Printable View
To be fair, I'm guessing the people you typically would hang with probably aren't the types who would say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There are probably also people who don't do certain drugs because they're illegal. Whether how many people that saves from addiction makes up for the costs of having drugs illegal is another question.
Maybe because whenever it does happen, someone decides to have a hissy fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
you admit to a commitment to 'call me out' any time it happens. No wonder it's become noticeable.Quote:
If you keep quoting Fox News like it's some respected source of information, you can expect to be called out on it
Lol, only one person having a hissy fit here mate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sure, and if someone made a habit out of quoting CNN, MSNBC, or Breitbart the same would happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How is it a habit? Again, what is the score? What % of my posts make it a habit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've quoted CNN and MSNBC multiple times as well. Where was the outrage then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not going through your 560 posts to make a count of who you've cited and how often.
Maybe you can do it and report back on how objective your sources have been?
If you quoted other shit sources too then I'm sorry I missed it. I hate to break this to you, but I don't read every single thing you post.
Just within this thread....Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Washington Examiner - 1
NY Times - 2
Drugwarfacts.org - 1
NH.gov - 1
Fox News - 2
Wikipedia - 1
FiveThirtyEight.com - 1
Washington POst - 1
Time.com - 1
Source.Wustle.edu - 1
ElementsBehavioralHealth.com - 1
CBS News - 1
Narconon.org - 1
Heroin.net - 1
TheCannabist - 1
USA Today - 1
BuzzFeed - 1
As predicted, Fox News is less than 20% of my cited sources. In fact, it's nearly half that, 10.5%.
I admit, it is my most quoted source at nearly double all the others. Though, it is tied for the top spot with its diametric opposite, the NY Times. So there is hardly evidence of partisan bias.
Also, according to you, Fox has no competition. So if we're really doing the partisan score keeping, Fox, and it's 2 citations go in the right column. The NY times, WaPo, Buzzfeed, and CBS News are all on the same side (according to you), and they make up 5 of the 19....more than a quarter! Clearly I'm some kind of bleeding heart alt-leftist.
Lots of salt ITT allofasudden
You guys make it look like a Bonairean salt pan
https://i.imgur.com/qXkbTpz.jpg
That's salt BTW, not ice.
That's nice but I never said you used Fox repeatedly in this thread only (although it turns out you did). Thanks for making my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You really learn nothing when you get shown how you twist people's words. You just keep doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
"Fox has no competition for the right-wing MSM" is what I said. That doesn't mean it's the only source of right-wing bias out there.
The context of the citations is what's important here. Citing sources != agreeing with them. I could cite Fox News, comment 'lol', and that would hardly be a ringing endorsement of whatever they said. How many of those citations from the NYTimes were you agreeing with I wonder?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And you've also managed another trick there, which was to make the argument about something it wasn't.
So basically, you argue things by 1) twisting others' words so they mean something else; 2) turning an argument about one thing into an argument about something else where you can be 'right'; 3) never backing down an inch on anything; and/or 4) calling people names.
And then you wonder why you get called a troll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Whatever you say big guy
Quote:
Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox (Wikipedia). Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/
Word of advice: anything is better than the least accurate one.
But don’t mind me, carry on
That is actually pretty cool looking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Says who? Fox? LOL, they're full of shit. It's obviously baby powder, at least until CNN tells me it's ok to believe it's salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Nono, don't dismiss the argument. I think most philosophers have now agreed that whatever is highest rated is therefore true.
And politifact isn't biased???Quote:
has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact.
You know they're owned by a company that, according to the site you just linked, has a liberal bias?
Surely there is a reason that Politifact's creator declares that his "truth-o-meter" is entirely subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It’s the island right next door to my own. I think Bigred also went there a fuckton of years ago.
Damn, I’m starting to feel old now
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As long as they don’t get you to believe fervently in alternative facts, you’re ok
I think spoon is getting too much shit so I'm going to be on his side for a bit.
I must have been reading fake news, I thought you lived in the Netherlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biases sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups”. They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a “Truth-O-Meter” rating. The ratings range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” (from the taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”) for false and ridiculous claims. (Wikipedia) This is the gold standard for political fact checking.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/
But if you ask Fox News, every other organization in the world is biased and left leaning. Does not matter if they are in news, making cars, a brothel or a dog food factory. They are ALL biased and left-leaning.
And they'd be correct, because they are 'fair and balanced'. And also because they have lots of viewers and people are suckers for the objective truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
So when the RNC claimed that the unemployment rate for black youths went up under President Obama, politifact said that was false.
When Bernie Sanders cited the exact same study to claim how blacks were struggling more than whites, politifact said that was true.
Sounds totally unbiased to me.
Can't believe you guys are still harping on this Fox News nonsense. The only salient fact contained in the link that I posted was regarding statistical figures furnished by an official government agency.
Now we're off on a tangent about how credible they are, and personally attacking anyone who has a different opinion than you do about them.
Are border apprehensions down 40%, or is that a filthy Fox lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://www.insidesources.com/politifact-bias/
Cliffs:
Quote:
Quote:
“All you have to do is look into the piece written about the RNC where it was mostly false,” Sharockman noted. “They said unemployment, the EPI study said underemployment. Any labor reporter would know that underemployment is not unemployment.”
Just alternative facts, scum aren't they.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Hahaha, I’m Dutch, but I live in the Caribbean.
See, the Netherlands is a wee bit complicated. Because, empire.
Obligatory explanation video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc&t=72s
First, you're the only one defending them. So if you want to topic to switch to something else, basically all you have to do is stop talking about Fox News yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Second, you probably shouldn't accuse other people of personally attacking others ITT.
I wouldn't have to defend them, if I wasn't being personally attacked for reading themQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You deserved it. Ass holeQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Wait so you used to be Belgiums bitch? No wonder you all get off on being bossed about by Brussels 200 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
That is complicated. You'll forgive me if I just got confused about three minutes in and shut it off.
Also, I think you should get your own flag instead of just turning the French one by 90 degrees ;)
Wow you must be thirsty having all that salt. Drink some water before you shrivel up.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not sea water though it's full of..... illegals trying to get into the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Nah, they mostly just walk across the open border. Don't want to get their drugs wet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Island master race checking in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Who needs a wall when you have a moat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Thankfully we didn't, If we would, the main flag would be probably 100% orange, with a 8-bit black lion on top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Everyone used to be Belgium's bitch. That Leopold was a real bastard. E.g. he fucking bought the Congo, and hunted people there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
But they do have great chocolate nowadays, so credit where credit's due.
When god gives you an inbuilt wall you know he's on your side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not England pal. I think you'll find we have a pretty impeccable record on the big stage. May have lost a few smaller games we didn't care about but two great results on the world stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Bananastand, you quoted twitter as a source as to how biased politifact is
Bananastand, you quoted twitter as a source
Bananastand, you quoted twitter
On a serious note
Quote:
Bryan White, who operates the blog PolitiFactBias, did an analysis and according to Human Events found “PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous, and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat-out lied nine times more often than liberals.
This is the sort of thing that is hard to argue for. See, listen to Louie Gohmert talking for a while. You will find many things he says that are simply incorrect. Listen to Donald Trump for a while. He throws lies out there like nothing. Candies.
Obama wiretapped me! Evidence? Fuck all.
Sean Spicer. The Alt facts chick. Paul Ryan. Mitch McConnell. I can make an excel sheet worth of all out bonafide caught liars on the Republican Party, caught redhanded, straight up lying to you people and still no repercussions to it because people simply have no idea.
I mean, you don’t need any news sites telling you this. You can hear and see it for yourself.
When non-right politicians lie, we should be on their asses as well. And republicans do that with aplomb. But the right politicians make lying like their order of business, and anyone who dares disagree with or question them then becomes the liar. Goddamn.
Also, don’t forget to drain the swamp!
Dutch people are more businessmen than fighters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Very neutral in conflicts, also never looking for conflict. But the Belgians, hmmm
Well you got wiped by the Normans, worked over by the Vikings and would have been buttplugged by the Spanish if your weather wasn't so bad. And losing the US wasn't exactly a minor defeat. Other than that, though you've pretty much won everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Reminds me of the meeting between Thatcher and Kohl during the 80s. Germany had just beat England in football and Kohl said 'haha we beat you at your national sport' and Thatcher said 'that's ok, we beat you at your national sport twice in a row'
You're not allowed to make the same joke that I already made in my post (which I did in a much cleverererer way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I like what Frum said about this. If Trump and his gang tell you 'everyone lies' then the idea is that you can't be upset when they lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
What is interesting is that in the UK we have a big rivalry with germany in football yet in germany it's not that big a deal for them and they much more care about the netherlands.
I wonder how those numbers would change if Trump was on the other team.Quote:
Bryan White, who operates the blog PolitiFactBias, did an analysis and according to Human Events found “PolitiFact is not that honest fact-checker. Once widely regarded as a unique, rigorous, and reasonably independent investigator of political claims, PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals. More pointedly, the journalism organization concludes that conservatives have flat-out lied nine times more often than liberals.
I've heard this, and wondered wtf do they have against the dutch? Then I wondered who would be their 'natural' rivals - Historically they haven't really played favourites in war so it can't be based on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Must be the windmills; that would drive anyone batshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But the devil, as usual, is in the fucking details.
It says “PolitiFact now declares conservatives wrong three times more often than liberals” But what if the conservatives were actually wrong? It only states that they are declared wrong more, not if the wrong declaration is actually justified or not. Just that, according to this Brian White, for Politifact to be unbiased they should declare liberals equal times wrong as conservaties.
DUC what he did there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
England has rugby, cricket, etc.
Holland basically only gives a shit about football. You should see how the country becomes when there is a national game against anyone. Everything becomes orange.
Germany is just like this about their football. And then that is how we go to war.
Do the numbers mean anything if they are based on subjective criteria employed by biased individuals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I DC. It would be funny (and pretty much blow away their argument) if you put Trump in the liberal camp and the ratio swung entirely the other way due to him alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I agree it's wrong to assume the baseline amount of lying is equal and the reporting is biased. Still, I think they may have some point - 3:1 seems a bit large. One possibility is that conservatives get checked more because they're more associated with lying and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way.
Another is as I implied above that the cons just have a few very big liars and that swings it. Can't be bothered to look it over in detail myself though and sort it all out.
Dude.....the game is called 'soccer'Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
No they would not. But no-one has established that what you say is the case yet, all you have are more cons being caught lying than libs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How is it not established? The creator of politifact himself admits the criteria is entirely subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Says you and hundreds of millions of indoctrinated anti-conservatives. Do you see why the liberal agenda is so pervasive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The funny thing about England is they excel at no particular sport but are passionate about them all. Whenever a big tourney comes up people start going mad and are all rah rah England and flying flags, and then they're out after three games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
After that it's all 'well the coach sucked and the players sucked and we should have known this would happen.' It makes me think, well if you know your team sucks why are you getting all excited about it?
Um, subjective doesn't mean systematically biased. Moreover, if he tried to claim the criteria were completely objective, he'd be guilty of talking shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Says you and hundreds of millions of indoctrinated anti-liberals. Do you see why the conservative agenda is so pervasive?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, the reason I can't be bothered to go through hundreds of fact-checks and their sources is because a) I have a life already thank you; and b) I'm not using them to argue for my beliefs.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
We have one of the best rugby teams in the world currently (only team to be ranked #1 except NZ).
Our cricket test team has been ranked #1 in the world not that long ago and has been on top in the ashes along with some great performances against other top teams recently. Our one day team has gone from being a laughing stock to up there with the best & we should have won the T20 world cup.
Football we're a top 16 side in the world and at stages through my life we've been a top 8 side in the world. We also have by far the best national league in the world. This isn't the same as having the best team in the world but at various points in the past 10-15 years we've had teams at that level (I mean we had two all english semi finals in the CL).
We've also been doing pretty great at Olympics for the past 12 years.
It kinda does if that subjective criteria is not applied in a objectively consistent way. In other words, over time, the results of these determinations will mirror the internal biases of the person doing the fact-checking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
lol "empire"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
To be fair, the Dutch did have a pretty impressive empire for a shitty little country surrounded by bigger assholes.
When you're competing with countries with a third of your population how is that anything to be proud of?Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Not a sport. Next.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
You haven't won a major tourney since 1966 afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
That's a nonsense argument. If you have a good market for football teams in your country, that isn't because your nationals are the best players in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Also, I should point out I was mostly referring to football ITP. I don't notice people going mad over any other sports, barring the Olympics when they were in London.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And this is the thing with Fox News in particular
We don't have a bad national side. Recently it's been boring and poor relative but our team in the early 70s was better than when we won the world cup, our team in the 80s and 90s was very good. Even now it's still a very good football team just not close to winning anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also Tennis.
I can't think of any sports we don't have a pretty amazing team or individual players in those sports for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Let me see, it's a ball and you kick it with your foot
“Football” is appropriate imo
How handegg somehow became football I’ll never understand ;)
I admit to not following anything but hockey since I got the ability to stream games, so things may have changed laterly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
My recollection of tennis is this latest guy is the first good player you've had (also isn't he Scottish?) pretty much ever. The Tim whatshisname was the big player when I moved here and so that's my prism.
'Very good' at football and yet 'not close to winning anything' seems an odd combination of descriptions to me.
We prefer 'eggball' I'll have you know (or at least I do since Ong coined the term)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
PatriotismQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://i.imgur.com/4ZZOAFe.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://i.imgur.com/EzrhntQ.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Tim Henman was a very good tenis player he was just never an elite tennis player. This is a classic example of England supporting the underdog at Wimbledon then getting really mad when he gets to the last 4 and loses. Murray on the other hand is an elite tennis player, not the best in the world but capable of beating anyone. If anything he's unlucky to play Tennis at a time when Nadal, Fed and more importantly Djok were just so good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And the football thing isn't at all. As I said we're a top 16 side in the world and used to be a top 8 side. That makes you a very good footballing team. How often does the 8th seed win a tournament? That 8th seed would be doing find getting to quarter and semi finals unless the media booked him as winning it every tournament.
The problem in this country is we big up our sports teams massively and then are the first people to crucify them.
January - February is usually a good month to border cross. Less heat means 1 less obstacle to crossing.
I havent researched / reached out to other jurisdictions, but illegal border crossings in mine are substantially down from where they usually are around this time of year. The guess is that its because of people getting scared of Trump, but theres obviously no way to prove that.
How hard is it to prove whether that's a good thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Also in my previous post I meant you get a bias sample not that you are bias as a starting point. I imagine you make better decisions than most on most of the information you get.
I've seen lots of anecdotes to that effect. Law enforcement and those who favor it are emboldened. The cost to being here illegally has increased tremendously.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Did this make you relate with me more? Am I more of your friend? It was said on QI and as a result you either watched it on QI or someone else you speak to passed it off as a bit of information they know and they got it from QI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I imagine the answers to all of this is yes I'm just wondering the impact of you realising this and the impact on my approach. I'd usually say my source (originally went to post it even in that post) but maybe this is a bad approach. Or maybe I don't remember that fact but I watch QI is a better result for the general person.
So are those burning crucifixes on black peoples lawns.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I have no idea how that could be demonstrated. It can be pretty easily explained with reason though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
If we take labor for example, illegal labor undermines those who are most responsible for order, which ultimately makes sense as being a net loss to society. It's funny how the Trump election is in part backlash by those most responsible for order being tired of being undermined.
One is wrong and dumb and the other isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
They're both up. For sake of argument though mine is a lot more measurable.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Think of what your original point was, reread your post a times, think of what your point was again and then whether you think it is actually a good post. Let me know your conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy