625
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2024
625 points (97.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
30037 readers
394 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If you have evidence of them lying, you're more than welcome to submit that on the discussion pages. I don't know which articles you're referring to, but given my historical knowledge of wars in the Middle-East, they likely sourced US mouthpieces or analysts, rather than making the claims themself
LoL. Are people unaware of the NYT’s culpability?
Acting as a stenographer for the state isn’t “journalism.”
He asked for sources and you just act superior and yet didn't provide sources.
The sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
Take those with necessary salt and tequila if wanted. One of them is literally "nyt is mean to apartheid musk"
If I tell him the sky is blue, and he asked for a source, am I obligated to provide that as well?
I’m not going to play along with bad faith questioning of common knowledge.
You'll find "common knowledge" is surprisingly hard to prove when you're wrong. Wikipedia is a big place, if you can find concrete evidence of NYT lying, you can do a lot of reputational damage to them (even as so far as getting them removed as an acceptable source)
Seeing a lot of bots defend Wikipedia the past couple months. Is that because it’s so easily manipulated by y’all?
Ah yes, beep boop
How are you determining that they are bots? Would you, by chance, have any examples?
“Astroturfers” may be a more accurate term. Especially in regards to Israel and Ukraine. There’s videos you can look up where they train Zionists to astroturf forums and strategically edit Wikipedia. The US Air Force has a massive astroturf farm at Eglin Air Force base pushing a lot of this, too.
Whether these commenters are professional astroturfers, or just repeating what they’ve heard from one, I don’t believe it a meaningful distinction to make.
Can you cite a source for this?
Besides public disclosure documents? Reddit admins accidentally outed them before they started masking their traffic.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.redditblog.com/2013/05/get-ready-for-global-reddit-meetup-day.html?m=1
Very interesting. Thank you for the link! When digging into this a little more, I came across this Reddit post ^[1]^, which pointed me to this research paper ^[2]^ authored, in part, an associate of Eglin AFB ^[2.1]^.
References
Do you have a handy source for those as well? Please don't interpret my prying for sources as sealioning — I'm very curious to read more about this, and I want to make sure that what I find is actually what you are referring to.
Can you cite a source for this?
https://youtu.be/t52LB2fYhoY?si=RAxI3hiPQpElUD1N
Thank you for the source 😊
Imo, while not exactly proper science, a quick source for such a claim could be a simple color photo of the sky.
Leaving aside the "bad faith questioning" component, how would you handle requests for proof of what you are calling "common knowledge" in general?