Renowned journalist resigns in protest of attacks on press freedom

Nuts! I thought it was that guy who always regales us about trips to the pub. Didn't know it was maccapacca.
Makes perfect sense when you think about it though...
Have you ever seen Maccy and Maccapacca in the same room together?
Even at the Donny do's one is always off to get the drinks, or in the toilet, never seen in the same place at the same time.
 
I think that we have rather drifted off the conspiracy theory put forward by . . . Ah what the hell, who cares . . . Trump is history, we can all heave a huge sigh of relief :D
 
Quite. The false equivalence is quite staggering. @ianh, if you genuinely look at the evidence on each side and assess them to be equal, your vision is very impaired - either inherently, or through wearing big ol blinkers.

Ah, so we're back into the "didn't understand what I posted, invented a strawman, replied to the strawman that you made up just to make a point about something I never said" looping agruement - I'll try once more, just for you.

In 2016 Trump supporters had to listen to 4 years of "Russian Collusion" Democrat CT'ers. Now in 2020 it's Biden supporters turn to listen to 4 years of "Stolen Election" Republican CT'ers. In neither case is the story fully true but in both cases there will be enough traces of evidence that the CT'ers can say "look, there's proof".

However, by effectively (but not literally) saying "my CT about election fraud is completely 100% true because it benefits my side but your CT about election fraud is completely 100% false because it hurts my side" both sides are showing a distinct immaturity as in reality both CT's have elements of truth amongst the fiction.

That is what two sides of the same coin means, both sides have the same CT of "the election was rigged". It's quite a simple statement really, no hidden meanings to misinterpret, just nice simple language with no statements that could be said to indicate that I believe that I am ""assessing the evidence to be equal" - which is something you made up rather thant something I actually said i.e. you made a Strawman from my statement, then argued about the strawman you invented rather than discussing what I actually said.

I know your blind hatred of anything Trump (and it is hatred, be honest at least) makes it difficult to see anything from both sides, which is why its easier for someone more neutral like myself to see the bigger picture, and yes despite the rabid "if you're not anti-Trump you must be pro-Trump and therefore attacked" attitude heavily prevalent in GD, just because I question people attacking Trump doesn't mean I'm Pro-Trump - life isn't a binary "black or white", but many shades of grey - most adults can recognise that fact.

*edited for grammatical flow.
 
Last edited:
Ah, so we're back into the "didn't understand what I posted, invented a strawman, replied to the strawman that you made up just to make a point about something I never said" looping agruement - I'll try once more, just for you.

In 2016 Trump supporters had to listen to 4 years of "Russian Collusion" Democrat CT'ers. Now in 2020 it's Biden supporters turn to listen to 4 years of "Stolen Election" Republican CT'ers. In neither case is the story fully true but in both cases there will be enough traces of evidence that the CT'ers can say "look, there's proof".

However, by effectively (but not literally) saying "my CT about election fraud is completely 100% true because it benefits my side but your CT about election fraud is completely 100% false because it hurts my side" both sides are showing a distinct immaturity as in reality both CT's have elements of truth amongst the fiction.

That is what two sides of the same coin means, both sides have the same CT of "the election was rigged". It's quite a simple statement really, no hidden meanings to misinterpret, just nice simple language with no statements that could be said to indicate that I believe that I am ""assessing the evidence to be equal" - which is something you made up rather thant something I actually said i.e. you made a Strawman from my statement, then argued about the strawman you invented rather than discussing what I actually said.

I know your blind hatred of anything Trump (and it is hatred, be honest at least) makes it difficult to see anything from both sides, which is why its easier for someone more neutral like myself to see the bigger picture, and yes despite the rabid "if you're not anti-Trump you must be pro-Trump and therefore attacked" attitude heavily prevalent in GD, just because I question people attacking Trump doesn't mean I'm Pro-Trump - life isn't a binary "black or white", but many shades of grey - most adults can recognise that fact.

*edited for grammatical flow.
You've just repeated yourself without taking on board any of the counterpoints that were made in the intervening time. The very definition of obtuse.

There's a genuine wealth of undisputed evidence about one, and, so far that I can see, no evidence of the other.

So your false equivalence - in painting those two very different things as equal - is exactly that thing you wrongly accuse me of: immature bias.

"That person is saying 2+2 is 4 and that other person is saying it is 5. I'm neutral and so the correct answer is 4½"

:rolleyes:

That you either genuinely believe yourself to be neutral, or believe that you can dupe others into believing that is hilarious.
 
Do you spend much money on antiseptic creams and bandages, or are your knuckles sufficiently calloused to make them redundant these days?

Although you made this post as a offence, I actually believe you might be right.

It certainly does hurt and concern me that Trump has lost. But in possibly conspiracy circumstances. If he won clean he has nothing to fear.
The repercussions for the rest of the world, especially the UK and Brexit are now damaged some. Through voting in Joe Biden.
 
Ah, yes, it does have the same sort of illiteracy and shouty lack of facts feel about it.
Mcstylist probably.
Drop me a message with your thoughts please mate

Hi ladies or gentlemen. I must ask, are you again referring to me. ?
I mention an alternate view that doesn’t seem to fit the shared mental narrative. Then continue to try debunking or discrediting what has been said. I must say it’s a very unusual group you have here. It is even the admin joining the denial. What is the deal here ?. I was under the impression it was a discussion forum.
Anyway I have no idea who you think I am. No wonder it was all over twitter mocking the forum members constant behaviour.
 
Hi ladies or gentlemen. I must ask, are you again referring to me. ?
I mention an alternate view that doesn’t seem to fit the shared mental narrative. Then continue to try debunking or discrediting what has been said. I must say it’s a very unusual group you have here. It is even the admin joining the denial. What is the deal here ?. I was under the impression it was a discussion forum.
Anyway I have no idea who you think I am. No wonder it was all over twitter mocking the forum members constant behaviour.

I just thought I'd bold the bits that reminded me of the illiteracy and the claims without any evidence.
 
Have modern journalists just become glorified script readers for billionaires?

They always have been, but these days they seem to be more extreme and just making stuff up.

Personally, I think the news should report things, not give us their opinion on things.

Certainly there should be laws in place to stop "billionaires" owning news outlets. It is extremely important that the news is unbiased and simply reports the news. Sure there will always be a bias but the amount of fake news and just downright lying has reached new levels and it needs to be stopped. I honestly believe it is incredibly dangerous. It's no different what happens in places like North Korea, where the news is 100% biased and 90% fake.
 
Back
Top Bottom