• Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.

    Ok, and do you do that for the pro-democrat articles? I mean, since you are being so fair and all.

    If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.

    I’m not defensive, as I didn’t write the article, nor do I work for that news org.

    It’s just that I noticed that you don’t do it for pro-democrat articles, but maybe i missed where you have.

    So have you been doing it for the news orgs that skew pro-democrat bias? Because you do realize that media bias goes both directions, right? You know, since it’s “It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion” of posts and all.

    And again, this is a political news community, not just a pro-democrat/pro-harris political community.

    • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “I’m not defensive…”

      Oh yeah, totally can tell from your normal and not weirdly defensive responses. /s

        • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean …sort of all of it (“Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?”) and the quantity as well. It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments. Must be exhausting.

          • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            So let me get this straight. A guy decided to post a history of the news org wrote the news article that I posted.

            I told him I thought was a strange response. He replied that he felt it was a biased news source and wanted to let everyone know.

            And I asked him if he did that for other articles as well. And you think me asking that is “weirdly defensive”?

            It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments

            Please show me one “freak out” that I have had? I reply to comments with the same tone that is offered to me. And many times, in a much nicer tone than is offered to me.

            Several comments that people have said to me have been removed, while mine have not. Doesn’t sound like the freak out is on my side.

            I’m not freak out at all or even upset by commenters on Lemmy. This is zero affect on my real life.

            You seem to know an awful lot about my comments and my so-called “freak outs.” Maybe you are reading a bit much into it, friend.

            Maybe you mistake my wordiness for freaking out. I type fast because I’m a writer. None of this takes up much of my time, nor troubles me.

            Let me guess tho: I’ve been very wordy in my response to you. So this is yet another example of my “weird defensiveness” and “freaking out.” Yes?

            • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              Bwhahahahaha! Well done! Wow, you really went for it.

              Or if you were being serious - what a weirdly defensive reply. But that’s par for the course isn’t?

              • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                2 months ago

                Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words.

                But hey, I was right that you would think it was a weirdly defensive reply, so we can be friends now, right?

                Oh wait…crap! You probably think that this was a weirdly defensive reply too. Dammit! Oh man, we may not be able to break the cycle!

                • geekwithsoul@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words

                  Wow, so uncivil! Now edging from “weirdly defensive” to just “weird”. Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

                  • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    19
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    I was only assuming since you saw what I was saying as weirdly defensive and I couldn’t see any other reason you would think that. So I was incorrect? It wasn’t the amount of words that made me seem weirdly defensive then?

                    Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

                    You seem awfully interested in my post history. I feel so important now. Thank you!

    • davitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn’t obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn’t owe you anything.

      Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.

      • Socialist Mormon Satanist@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        He’s free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case

        Agreed. He’s totally free to do that.

        And I’m free to let him know that I didn’t think it really added to the conversation. Which I did.

        So you would you be totally cool with me going down every single pro-harris article and giving a brief history of how that news org leans democrat?

        How long do you think I could do that before being accused of being a troll?

        Should we list the bias of every news org for every article? Or just the ones you all don’t like? Cuz I’m cool with doing that if you are.