161–170 of 209 posts
> I refuse to believe that anyone at the Times set out to tell lies. It seems more likely that they instinctively believed, on some gut level, that the GPR data signalled the existence of child murder victims. They treated it as a revealed moral truth, and so imagined themselves duty bound to use their Times platform to spread the story globally, advocate for Indigenous rights, and educate Canadians about a dark hist…
Balajis new book "Network State" has an entire chapter on stuff like this: https://thenetworkstate.com/if-the-news-is-fake-imagine-hist... List of stuff he points out: https://thenetworkstate.com/if-the-news-is-fake-imagine-hist...
It's hard to see that as an innocent mistake; rather, it seems in this case HE is distorting the facts to fit HIS narrative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
It's hard to believe that, given he only said one was wrong, you think he might have meant the others were wrong as well. You should try to rephrase your question to get at your eventual point, rather than try to lead people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
If I admit that it's taboo, I've proved you wrong? That's backwards. Or if I admit that a biological man can't have a baby? Which, yes, I do admit (barring sci-fi-ish implant science I'm not informed on), but that doesn't prove you wrong either. Regardless, I'm confused about your point - if you're referring to people who literally think that biological men can have babies, it's hard to believe that you think they ar…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I read their quoting of C.S. Lewis as supporting precisely the viewpoint C.S. Lewis was intending — and the very same as you make a case for throughout this thread. Though I’ll admit I could be wrong. However, applying Occam’s razor: GP merely quoted C.S. Lewis, so it would seem to me that the simplest (and most charitable) interpretation is that they understood the quote and we’re not using it in any ironic/sa…
I understand Lewis to be saying that you shouldn't revel in revelations of wrongdoing or cling to them in the face of evidence, because your duty as a Christian is to find a way to forgive even your enemies; that you should hate (his word) the wrongdoing itself, not giving it an inch, but be careful not to needlessly attach it to specific people without cause, or to allow such an attachment to impede your process of…
I believe this is where the misunderstanding lies. I think the root commenter is implying that that's exactly what the media was trying to do when they chose to push this narrative in the first place. The idea is that the media organizations in the linked article were trying to highlight historical wrongs in an attempt to ensure those wrongs are kept at the forefront of everyone's minds and not forgiven, and that resulted in "a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible", even in the face of a lack of evidence.
The lack of skepticism isn't the point; it's what motivated the lack of skepticism in this case that the root comment was discussing. You can certainly disagree about whether that really was the media organizations' underlying motivation/bias, but I think the original quote is relevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the first two are correct? Is that what you're saying?
You can menstruate with one ovary, and get pregnant with none, so at the very least the other two are sloppily worded. That's if you count them as three separate claims, to my count they're all combined into one statement, which means the whole thing is logically false if any part is false, which is the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand Lewis to be saying that you shouldn't revel in revelations of wrongdoing or cling to them in the face of evidence, because your duty as a Christian is to find a way to forgive even your enemies; that you should hate (his word) the wrongdoing itself, not giving it an inch, but be careful not to needlessly attach it to specific people without cause, or to allow such an attachment to impede your process of…
> Nobody (at least, nobody identified) is reveling in what may have happened at the residential schools, or using it as a device to avoid forgiving any particular person. I believe this is where the misunderstanding lies. I think the root commenter is implying that that's exactly what the media was trying to do when they chose to push this narrative in the first place. The idea is that the media organizations in the…
[flagged]
what issues have you found with the text of the article that makes it unsuitable to be posted here? I've never heard of this publication, but found the article to be an excellent read. I only had vaguely heard about the "mass graves" situation months and months ago and was completely unaware that no bodies have actually been found. this article does a great job of presenting this information, contrasting it with the…
But maybe you're not aware of the fact that Sputnik is a Kremlin propaganda platform and you don't see the problem with the well-argued point the author is making.
You see what I mean?
You admit not knowing Quillette, but is a well-known alt-right website who notoriously don't care about facts and as such their content is no more reliable than Putin's Sputnik.
It's not about “Consensus-Approved Morally-Correct Set of Preconceived Biases”, it's about not sharing website who have made sharing blatant lies to push their political agenda their main business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I admit that it's taboo, I've proved you wrong? That's backwards. Or if I admit that a biological man can't have a baby? Which, yes, I do admit (barring sci-fi-ish implant science I'm not informed on), but that doesn't prove you wrong either. Regardless, I'm confused about your point - if you're referring to people who literally think that biological men can have babies, it's hard to believe that you think they ar…
Quoted post unavailable.
To interject in this conversation: if this sentence really is "taboo" I'd argue it's perhaps because you are not using the currently accepted term, like a person who insists on saying "negro" instead of "African American".
Or perhaps it's taboo because you bring it up at weird moments. I just watched an episode of Family Guy where family patriarch Peter Griffith says "I won't be in the next few storylines because I am real life pregnant." The show is a cartoon, so the joke is both that he's "real life" anything (which is impossible) and also suddenly inexplicably being written as female.
But if you watched that episode with friends and start ranting about how Peter Griffith, cartoon character, can't get "real life" pregnant cause he's biologically male, people might think there's something socially off about you because that's a pretty odd reaction to a Family Guy joke.