Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

That's actually the NY times. But same thing.

[–] • 2 pts

Hey I don’t think Iv asked you yet. Pm me a picture of your dick

[–] • 2 pts

Excuse me?

[–] • 2 pts

Take a picture of your dick. Send it to my inbox. Nobody will know

[–] • 4 pts

(((Werzel)))

[–] • 3 pts

I have my suspicions about Caufield too. Irish name, but he doesn't look even remotely Irish.

[–] • 0 pt

Trans irish before it was cool

[–] • 4 pts

The mental gymnastics is strong here. There were too many quotable excerpts so I didn't list any. Essentially the article is trying to steer you away from non official sources telling you that you're wasting your valuable time trying to deconstruct information. I suggest reading the article because the mental gymnastics is amusing.

[–] • 3 pts

Influenced by the research of Sam Wineburg

Good goy

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Lmao

  1. Stop.
  2. Investigate the source.
  3. Find better coverage.
  4. Trace claims, quotes and media to the original context.

Ie. Trust the experts! Jewish media has a monopoly on the truth goy.

In all seriousness though, this is cleverly written. The basic message is "you're an important person, your time is valuable and these people are taking advantage of you to waste your time."

He is very careful never to call the reader stupid, which is impressive since he's basically saying they're too much of a gullible idiot to be trusted with non MSM sources.

[–] • 2 pts

The wordsmithing is top notch. My guess is this op-ed was written by (((committee)))

[–] • 1 pt

>Find better coverage

Listen to what WE tell you, goy.

[–] • 1 pt

(((He))) did say the SF writers are 'much better at propaganda than you are'. Nazis win...AGAIN!

[–] • 2 pts

That's also protection though. The real misinformation sites are the MSM sites, like NYT and WaPo, and these people ARE much better at propaganda than you. It's their vocation, their calling.

It's a very jewish thing to do. They accuse their opponents of the misconduct that they themselves are doing.

[–] • 0 pt

That's the verbal trickery that I'm always talking about. They're born experts at it. Their pilpul is absolutely astounding in its fastidiousness. There's a reason they've historically had to wear yellow stars as a warning to others: they've earned it. The fuckers think they can out-wit GOD— that alone should encapsulate the pure evil that is the jewish mindset. It's actually very befitting of the children of the father of lies, to have this skill.

[–] • 2 pts

“Is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the best, unbiased source on information about a vaccine? I’d argue no. And that’s good enough to know we should probably just move on,” he said.

This is a great statement. When I see CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Oprah, Cuomo, O'Donnell, or WaPo, that is good enough to know we should be moving on.

[–] • 2 pts

“If this is not a claim where I have a depth of understanding, then I want to stop for a second and, before going further, just investigate the source,” Mr. Caulfield said. He copied Mr. Kennedy’s name in the Instagram post and popped it into Google. “Look how fast this is,” he told me as he counted the seconds out loud. In 15 seconds, he navigated to Wikipedia and scrolled through the introductory section of the page, highlighting with his cursor the last sentence, which reads that Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.

They're literally advocating their readers engage in the logical fallacy of "gult by association (fallacyfiles.org)." This can be fun. For example, you can point out to vegans that Hitler was a vegetarian and therefore you find vegetarians/vegans distasteful.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

"Mr. Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and a conspiracy theorist.". Gee that sounds defamatory, doesn't it?.

The author would have to prove Kennedy is against all vax, and that it isn't actually a conspiracy perpetuated by multiple entities.

If only 99% are doing it, could any logical and reasonable conclusion be reached?

[–] • 0 pt

It doesn't matter. The speaker doesn't have an effect on the objective truth of a statement. It's a logical impossibility. Otherwise, a statement could be true when uttered by one individual and the very same statement could then be false when said by another.

[–] • 2 pts

Sounds just like the religious telling you not to listen to the non-believers and just accept the dogma.

[–] • 1 pt

"TrUsT In ThE LoRd"

"Trust tHe pLaN"

"TrUsT ThE SyStEm"

"TrUsT ThE ScIeNcE"

"TrUST thE SoUrCeS"

[–] • 0 pt

Lol I'm gonna sit here and watch this comment get ignored...

[–] • 0 pt

You want me to bring you a sandwich and a cup of coffee?

[–] • 1 pt

Make it two! I'm partial to Reubens... with grilled a ribeye on top.

[–] • 0 pt

Don't forget to wash the dishes suzy. Beer better be cold too

[–] • 1 pt

>Stormfront, a white supremacist message board, to try to understand r

𝒾𝓉𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓇ℯ𝒹𝒾𝒷𝓁ℯ 𝒽ℴ𝓌 𝓉𝒽ℯ ℴ𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃ℊ 𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓎 𝒸𝒶𝓃 ℯ𝓋ℯ𝓇 𝒸ℴ𝓂ℯ 𝓊𝓅 𝓌ℴ𝓉𝒽 𝒾𝓈 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝓉ℯ 𝓈𝓊𝓅𝓇ℯ𝓂𝒶𝒸𝓎.

𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓇ℯ 𝒾𝓈 𝓃ℯ𝓋ℯ𝓇 𝒶𝓃𝓎 ℴ𝓉𝒽ℯ𝓇 𝓂𝒾𝓈𝒾𝓃𝒻ℴ𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾ℴ𝓃.

ℴ𝓃𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽ℯ 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝓉ℯ 𝓅ℯℯ𝓅ℴ 𝒷𝒶𝒹.

[–] • 1 pt

-researching a claim should only take 30 60 or 90 seconds.

-It’s best to trust the top search results that Google returns because lower ranked search results may be confusing.

-Quickly check Wikipedia to determine if something is worth your time and attention. If Wikipedia disparages the idea turn away from it.

-Going to websites like storm front will not make you less racist because they are better at propaganda than the best marketing firms.

Holy fuck. At least they had to publish it in the opinion section.

[–] • 1 pt

Here's a better plan -- always doubt when you see the word "consensus."

Facts are either true or not, no matter who or how many vote for lies.

[–] • 2 pts

Particularly in scientific matters. This bullshit of “scientific consensus” that gets thrown around in recent years, seemingly because of the climate change debate, displays an astounding ignorance of what science actually is. Who gives a fuck if a lot of people who regard themselves as scientists believe a particular thing to be true, science is a process by which hypotheses are proven to be true. And it only takes one person with the right data and methodology to prove something to be true or not by using the scientific method. If every other self-identified scientist disagrees with that one person it matters not unless they can similarly utilise data and methodology to disprove them.

[–] • 0 pt

I would make a distinction in that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. It is not whether your hypothesis can be proven, it is whether it cannot be disproven. A scientific theory may hold for some time, even though it is not technically correct, until a more accurate or detailed experiment can be devised to falsify the original theory.

Pretty much all of the climate nonsense is unscientific in that they present an unfalsifiable hypothesis. They end up making models which are non-physical (i.e. not based on the laws of physics) that merely serve to generate "data" that reinforce the biases of their makers because their biases were built into the models.

It has now progressed (or has been progressed) to the point where a new quasi religion is forming. Whether this was spontaneous and co-opted or planned from the start isn't yet clear, but it is being thrust forth as the new global religion that I call scientism. It looks, from the outside, a bit like science. But it isn't. The "scientists" are the new bishops and cardinals. They will tell you what to believe and any who oppose are heretics who are labelled "deniers".

Load more (18 replies)