Media Bias

[Redux]

17 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If someone posted this on HB, the first thing we'd do is ask "how so?, where are you seeing this?"

 

Followed by a smear campaign of said source once cited 

[DevoHusker]

25 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If someone posted this on HB, the first thing we'd do is ask "how so?, where are you seeing this?"

 

Random people on Twitter making claims (even though they may be true) is silly without citing their sources.

 

I'm so sick of social media...

 

 

 

 

Did you have info to "debunk" any of random dude Tom's points?

8 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Followed by a smear campaign of said source once cited 

[RedDenver]

21 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Did you have info to "debunk" any of random dude Tom's points?

Random dude needs to prove his own claims, or you should find supporting evidence for those claims if you're asserting that they are true. Claiming a bunch of stuff without supporting it is a technique known as "gish galloping".

 

Quote

The Gish gallop is a term for a rhetorical technique in which a debater attempts to overwhelm an opponent by excessive number of arguments, without regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

 

[DevoHusker]

9 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Random dude needs to prove his own claims, or you should find supporting evidence for those claims if you're asserting that they are true. Claiming a bunch of stuff without supporting it is a technique known as "gish galloping".

 

 

Thanks for the new term. Never heard of it.

 

I did see this was attached to random Tom's info regarding "Russia Russia Russia" and all that entangled.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/572861-clinton-lawyers-indictment-reveals-bag-of-tricks?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

[DevoHusker]

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Random dude needs to prove his own claims, or you should find supporting evidence for those claims if you're asserting that they are true. Claiming a bunch of stuff without supporting it is a technique known as "gish galloping".

 

 

I saw this last week regarding the Whitmer ordeal

 

 

[RedDenver]

22 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Thanks for the new term. Never heard of it.

 

I did see this was attached to random Tom's info regarding "Russia Russia Russia" and all that entangled.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/572861-clinton-lawyers-indictment-reveals-bag-of-tricks?amp&__twitter_impression=true

 

Jonathan Turley is not a good source of unbiased info. A lot of the links in that opinion piece are back to his own articles.

 

Having said that, the indictment looks pretty bad, but I'll want more expert analysis of it as I'm not certain what the facts are at this point.

 

17 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I saw this last week regarding the Whitmer ordeal

 

 

Yes, the police (and FBI) have been able to setup sting operations for decades. Seems like the government shouldn't be able to entrap people like this, but it's been allowed by the courts. And cops are human and commit crimes like domestic abuse, which shouldn't be a surprise anymore.

 

Entrapment like this is one of things I'd like to see defunded from the police (or legislated out of existence since "defunded" is a naughty political word these days).

[Jason Sitoke]

43 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Random dude needs to prove his own claims, or you should find supporting evidence for those claims if you're asserting that they are true. Claiming a bunch of stuff without supporting it is a technique known as "gish galloping".

 

 

I thought we just called that 'bullsh**ing'?

[RedDenver]

Just now, Jason Sitoke said:

I thought we just called that 'bullsh**ing'?

We could, but I reserve that for false claims. Gish galloping can also be a whole bunch of minor points that don't add much strength to the argument or statements, that while true, don't really support the argument being made. The main component of gish galloping is the volume of statements - it's meant to distract from and overwhelm the main points of the argument with tangents.

[DevoHusker]

57 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Jonathan Turley is not a good source of unbiased info. A lot of the links in that opinion piece are back to his own articles.

 

Having said that, the indictment looks pretty bad, but I'll want more expert analysis of it as I'm not certain what the facts are at this point.

@Reduxcalled it.

 

Why is he not a good source? 

 

I agree some of his current allegations were by his previous positions, which isn't definitive by any means. 

 

But it doesn't make him wrong.

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

Did you have info to "debunk" any of random dude Tom's points?

No I don't.  I even said he may be right.

 

It just seems dumb to me though.  Usually when people make pretty big statements they try to back it up with....something.

[RedDenver]

 

12 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Why is he not a good source? 

 

I agree some of his current allegations were by his previous positions, which isn't definitive by any means. 

 

But it doesn't make him wrong.

Turley is like many partisan writers who try to only look at the facts that support his side of the story. I used to follow him years ago but stopped when he wouldn't acknowledge facts or evidence that went against his narrative. You're welcome to read his stuff and make your own assessment.

 

I didn't say Turley was wrong in this case, and in fact I looked at the actual indictment and said it looks pretty bad. Turley doesn't have to always be wrong for him to be biased, but him being biased IMO means extra scrutiny should be given to his claims.

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

No I don't.  I even said he may be right.

 

It just seems dumb to me though.  Usually when people make pretty big statements they try to back it up with....something.

I agree with you. But find it funny/odd that most folks in the responding  tweets have nothing to refute his points, other than their own vitriol and opnions.

[RedDenver]

4 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I agree with you. But find it funny/odd that most folks in the responding  tweets have nothing to refute his points, other than their own vitriol and opnions.

Twitter responses are either funny or vitriol, sometimes both. Rarely is anything of substance put in the responses. It's not really a good forum for in-depth discussion.

[funhusker]

8 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

I agree with you. But find it funny/odd that most folks in the responding  tweets have nothing to refute his points, other than their own vitriol and opnions.

That's what makes social media so dumb...

[DevoHusker]

10 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Twitter responses are either funny or vitriol, sometimes both. Rarely is anything of substance put in the responses. It's not really a good forum for in-depth discussion.

It's my go to for quick responses to my newsreel items of interest, but definitely agree it's not suited for actual/informative discourse.

9 minutes ago, funhusker said:

That's what makes social media so dumb...

But virtually unavoidable