| General > General Technical Chat |
| Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back |
| << < (44/61) > >> |
| wraper:
--- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 10:00:54 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 04, 2022, 06:09:29 am ---(That Hunter Biden laptop is a particularly sore point for me, because when I mentioned it in some face-to-face discussion here in Finland, I was labeled a "conspiracy theorist". Our beloved Finnish newsmedia still hasn't reported on it, probably because they find the topic "distasteful". That's the level of "world's free-est journos" for you.) --- End quote --- No, I think they were right in accusing you of believing in, a conspiracy theory ("conspiracy theorist"). On the one hand, at some level, it is true that there is such a claim, (Hunter Biden laptop). But, as I understand it, it is NOT acknowledged (genuinely/cleanly proved), to be a verified/true piece of evidence. --- End quote --- Laptop authenticity already admitted by NYT and WAPO which earlier dismissed it as Russian hoax. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: wraper on May 04, 2022, 11:48:02 am ---Laptop authenticity already admitted by NYT and WAPO which earlier dismissed it as Russian hoax. --- End quote --- But, that is NOW, in relatively recent times. Presumably, when others called Nominal Animal, a "conspiracy theorist", it was well before article(s), such as the following, were publicly available. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10624113/NYT-finally-admits-Hunter-Bidens-laptop-real-year-DailyMail-com-confirmed-authenticity.html Dated: "PUBLISHED: 20:11, 17 March 2022 | UPDATED: 04:46, 19 March 2022". So, it is not TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, for the people, Nominal Animal was talking to, to call them a "conspiracy theorist". Or if it was (unreasonable), it was not unreasonable for them to dispute the truthfulness of that story circulating at the time. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 12:10:05 pm ---So, it is not TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, for the people, Nominal Animal was talking to, to call them a "conspiracy theorist". Or if it was (unreasonable), it was not unreasonable for them to dispute the truthfulness of that story circulating at the time. --- End quote --- It is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE to call someone a conspiracy theorist, based on them not agreeing with the mainstream media. The mainstream media is the main source of conspiracy theories these days. |
| MK14:
--- Quote from: coppice on May 04, 2022, 12:14:23 pm ---It is TOTALLY UNREASONABLE to call someone a conspiracy theorist, based on them not agreeing with the mainstream media. The mainstream media is the main source of conspiracy theories these days. --- End quote --- On reflection, I too easily went down the road of mentioning 'conspiracy theories'. I didn't realize, it would cause such an adverse reaction. Anyway, two things: (Firstly) Sorry Nominal Animal, if I've appear wrong/nasty, agreeing with other people (and me), saying/implying that your claims were a conspiracy theory. I'm trying to have a discussion in this thread, rather than be rude about other posters. (Secondly) At the time it was especially newsworthy (before the US Presidential election). There were clearly two parties involved. The Biden camp, who especially wanted to trivialize and discredit that story. Presumably doing so, with all Biden Camp friendly news sources. Similarly (and opposingly), the Trump Camp, would try to spin it in the other direction, and make out it is a true story (which it seems to be turning out, it may well be). Through their own Trump friendly news sources, and social media outlets. There seem to have been a number of somewhat similar stories/incidents, like this one, throughout the last few decades (and longer). Politics, seems to breed such situations. E.g. There have been a number of claims against the Trump Camp, which I won't drift this thread, even further down the political route, by mentioning. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 10:00:54 am ---On the one hand, at some level, it is true that there is such a claim, (Hunter Biden laptop). But, as I understand it, it is NOT acknowledged (genuinely/cleanly proved), to be a verified/true piece of evidence. --- End quote --- Well, what you "acknowledge to be verified/true" is up to you, not up to some "authority" or "fact checker". It is always up to you, the individual. And just because you or some authority believes it to be so, they shouldn't be allowed to control others from accessing and discussing it. Another example right now is Russian internal media here right now. To understand what Russia does, I'd like to see what they want others to believe. I cannot, because both rt.com and sputniknews.com are blocked here. So much for freedom of press, eh? Sure, it definitely is mostly propaganda; but to understand what they believe and think, you do need to see what they claim and hear what they say. Otherwise, you're trusting someone elses opinion on what is true and what is not, without any references or way to check for yourself. I'm just not the type to trust anyones word on anything. I need to see the reasoning behind the opinion for myself, or the "word" is useless to me. --- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 10:00:54 am ---A good quality/reliable news article (and somewhat similar things, such as social media), should at least mention its existence. But carefully explain that it is NOT proved/accepted as being true/genuine, at this moment in time. --- End quote --- Or, you know, like New York Post did, describe its sources in the story. Remember, the counterargument was that "your sources are people we don't like, so we'll assume it is Trump lies or Russian propaganda". The sources were good enough that independent journalists tracked down the repair person. The provenance of the laptop is not really in question (except among those whose counterargument is "I don't believe you, because I only listen to people I trust and adopt their opinion uncritically"); what is in question, is whether the information in it matters or not. --- Quote from: MK14 on May 04, 2022, 10:00:54 am ---I suppose, it would really need a jury and/or panel of (independent) experts. To properly analyse the available evidence, and decide if it seems to be genuine/true, possibly genuine/true (but not PROVED or 100% known to be so), or definitely FALSE (lies, planted by other parties). --- End quote --- Perhaps; but it is not up to journalists to be that jury or judge, because nothing is ever 100% proven, when humans are involved. Having the right to decide what to believe and think, is the primary human right, in my opinion. Don't be so quick to let someone else tell you what you should believe to be true, or what you yourself should think. --- Quote ---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy --- End quote --- Whenever you use Wikipedia as a source, I recommend also looking at the history of the page, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&action=history. It contains gems like "New York Post is unreliable" as a basis for deletion, even though Media Bias / Fact Check rates New York Post as reliable as MSNBC or CNN. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |