https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasf ... one/%3fampAndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:10 pmhttps://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... fa-877914/
Andy Ngo as reported on by Rolling Stone.
Rolling stone as reported by mediabiasfactcheck
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasf ... one/%3fampAndrewJB wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:10 pmhttps://www.rollingstone.com/culture/cu ... fa-877914/
Andy Ngo as reported on by Rolling Stone.
Yes pal. You know the score.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:27 pmIm guessing you meant right of Owen Jones as in the same way that anyone on here to the left of Dominic Reive is an Antifa loving marxist
Rated “high” with factual reporting,Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:19 pmhttps://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasf ... one/%3famp
Rolling stone as reported by mediabiasfactcheck
"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy."
So, factual, but with a liberal bias? They haven’t made this up then?Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:02 pm"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy."
Yes I'd take factual with a right or left bias, but in this instance we are talking about the opinion of a journalist, from a publication described as being misleading and untrustworthy in the following (which I've posted above)
I was pretty clear in what I was saying CharliePeterWilton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:24 pmWhat I think Damo is really trying to say is that yes, Rolling Stone have a reputation for factual reporting but because they are left-leaning we should ignore them.
Yes, they're right about Ngo, but please ignore them because they don't align with Damos political views.
This is one of the things I've noticed about the right, and to a lesser extent on the left, the actual facts of a report don't matter to them if they can demonstrate any kind of political bias. Then they'll go around telling you "facts don't care about your feelings", which I find quite amusing.
Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:25 pmYes I'd take factual with a right or left bias, but in this instance we are talking about the opinion of a journalist, from a publication described as being misleading and untrustworthy in the following (which I've posted above)
"These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy."
It says exactly that Charlie. I'm sure they post some news thats factual, but to completely discredit someone, based on an opinion from an employee from a left wing magazine is more than a bit silly.PeterWilton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:38 pmIn no way does that say that rolling stone is" described as being misleading and untrustworthy".
How can you read media bias fact checks generic warning that some sources with a political leaning "may" be untrustworthy and think that it is a specific statement on this specific source? Were you being deliberately misleading?
This is what your source says about Rolling Stone.Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:55 pmIt says exactly that Charlie. I'm sure they post some news thats factual, but to completely discredit someone, based on an opinion from an employee from a left wing magazine is more than a bit silly.
I know you post some factual stuff from time to time, but I don't think anyone would trust you to write a reference for someone who posts videos of criminal activity by antifa.
Yet you and Andrew are more inclined to take rolling stones opinion as gospel and completely disregard what mediabiasfactcheck and they person who tweeted something, based on nothing more than your own personal bias.
This is why its funny when you get upset and start calling everyone fascist. You have quite a few of those traits yourself
I have no problem with MBFC, i think everything they said about Rolling Stone is true. I'm saying you are lying about what MBFC have said. And I've demonstrated how you're lying.Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:55 pmIt says exactly that Charlie. I'm sure they post some news thats factual, but to completely discredit someone, based on an opinion from an employee from a left wing magazine is more than a bit silly.
I know you post some factual stuff from time to time, but I don't think anyone would trust you to write a reference for someone who posts videos of criminal activity by antifa.
Yet you and Andrew are more inclined to take rolling stones opinion as gospel and completely disregard what mediabiasfactcheck and they person who tweeted something, based on nothing more than your own personal bias.
This is why its funny when you get upset and start calling everyone fascist. You have quite a few of those traits yourself
Forgive me if I don't get caught up in replying to several different posters, from the exact same political standpoint as each other, posting pretty much the exact same thing, but I'm not going to be on for long. So I'm just going to reply to Charlie's new profileGreenmile wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:03 pmThis is what your source says about Rolling Stone.
"Overall, we rate Rolling Stone Left Biased based on strongly left-leaning editorial positions and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record." (emphasis mine)
How can you use that source to claim it’s an untrustworthy publication, irrespective of its political leanings? Or are you claiming that you won’t believe any left-leaning source, even if it’s full of factual, properly sourced info, preferring to take the word of the guy who hangs around with Patriot Prayer, writes for Quillette, and is used as a source by Ringo?
I was watching the game pal. Not reading about it on here like you uber fans
Did you read the rolling stone article Charlie? It was basically all based on the words of an unknown source, with unconfirmed footage. On a page noted as being untrustworthy, and left leaning, forgive me for not accepting it as cast iron proof that someone else was lying.PeterWilton wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:07 pmI have no problem with MBFC, i think everything they said about Rolling Stone is true. I'm saying you are lying about what MBFC have said. And I've demonstrated how you're lying.
You dishonestly used a generic statement about all Left Bias rated stories warning that they May sometimes be dishonest and lied in claiming that it was a specific reference to Rolling Stone.
And don't think it hasn't been noticed that while you're complaining about how people might base their opinions og Andy Ngo on "an opinion from an employee from a left wing magazine" (this is untrue because the editor Green lit the article, and the article cites numerous sources and verifiable facts), you seem to have had absolutely no problem with Ringo using Andy Ngo as a source and didn't bother to try and discredit him as being biased at all. Odd.
OK. So you're switching tactics now to whining about it being an unknown source. The problem is it isn't an unknown source. The journalists at Mercury Portland know exactly who he is, and he provided video evidence of Andy Ngo being present and not doing any journalism as his Patriot Prayer friends talking about how they're going to instigate violence at a protest and what weapons to bring.Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:36 pmDid you read the rolling stone article Charlie? It was basically all based on the words of an unknown source, with unconfirmed footage. On a page noted as being untrustworthy, and left leaning, forgive me for not accepting it as cast iron proof that someone else was lying.
(I know you probably realise that this isn't an endorsement of the tweets that Ringo posted, but I'd expect no less of you than to take it as one)
Some people admit when they’ve got things wrong. It tends to be forgiven, and their reputation for honesty remains intact.Damo wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:36 pmDid you read the rolling stone article Charlie? It was basically all based on the words of an unknown source, with unconfirmed footage. On a page noted as being untrustworthy, and left leaning, forgive me for not accepting it as cast iron proof that someone else was lying.
(I know you probably realise that this isn't an endorsement of the tweets that Ringo posted, but I'd expect no less of you than to take it as one)
Do you think it's worse than his opponent judging people by the colour of their skin? It's another grim choice at this election and I wouldn't like to have to pick one of them.PeterWilton wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:13 amhttps://mobile.twitter.com/atrupar/stat ... 1389463553
He's a big fan of judging people on their genes. That's probably the first time that's ever happened with a world leader and is probably nothing to be too concerned about.
You're going to have a hard time backing that up. Lol.
It's very easy actually.PeterWilton wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:04 pmYou're going to have a hard time backing that up. Lol.
But even if it was true, are you trying to suggest that Trump doesn't judge people on the colour of their skin? Would you like to see the decades of legally documented racism from Trump? Or are you like "nah. They're both the same because Biden said once that black people were poor".
I think I know the answerandroid wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:45 pmIt's very easy actually.
I had not heard about Biden saying black people were poor. I don't follow American politics as closely as you. Biden does seem to regard all black people as the same. He recently said that you ain't black if you vote Republican and he has other form on the same subject.
I was just curious as to why you seem to be silent on Biden's racism when you have been so prolific with your anti Trump posts?
How is that racist again? Im sure you'll be happy to explain.android wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:45 pmIt's very easy actually.
I had not heard about Biden saying black people were poor. I don't follow American politics as closely as you. Biden does seem to regard all black people as the same. He recently said that you ain't black if you vote Republican and he has other form on the same subject.
I was just curious as to why you seem to be silent on Biden's racism when you have been so prolific with your anti Trump posts?
I’ve pointed out anti-Semitic remarks made by Mogg, Braverman, and Johnson, but you’ve always insisted that Corbyn, who has not made any anti-Semitic remarks, is somehow the real anti-Semite, so I doubt we’ll see any balance from you on this.android wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:50 pmIt was racist because Biden was saying that a person's skin colour would determine their vote (at least if they happen to have been born black). It's racist to think that people of the same skin colour should hold the same political opinions and all vote for the same party. This is very basic to be honest and I think deep down you would agree despite your common sense (?) argument to the contrary, which made no sense! You get close to acknowledging the point, as later in your post, you commend Biden for expressing regret for his comment, after you had previously suggested there was nothing wrong.
I think it's good to give people the benefit of the doubt. Even better if it is a political opponent - I practiced what I'm preaching with Corbyn over his racist comment about British Jews. The trouble with Biden is that it's not the only time he's said this kind of thing. I've also heard him say that "unlike black people, with a few notable exceptions, hispanic people have a diverse range of views". So he does seem to have this odd, and let's be frank - racist - view of black people.
I'm surprised you are playing the our racist is better than theirs card. Normally those identifying as politically left wing / "liberal" take a very all or nothing, one strike and you are out, approach to racism. I don't think Greenmile and others will be so forgiving of Biden - then again Damo might be on to something!
You have asked me to comment on Trump so I will at some point but I'm done for today.
This is where you've gone wrong mate, because he's not talking about skin colour there, he's talking about identity.
ImplodingTurtle wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 amI dont think you read me saying/suggesting there was nothing wrong with it. I just said it wasn't racist. If I did suggest there was nothing wrong with it it is only in the context of whether it's racist or not.
I commend him for regretting saying it because I don't think white people should be going around talking about what it means to be black, even if I agree with him.
Oh, come on Andrew, your balanced views are well known. In your view, the use of the term Cultural Marxism amounted to vile anti-semitism but describing British Jews as fundamentally different to us true Brits was ok in the right context. I disagreed. And I didn't insist that Corbyn is an anti-semite so please don't misrepresent me. I reported his afore-mentioned obvious anti-semitic remarks but said it was not enough to convict him in my view, as people can make mistakes. Anyway, these issues have been done to death elsewhere, and we will continue to disagree on this, so let's not derail this thread.
Well.....10/10 for creativity! That's alright then.PeterWilton wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:57 amThis is where you've gone wrong mate, because he's not talking about skin colour there, he's talking about identity.
Again, as I’ve pointed out, Corbyn was referring to the six or so protesters who had heckled the Palestinian Ambassador, for not understanding the history or irony in his speech. Whereas Johnson’s novel depicted a Jewish man in an anti-Semitic way.android wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:54 amOh, come on Andrew, your balanced views are well known. In your view, the use of the term Cultural Marxism amounted to vile anti-semitism but describing British Jews as fundamentally different to us true Brits was ok in the right context. I disagreed. And I didn't insist that Corbyn is an anti-semite so please don't misrepresent me. I reported his afore-mentioned obvious anti-semitic remarks but said it was not enough to convict him in my view, as people can make mistakes. Anyway, these issues have been done to death elsewhere, and we will continue to disagree on this, so let's not derail this thread.
Back on topic...I am going to go out on a limb...I'm guessing that you are fine with Biden's comments about black people. Am I right?
Well the alternative would mean that Biden is saying that some people with black skin literally don't have black skin, and that's just too dumb to be the truth. I get why it's one you'd want to believe though.
Because, of course, the far left Marxist mob would still have turned up mob handed , had he not been a trump supporter.Devils_Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:57 pmNo surprise that Ringo 'lower than a snakes belly' is linking far right twitter accounts and misrepresenting them (or possibly not reading them and/or understanding the full story)
Even Ngo has posted a follow up tweet explaing he did not have the full details when he posted the original claim
So the day before all this happened the arrested suspect threatened his neighbour whilst brandishing a chain saw making them fear for their life. The suspect was obviously arrested.
A demonstration was then held outside this mans house (you can probably imagine his attitude to some of the people of the neighbourhood given the circumstances of his first arrest) and the man started brandishing a gun at the window.
The police were monitoring the situation and made contact with the man and on doing so discovered he was completely intoxicated. At this stage the police quite rightly arrested him for "endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon whilst under the influence of an intoxicant, disorderly conduct while armed and bail jumping" - yes he jumped bail as well
And this my friends is why Ringo's rubbish should be ignored as hateful, misrepresented boll*cks