Is there any particular issue that he reported on that leads you to say that? I don't keep very close track of these kinds of news personalities, but the couple videos a month of his that I have watched over the past year or two led me to the opinion that I stated in my previous post. I also don't expect to agree with a news commentator on everything, but I respect the ones that seem to try to do their best to focus on things that are objectively true.
but he doesn't focus on things that are objectively true, he may try to appear that way, but so does a jew
he will actively have evidence for things and then openly state "i don't believe it" he's an ostrich, and I suspect the reason he went "guest mode" when he said he never would was because he was realizing when it's just him on the screen his own failings are ever more present, he doesn't like to share the spotlight but he must because he knows he doesn't have enough intellectual honesty or critical thinking skills to judge things accordingly, he's made video's openly addressing his "fence sitting"
being a fence sitter isn't admirable, it just shows you can't make up your mind on things because you are too easily swayed by any argument using any frame of morality as a claim to righteous arguments, which is probably a good indication he doesn't actually have any of his own.
I don't know enough about him to get into all of what you said, but I will say that "Being a fence sitter" has it's place. It's valuable and important to be able to understand why the other side believes what they do. If you're talking to someone who has zero opinions about politics and you're not capable of presenting a persuasive argument for why the other guy believes what they do then you're probably not very well equipped to defend your own beliefs.
There's only so much that you can learn about the other peoples beliefs from someone who is 100% on the other side like your average msnbc commentator. Fence sitters who look at an analyze the reasonable parts of both sides help to fill in those gaps. They also are useful to people who aren't experienced with political issues to show them the process for dissecting an issue, considering the evidence, and reasoning their way to a position on an issue that they feel is the right one to support. You don't usually get that kind of analyses from people who are already far in one camp or another because they tend to preach to people who share their views. They focus on propping up those who agree and criticizing those who disagree. Like look at Jimmy Dore, he is a bernie-style leftist who mostly focuses on criticizing democrats. He does not spend much time discussing his reasoning for his beliefs, only his reasoning for his criticisms of other democrats.
I don't know enough about him to get into all of what you said, but I will say that "Being a fence sitter" has it's place.
I can assume you mean "being one while information is still coming in" right?
and that once information is done coming in about a subject and there is sufficient information to draw a conclusion, then fence sitting time is over right?
Tim is a perpetual fence sitter, i've watched him long enough to go from being happy someone new in the world of "journalism" came on the scene, when he was talking about doing actual on scene reporting again, to being disgusted by the sound of his voice...that doesn't happen because of "one instance" of anything except maybe child abuse.
he got donations to help get a "van" set up all nice so he could do in the field reporting...well before covid that went away and now he just sits and fence sits all day
i've been done with him for awhile now
(post is archived)