See this is just a complete refusal to engage with the topic or learn anything. Have you grown as a human being at all in the last 10 years or did you just decide one day that you have achieved political nirvana and there is never anything else you need to understand or expand your knowledge of? Your refusal to actually learn anything is a deep character flaw and a huge personal failure.
That’s the difference with you. I learn in universities, reading reports and works. Not on echo chambers on the web. I just like to argue with people on the internet in a language I don’t master while I’m in the train.
Unlike you I actually have 2 degrees. If you engaged with this topic in this way in a university the history professor would fail you.
You don’t give a fuck about sources, evidence, or anything. You are utterly closed to new information. You are one of the most deeply propagandised people on the planet, from the most deeply propagandised population on the planet.
she also cited and linked to all the original sources which the worldaffairs site used, packed full of famous CCP-shill state-owned-media sources like: the BBC, Reuters, the Washington Post, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, etcetera
You all must be the biggest fucking rubes on the planet if you’re seriously citing a site which claims that CNN has a left wing bias
How do you function? Do you just lose money on scams 24/7? (donating to your political parties counts)
I have a lot of issues with sources I know are right wing because they often spin things in ridiculous ways. Despite that, there’s so much censorship on the internet the only places to look are on the fringes or in other languages.
It’s literally quoting WSJ. Some liberal thinktank complaining about it is not relevant, even less so a think tank so vapid as to tacitly equate centrism with objectivity.
I’ve had my problems with hexbear but you’re literally doing the meme of going 👉😩👈 LALALALALA when someone actually backs up their claims with sources. Like why even bother asking for sources if you’re just going to dismiss them as “bad” no matter the quality?
You’re just embarrassing.
See this is just a complete refusal to engage with the topic or learn anything. Have you grown as a human being at all in the last 10 years or did you just decide one day that you have achieved political nirvana and there is never anything else you need to understand or expand your knowledge of? Your refusal to actually learn anything is a deep character flaw and a huge personal failure.
Oh hai
That’s the difference with you. I learn in universities, reading reports and works. Not on echo chambers on the web. I just like to argue with people on the internet in a language I don’t master while I’m in the train.
Unlike you I actually have 2 degrees. If you engaged with this topic in this way in a university the history professor would fail you.
You don’t give a fuck about sources, evidence, or anything. You are utterly closed to new information. You are one of the most deeply propagandised people on the planet, from the most deeply propagandised population on the planet.
How the fuck are the sources they used “echo chambers on the Web?”
What are your sources then? Or are you just trying to invoke the idea of being so well read to cover up the fact you’re full of shit.
These are literally reports, what the fuck are you on about?
what’s a “primary source”?
Literally the US Army has published videos that claim they were involved in the Tiananmen protests.
Source is hexbear, opinion ignored
Wall Street Journal, a notorious Hexbear front to push sissypee lies
Except your source is some site named worldaffairs.blog
Let’s just look that up… yep about what I expected, conspiracy drivel
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/world-affairs-blog-bias/
she also cited and linked to all the original sources which the worldaffairs site used, packed full of famous CCP-shill state-owned-media sources like: the BBC, Reuters, the Washington Post, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, etcetera
You all must be the biggest fucking rubes on the planet if you’re seriously citing a site which claims that CNN has a left wing bias
How do you function? Do you just lose money on scams 24/7? (donating to your political parties counts)
I have a lot of issues with sources I know are right wing because they often spin things in ridiculous ways. Despite that, there’s so much censorship on the internet the only places to look are on the fringes or in other languages.
Would it make you feel better if I cited a blog that takes lines from other sources out of context to change the message?
I literally don’t care what you cite, I’m just calling out the blog you’re citing now as ridiculous.
It’s literally quoting WSJ. Some liberal thinktank complaining about it is not relevant, even less so a think tank so vapid as to tacitly equate centrism with objectivity.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-22543
I’ve had my problems with hexbear but you’re literally doing the meme of going 👉😩👈 LALALALALA when someone actually backs up their claims with sources. Like why even bother asking for sources if you’re just going to dismiss them as “bad” no matter the quality?
His sources ARE bad, is the issue. Conspiracy blogs is not what I would call worth reading lmao
Only shitty source I saw was wikileaks.
🌽