out and feel chaos and fear to find out that Trump did or didn't use a green screen in his video?
Because the narrative is that Trump is so sick he couldn't go outside to film a short video, so they set up a green screen for him to film indoors.
Why would that cause anyone to freak out? I think most people would be delighted if he had to stay in bed and shut his trap for a few days.