File: What is Fake News.swf-(9.47 MB, 480x272, Other)
[_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)18:51:29 No.3259137
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)20:58:52 No.3259166
the coverage of blm would be a better example
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)21:04:43 No.3259168
>>3259137
I wish PragerU would name the Jew.
Also TWO SCOOPS BLUMPF
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)21:06:17 No.3259169
This dude is a moron
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)21:21:41 No.3259171
I don't understand when right-wingers call leftists biased (and vice-versa) when they themselves
are biased. "Agendas" aren't exclusive to one side. CNN has an agenda but so does PragerU, so I
don't know why PragerU should be exempt from being called biased or fake. The guy's making a
contradictory argument.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)21:43:15 No.3259172
>>3259171
>so I don't know why PragerU should be exempt from being called biased or fake
I should add: "by the guy's logic"
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:05:14 No.3259175
>>3259171
Did he argue that PragerU doesn't have an agenda?
Because as an anti-liberal, I realize that places like Fox News and Breitbart are pushing an
agenda.
Yet somehow, these are the only two places, which aren't explicitly far-left, that ever get
called out for "being biased".
Practically the entirety of American MSM is dominated by far-left assholes pushing far-left
agendas, who either refuse to publish any actual news that doesn't support their narrative, or on
the rare occasion they do, is so biased that the actual facts don't appear until the last
paragraph of the story.
There's nothing worse than some faggot screaming "FAUX NEWS" while unironically believing in the
Washington Post.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:14:04 No.3259176
Getting your news from multiple sources is always better.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:21:36 No.3259178
>>3259175
>Did he argue that PragerU doesn't have an agenda?
But is he not saying that fake news is fake merely because it's biased? By that logic, what's
stopping me from calling PragerU fake information because it's biased towards the right of
center, thus invalidating the whole video?
>Yet somehow, these are the only two places, which aren't explicitly far-left, that ever get
called out for "being biased".
Probably because there are more young people on the internet meaning there are more leftists on
the internet meaning there will be less people calling out leftist bias because there are more
people who are okay with it because they agree with it.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:23:25 No.3259179
>>3259176
Not necessarily.
If you read WaPo, NYT, and CNN, you're going to get the exact same fake news repeated three times.
It's better to understand exactly what narrative each outlet is trying to push. You sure as shit
don't want to read Al Jazerra for information having to deal with Muslims, or RT expecting to get
honest reporting about anything having to do with Russia.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:27:57 No.3259181
>>3259178
>But is he not saying that fake news is fake merely because it's biased? By that logic, what's
stopping me from calling PragerU fake information because it's biased towards the right of
center, thus invalidating the whole video?
Is this bait?
They don't deny being right of center, any more than Fox News doesn't pretend that they're not
conservative.
He's saying that the entire concept of "news" is pushing narratives in order to sway public
opinion. What's stopping you from calling PragerU fake information is because you can actually
look at the various bias and scandals of major media outlets, and see that he's right. You don't
have to take their word for it, or their spin on it.
The fact that PragerU actually admits this already makes them more trustworthy that practically
every other media outlet.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:30:27 No.3259182
>>3259171
The difference is that Prager U isnt fucking lying.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:31:41 No.3259183
>>3259137
15% Ident of Faggots
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:33:44 No.3259184
>>3259181
>They don't deny being right of center, any more than Fox News doesn't pretend that they're not
conservative.
Except I'm not saying that PragerU denies being right of center. I'm saying that they're biased,
and thus, according to the man's logic, they're fake. Just because you admit you're biased
doesn't stop you from being biased.
The ending statements are literally "It's called bias. It's called fake news."
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:41:28 No.3259189
>>3259179
If you aren't pulling information from a multitude of places to piece together the fact and form
your own opinion then I don't know what to tell you.
I don't watch news for their shitty agendas or what they stand for, just like I don't read what
journalists publish because "I think like they do."
People making such a big fucking fuss over how the news is reported, and by who, instead of what
is being reported is exactly why the media as a whole is a contemptible cesspool of opinionated
garbage.
This is the double-edged sword of freedom of speech. Information is overly abundant but it's your
responsibility and duty as a democratic citizen to be able to critically analyze what's out there
and have an informed opinion.
My reaction to what is reported on MSNBC, Fox, CBS, etc is more or less the same among all of
them; they'll say things that are flat-out wrong and I will want to fucking gouge my eyes out and
then after they drop their paid opinions they'll slip in factual data, the only part I care about.
Gotta say though, had to stop watching Fox altogether after what's-his-fuck said foreign
collusion isn't illegal. NBC's still shitting the bed on the other end, though, as they keep
talking about collusion even though the investigation only involves obstruction.
It can't be helped. Sensationalism pays.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:51:30 No.3259190
>>3259181
>The fact that PragerU actually admits this already makes them more trustworthy that practically
every other media outlet.
Whether they're being truthful or deceitful about fucking you in the ass, they're still fucking
you in the ass either way. It's not much of a difference.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)22:57:27 No.3259192
>>3259189
If your dozens of "places to piece together the fact" are all owned by the exact same assholes
pushing the exact same narrative, then you're not doing yourself any favors.
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:02:40 No.3259196
>>3259192
Thankfully I go to almost all of them with some indies and freelancers in there, too.
Can we talk about how oligarchy is disgusting?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:11:37 No.3259199
>>3259171
>>3259178
>>3259184
Textbook examples of the disingenuous tactic "Reductio ad Absurdum".
Look it the fuck up.
Yeah, got our eyes on you.
Also, look up "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the LITERAL meaning, not the legal context).
PragerU oozes it.
That's how you can tell the difference, if you've half a wit about you.
If not, you're Occupying some shit or another on a convenience schedule.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:25:54 No.3259202
>>3259196
We can.
I don't disagree with the importance of forming an opinion based on different sources, but what
many people believe to be "different sources" tend to be all the same exact shit under some
different name.
And pretty much anything that isn't Fox, Brietbart, or some indie investigative journalist are
all pushing the exact same narrative. European media re-reports their far-left narratives, so
isn't much better.
Fox and Brietbart each push different narratives, but they're both singular entities so you have
less to worry about them just going along with the mainstream.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:44:38 No.3259206
While I see his valid concern that one narrative is getting much more coverage then any other
narrative his conclusion that this makes it fake news is nonsensical because this would make all
sources of information "fake news". if all news is "fake news" then none is and this is clearly
not the the case. Some sources of information are more reliable then others and the idea that a
source having a bias discredits it entirely is about as useful as the idea that no source has
bias. Basically his facts are straight but he fails to make a feasible call to action because of
his nonsense conclusion.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:53:09 No.3259207
>>3259199
>Textbook examples of the disingenuous tactic "Reductio ad Absurdum".
I hope you're not implying that I am misrepresenting what the man is saying. I have explained it
thrice already and every time you've misrepresented what I have said. Please explain to me how
"Mainstream American news is all fake because the major news outlets are so consistently biased
toward the left that whether any given story they report is factual or not, their overall
reportage is essentially leftist propaganda." and "That’s called confirming your own prejudices.
It’s called bias. It’s called fake news." does not imply "fake news is biased news."
>> [_] Anonymous 07/03/17(Mon)23:53:49 No.3259208
>>3259206
In America, our mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal, and overwhelmingly controlled by
people with direct ties to the Democratic party.
This is important to realize when you see every mainstream media outlet pushing some narrative
like "MUH RUSSIA".
You can't just say "Well look at all these media outlets reporting the exact same thing on this
thing, it MUST be true!"
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:01:53 No.3259209
>>3259208
You make a fair point but unfortunately PragerU never bothers to make the same point you do, it
only attempts to discredit mainstream media by pointing out that it has a bias
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:04:37 No.3259210
>>3259209
Because the mainstream media has the exact same liberal bias, pushing the exact same liberal
narratives.
Pretty much the only exception is FOX, and yet, they're the only ones who ever get accused of
bias for not going along with the same narrative as everyone else.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:31:40 No.3259217
ITT:
Unicorn Hunters.
It works like this.
The left declares UNICORNS!! and organizes a hunt.
The right goes *ahem* and points out that unicorns are mythical, and it is therefore absurd to
"hunt" them.
The left writhes and hisses "absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence!!" while they wave
their unicorn nets and demand we all stop what we're doing while we all "get to the bottom of it".
The right cringes as the left parades around with pictures of unicorns they painted, PROVING that
there's something to hunt.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
Sound familiar?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:49:58 No.3259221
I need a news source that's dedicated to simply describing events that have occured in the most
detailed but also neutral way possible with no added author or reporter commentary. I just dont
care about the opinions. I'm tired of hearing about this constant battle between news itself just
give me raw data and I'll evaluate it.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:51:37 No.3259222
>>3259217
content free allegory that portrays the opposing side as ignorant without supporting the claim in
anyway.
kind of ironic given the rights traditional dismissal of scientific evidence, particularly
regarding climate change
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:52:59 No.3259223
>believing the washington post has any credability at all, especially since the own has a $600
million secret contract with the CIA
https://web.archive.org/web/20170107235414/https://www.thenation.com/article/amazon-
washington-post-and-600-million-cia-contract/
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:57:56 No.3259225
>>3259222
Tell me more about how gender is a spectrum, traits are entirely a result of environment and
upbringing, and how there's no link between genetics and IQ, my fellow enlightened leftist.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)00:58:17 No.3259226
>>3259222
You know I was never actually taught much about climate change. I was simply told "temperatures
are rising and so is CO2, therefore climate change!" And past that point in elementary school all
I ever read in higher education was fiction about what would happen if humanity didn't get off of
using oil.
Would you mind explaining the evidence for it?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:03:43 No.3259229
>>3259226
No who you're responding to, but this is the best source I've read on the subject:
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
The argument shouldn't be "Is global warming real?", it should be:
"What effect does the exponential emissions of greenhouse gasses such as CO2 byproducts have on
the planet?"
"How can we monitor these changes?"
"What is the risk that these things pose?"
"What is a reasonable response to these possible risks?"
Libtards and neocons think it's some sort of "believe it or don't" thing, when it should continue
to be an area of ongoing research, in order to see how well past models match up with data, as
well as formulate intelligent solutions to any possible negative effects that might arise.
t. physical scientist
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:03:46 No.3259230
The short and skinny of News Media is that most people's political opinions revolve around
certain principles or convictions which aren't easily swayed by reporting, biased or not.
Mass Media's real power isn't molding people's opinions. For instance, a story about a cop
shooting a black man doesn't change your average person's perception of law enforcement or
racism. Those beliefs have been set before the story is written and promulgated. Media's real
power is 'Agenda Setting'. I.E. choosing what IS and just as importantly what IS NOT displayed
across millions of screens. Media essentially sets the stage and chooses the terms on which
topics will be discussed (the Overton Window). By choosing certain stories while ignoring others,
the perception of millions of people can be slanted without actually changing their convictions.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:07:54 No.3259231
>>3259230
But the second thing you said obviously affects the first.
That's why there still exist people who believe that there's some sort of "black genocide" going
on, propagated by police officers, who previously never had an opinion on such a ridiculous
concept.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:09:12 No.3259232
>>3259225
>using IQ as a reliable method of measuring intelligence
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:12:45 No.3259233
>>3259232
>thinking people with low IQs are intelligent
It's far from perfect, but every single aspect of genetic research has shown a strong link
between genetics and intelligence.
We're just starting to discover what sequences correspond to intelligence, and I'm really hoping
so-called "progressives" don't end up shutting it down.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:13:25 No.3259234
>>3259231
Not really. In such a case the news media only gave shape to an already existing but unformed
subliminal understanding of the issue.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:17:22 No.3259235
>>3259234
No, that shit only became mainstream with the Zimmerman case. We didn't have daily protests in
the 90s over whatever retarded criminal dindu got shot by cops.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:17:44 No.3259236
>>3259234
If I may expand. The news media in your hypothetical example did not come to make the man believe
that blacks were facing injustice or oppression by the state, he had already believed such a
thing, but News Media gave him the terms to express his beliefs. Instead of a nebulous conception
of "the man has got the black man down" it's given a concrete context to frame those opinions and
becomes "the police are murdering black men with impunity"
Does that make sense?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:23:20 No.3259239
>>3259236
Yes, but I fail to see a functional difference.
>the man believe that blacks were facing injustice or oppression by the state
EVERYONE feels like they're being oppressed by the state.
When I get a third of my income taken from me in taxes, I feel like I'm being oppressed by the
state.
When millionares have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in their income to pay for niggers
every single year, they feel oppressed by the state.
When niggers their free food stamps cut, they feel oppressed by the state.
When chinks have to perform x3 as well as everyone else just to get into state schools, they feel
oppressed by the state.
The only thing that the media's been pushing for the last decade is imaginary nignog oppression,
when actual oppression exists, based on races beyond black/white, economics, etc.
That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:32:48 No.3259243
>>3259235
>No, that shit only became mainstream with the Zimmerman case
Were you not alive for Rodney King?
>>3259239
The functional difference is that giving shape to an already held belief is NOT the same thing as
changing someone's convictions. News Media decides on what ground a social issue is discussed on
(in the case of race relations it's recently been extra-judicial killings by police), but
choosing the CONTEXT of that debate isn't the same as creating the underlying social conditions
that caused it to be an issue in the first place.
You're putting the cart before the horse. You're pointing to Media representation as instilling
beliefs into people when in reality those beliefs existed before they were given a context to be
expressed.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:36:32 No.3259246
>>3259207
Biased news become fake news when the reporters start pretending they are the only trustworthy
sources, and attack anyone who goes against the bias, regardless of if the one going against the
bias is doing so on a factual basis or not. When you have people acting like 'If you don't agree
with what I say, then you must be wrong', that goes from bias to blinded by an echo chamber. The
overall difference is, MSM won't take criticism, and the ones like Prager U will.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:41:47 No.3259247
>>3259222
>dismissal of scientific evidence, particularly regarding climate change
such as what the left does with any data that points away from anthropogenic climate change, or
what sort of extreme measures the left is demanding to make what amounts to trying to cool off a
high rise apartment complex with one window mounted air conditioner that costs hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:42:30 No.3259248
>>3259243
Few people had prior convictions on "white police officers killing black criminals" prior to the
media's hilariously biased exposure to that imaginary "issue".
From there it goes into two directions:
1. People who unironically believe the MSM, and believe there is some police-drive genocide
against niggers.
2. People who actually look at the statistics behind both crime and police killings, instead of
the anecdotes that the MSM pushes.
The flaw in your argument is assuming that everyone already had a hard-set opinion on literally
everything before our idiotic media decides to spin it into some retarded narrative.
I mean, who the hell would have some dumbass opinion on a thing like "trump is a secret KGB
agent" before the MSM started pushing this narrative?
Nobody had any prior convictions on whether or not Donald Trump was one of Putin's top operatives
until the MSM started pushing this shit.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:46:46 No.3259250
>>3259137
Why is he so bald?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:49:41 No.3259251
>>3259248
>Few people had prior convictions on "white police officers killing black criminals"
That's the context, not the conviction. The conviction is the person's deeply held beliefs
towards race relations/institutional racism in general which if you look back in our history
you'll notice it has been an incredibly prominent topic in the American political & social debate
for more than 200 years. This is merely the contemporary incarnation of a debate that bedeviled
even the founding fathers when discussing the terms of slavery and personhood for blacks.
Your post seems as though you are unable to untangle the concept of CONTEXT from CONVICTION.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:51:23 No.3259252
Get your coats on for the climate change! US will be frozen over in 40 years!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq6fDa9JrzQ
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:53:41 No.3259253
>>3259251
>This is merely the contemporary incarnation of a debate
But it's not a debate in the media.
It's literally "some criminal nigger was shot again after assaulting officers, but HE WAS A GOOD
BOI DINDU MUFFIN OUT SPREADING THE WORD OF JESUS CHRIST NEED MO MONEY FO DEM PROGRAMS"
Literally, the only side that is presented is the DINDU one, and as soon as actual evidence comes
out that he actually DIDU something, it's either completely dropped, or they just focus on the
protesting, instead of the actual evidence of the case.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:54:42 No.3259254
>>3259252
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:56:35 No.3259256
>>3259254
It's not shitposting.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:59:05 No.3259258
>>3259256
Then refer to
>>3259229
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)01:59:30 No.3259259
>>3259222
Let's analyze this:
>"content free" as it were, though you seem to be able to ascribe known components to the
elements of allegory
neutral 3rd-party overview of two opposing sides given under neutral context
Well.. if you somehow see the narrator as supporting one of those sides over the other, you are
exhibiting the pathos of projection. Your commentary makes it clear that your perception is
heavily colored by a certain bias.
I leave it as an exercise for the astute reader to determine your flavor of bias: Logic, or
Emotion.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:00:41 No.3259261
>>3259253
The ongoing debate is not only on the panels of pundits delivering their opinions from on high,
or the newspaper editorials, but also the discussion we're having now as well as the million
threads on /pol/ discussing the Zimmerman Trial, the conversations you've had with schoolmates or
friends or parents, and the public demonstrations by "black lives matter" and "blue lives matter"
airing their own interpretations of the same context.
What's important to notice is that whatever side you're on, you're still following the beck and
call of the mass media simply by unwittingly agreeing to discuss the issue on the terms which
they have framed the issue.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:03:33 No.3259263
>>3259259
>neutral 3rd-party overview of two opposing sides given under neutral context
Not the guy you're responding to, but the post you're referring is to clearly not a 'neutral
third-party overview'. It's a bad political cartoon in post form, 'the right' is portrayed as the
collected straight man literally 'cringing' at the ridiculous antics of a manic 'left'
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:03:56 No.3259264
>>3259182
they're doing in this video exactly what the claim of "The left"
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:07:42 No.3259267
>>3259261
>but also the discussion we're having now as well as the million threads on /pol/ discussing the
Zimmerman Trial, the conversations you've had with schoolmates or friends or parents, and the
public demonstrations by "black lives matter" and "blue lives matter" airing their own
interpretations of the same context.
None of which have the same reach as the MSM.
>What's important to notice is that whatever side you're on, you're still following the beck and
call of the mass media simply by unwittingly agreeing to discuss the issue on the terms which
they have framed the issue.
Except that they quite clearly chose a side from the very start. People are increasingly talking
less about the issues, and talking more about how shit the media is.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:09:16 No.3259268
>>3259264
AAAaaaand the vicious wheel of Reductio Ad Absurdum spins back around once again...
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:10:19 No.3259269
>>3259267
You're defeating your own argument by acknowledging how poor the Media is at actually changing
people's beliefs which was my point at the beginning of this whole debate.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:13:06 No.3259271
>>3259269
By "they" I quite obviously meant "the media".
Anyone who bothered to watch the trial itself saw that Zimmerman was 100% innocent.
The fact that people still hold Trayvon up as an example of "anti-black discrimination" is
entirely the fault of our shit media.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:14:46 No.3259272
>>3259268
Protip anon: Spouting "reductio ad absurdum" isn't a counterargument to his post, nor is it
impressing anyone either
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:16:54 No.3259273
>>3259272
He's right, though. I'm not going to repeat myself, or repeat him. Just scroll up and rewatch the
video.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:17:12 No.3259274
>>3259272
>pointing to a stone and calling it a "stone"
Yes, I can see how that becomes tedious. Shall I call it a "flower" next time it rears its ugly
head?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:18:24 No.3259275
>>3259271
You're still not getting it.
The lines in the Zimmerman affair were drawn before it even happened. The division is reflective
of a preexisting divide in the attitudes and beliefs of Americans towards the justice system, not
of an imaginary divide of 'people who studied the case and people who didn't'.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:19:52 No.3259276
Just your daily reminder,
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/system/App/Settings/poster_image_highs/000/000/001/
original/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:22:40 No.3259278
>>3259275
>The lines in the Zimmerman affair were drawn before it even happened.
They weren't.
>The division is reflective of a preexisting divide in the attitudes and beliefs of Americans
towards the justice system
They're not.
>not of an imaginary divide of 'people who studied the case and people who didn't'.
They are.
The media literally turned a spic into a "white person", complete with editing his phone call to
the police to make him look "racist", failed to report every aspect that proved his innocence,
and decided to go with "LOL RACISM" instead.
The people who actually paid attention to the trial realized he was innocent, and people who only
read the media reports decided "he's a KKK white nationalist who aborted an innocent black fetus."
It was quite literally my last straw into media bias, the point where I could never take the
mainstream media seriously ever again.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:29:36 No.3259281
>>3259278
I'd really rather not go over the same point that's already been made.
>>3259251
You've got such a narrow view of topic of media influence. I'm afraid you don't have anything
insightful to say on the topic.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:36:09 No.3259286
>>3259281
>I'd really rather not go over the same point that's already been made.
Good, then in the future, stop being wrong and wasting everyone's time.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:38:09 No.3259287
>>3259286
This entire conversation has been you not being able to understand the difference between context
and conviction. I'm absolutely positive you've never done any serious academic reading on media
influence.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:40:59 No.3259288
>>3259287
Your entire argument is that people were already decided on shit that they had never even thought
about before our shit media decided to make it an issue.
That's not even internally logical.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:43:08 No.3259290
So what is it?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:43:34 No.3259291
>>3259182
>The difference is that Prager U isnt fucking lying.
By the dude's own definition, he is. maybe you should rewatch the video, with a little critical
thinking next time.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:46:00 No.3259293
>>3259291
>Dude, I work for the media, and the media is full of shit
>DUDE HE WORKS FOR THE MEDIA THEREFORE HE'S FULL OF SHIT THEREFORE THE MEDIA IS TRUSTWORTHY
It's depressing knowing that people as retarded as you exist.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:48:27 No.3259296
>>3259293
no one is saying the media is trustworthy, nice strawman there
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:49:23 No.3259297
>>3259288
People generally develop their deeply held beliefs from their environment. Friends & family,
school & church. Not from news media. Which explains why even though news media is
disproportionately left leaning the general population isn't because the general population
doesn't get their convictions from how news is reported.
Issues like the Zimmerman trial don't happen in a vacuum. People already have developed attitudes
and beliefs on their opinions of race relations and the justice system BEFORE an issue happens
that vault those contentious issues in the spotlight. The Zimmerman trial is the CONTEXT by which
the PREEXISTING CONVICTIONS that people ALREADY HAVE are made visible.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:49:25 No.3259298
>>3259296
Then you agree with him, so what are you shitposting about?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:54:22 No.3259299
>>3259297
>People generally develop their deeply held beliefs from their environment. Friends & family,
school & church. Not from news media.
Then you have no idea how propaganda works, and the liberal MSM is absolutely nothing more than
liberal propaganda.
You can literally see the de-evolution of human beings when they get out of highschool, to the
time they're a year into their liberal arts degree.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:56:19 No.3259300
>>3259233
they didn't argue that genetics aren't linked to intelligence, you dumbass, they said that IQ
isn't a reliable test of intelligence.
IQ tests have NOTHING to do with genetics
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)02:59:50 No.3259302
>>3259300
>IQ is related to intelligence
>intelligence is related to genetics
>somehow IQ has nothing to do with genetics
What did this retard mean by this?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:00:51 No.3259303
This, I'm a liberal, and I hate how so many other "liberals" are just as bad or worse than there
conservative counterparts.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:01:50 No.3259304
>>3259299
I'm afraid you have no idea how socialization works, my friend. People seek out information that
confirms their biases. In your case, you get your news from /pol/ to mediate raw information to
an ideologically statisfactory interpretation. If someone wants a traditional conservative
outlook they turn on fox news and so on. The fact that people aren't passive consumers of news,
but agents looking to reinforce their deeply held convictions blunts the effectiveness of news
media as a form of partisan propaganda.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:04:11 No.3259305
Well, well...
this has certainly devolved into a 19-way Mexican standoff.
Just waiting to see who flinches first.
Tomorrow:
lone hunter discovers 19 dead bodies in the arroyo, and snatches up all the money.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:04:35 No.3259306
>>3259304
>People seek out information that confirms their biases.
And the fact that you think that's the only psychological element at play makes you a complete
retard.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:05:26 No.3259307
>>3259306
Oh please, share your wisdom enlightened one. Throw open the curtains on my ignorance and show me
the light.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:10:08 No.3259311
>>3259290
I've never seen one before, no one has, but I'm guessing it's a /pol/-bait thread.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:12:08 No.3259312
>>3259311
A /pol/-bait thread?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:12:40 No.3259313
>>3259307
Here you go, you fucking retard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:13:50 No.3259314
>>3259313
Linking a wikipedia page is not a substitute for an argument, /pol/-friend.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:14:26 No.3259315
>>3259312
Every good thread as an equal and opposite /pol/-bait thread. A good thread brings flashes of
worth to the board, a /pol/-bait thread brings video rips and triple digit reply counts.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:15:40 No.3259316
>>3259315
Something's spewing /pol/, into /f/?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:15:49 No.3259317
>>3259314
>only one form of cognitive bias exists!
>No, actually many do
>Prove it!
>Okay
>REEEEEE WIKIPEDIA
Fuck off.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:15:52 No.3259318
>>3259298
because you can't claim the media is biased therefore fake which implies that you yourself making
the argument is fake because you're biased. it's self-refuting idea, you know, literally "ideas
or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to
be true"
you can't just write this post off as a fallacious reductio ad absurdum when nothing is being
strawmanned, you can watch the video yourself and clearly see he's equating bias with falsehood.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:18:07 No.3259321
>>3259316
Precisely. That's why we're expereincing these curious /pol/-bait phenomena on /f/.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:19:09 No.3259322
>>3259321
So what is it?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:19:18 No.3259323
>>3259318
You're assuming that he's using himself as evidence.
He's not.
Now stop shitposting.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:20:11 No.3259324
>>3259322
I've never seen one before, no one has, but I'm guessing it's a /pol/-bait thread.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:20:27 No.3259325
>>3259322
I've never seen one before - no one has - but I'm guessing it's a White Power hole.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:21:13 No.3259326
>>3259325
A White Power hole?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:21:22 No.3259327
>>3259315
So it's decided then; we consult Hiro.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:21:36 No.3259328
>>3259323
https://www.youtube.com/user/PragerUniversity/videos
is this not media, anon?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:22:15 No.3259329
>>3259327
Like just then when /pol/ baited itself.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:22:41 No.3259330
>>3259326
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A nigger hole sucks time and matter out of the
Universe; a White Power hole returns it.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:22:43 No.3259331
>>3259317
>only one form of cognitive bias exists!
Now you're being purposely obtuse. I used a specific example of a cognitive bias that was
applicable to the argument at hand. When you dismissed the post out of hand I invited you to
explain further assuming you would relate your own specific examples that would refute the point.
You responded with a wikipedia page, entirely side stepping the point.
There's no need to act like a little kid about this and purposely misrepresent my posts to
declare yourself 'the winner'.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:23:22 No.3259333
>>3259330
>>3259331
Hey wait a minute! I missed the discussion!
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:23:43 No.3259334
>>3259328
You're assuming that he's using himself as evidence.
He's not.
Now stop shitposting.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:24:45 No.3259336
>>3259333
Precisely. That's why we're experiencing these curious White Power phenomena on this board.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:24:52 No.3259337
>>3259334
I think we've experienced this period of time before, sir.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:26:01 No.3259338
>>3259337
What time phenomena?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:26:07 No.3259339
SIEG HEIL
only joking :D
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:27:40 No.3259341
>>3259338
Like just then, when white power repeated itself.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:28:53 No.3259343
>>3259341
So, what is it?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:29:18 No.3259344
>>3259343
Oh would someone punch punch him out?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:31:13 No.3259345
>>3259334
he doesn't have to explicitly use himself as evidence for it to be contradictory, in fact that
makes it even more malicious when he's implying that "you shouldn't listen to THIS media but you
should listen to OUR media"
this video is clearly trying to lead you somewhere, therefore it's biased, therefore it's fake
and shouldn't be trusted, do you seriously find that to be true, anon? i'm not arguing that the
media is trustworthy, i'm arguing that his logic is stupid and misleading
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:32:12 No.3259346
>>3259344
Okay, so it's decided then. We consult Hitler.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:34:00 No.3259347
>>3259345
New is occurring in random pockets. A story no longer leads to truth.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:34:27 No.3259349
>>3259345
He made a general statement about media in general, which is objectively true, and can be
verified by sources which aren't media companies.
I'm sorry if the very idea that objective facts exist is too much for your social constructivist
mind to take in, but please take a good long, hard look at yourself.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:35:27 No.3259350
>>3259346
I'll heil to that.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:35:59 No.3259351
>jewtuberip
>/pol/ related
>over 100 replies
why does this keep happening?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:37:08 No.3259352
>>3259350
So, that thing's spewing White Power...
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:37:44 No.3259354
>>3259351
I think we've experienced this period of time before, sir. >>3259315
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:38:54 No.3259355
>>3259352
Hey wait a minute, I missed the white power!
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)03:41:34 No.3259357
>>3259355
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A nigger hole sucks time and matter out of the
Universe; a White Power hole returns it.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/04/17(Tue)04:08:11 No.3259361
>>3259344
Only trolling!
