And just as a note for anyone reading, when an Arab says something bad about Jews, like curse the Jews, they are referring to real Jews, as in the ones who actually follow their book*, i.e. the Zionists, not your average self-proclaimed Jew, which is the reason the word ‘Jew’ is sometimes used as a swear word, even if mostly ironically. (kind of like redditors and the French)
*: I am unqualified to talk about what’s in it, the only things I heard are horrible - mainly war rules - and I made this comment only to prevent misunderstandings by revealing different points of view.
No one gains anything from your comment if it’s not informed by the discussion the rest of us are having. Consider just keeping it to yourself next time.
Yes, in western society we often have hundreds of people pushing and shoving to desperately get food. The preferred solution to this is to mow them down with chainguns and RPGs. Happened in Toronto last Tuesday again.
Having not read this comment nor caring to do so: Sometimes people post the first thought that comes to their mind even if it only barely relates to the topic.
I’ll watch the mini-series. I was only speaking of crowds in general, so I didn’t have to read an article about crowds, because I just read a whole book about crowds and the madness that can accompany crowds. don’t tell me what i know. my comment was only on the scope of crowd psychology in human beings. A lot of the commenters are reading into things I said that arent’ there
I said was “Having not read the story”…sometimes a peaceful crowd will go mad. hence there is a phrase “the madness of crowds”
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
I have to read stuff>? What is this, the mid 20th century? I’ll just wait till the mini-series comes out. I said was …sometimes a peaceful crowd will go mad. hence there is a phrase “the madness of crowds” === which is a true statement
I’ve been reading many different news sources lately and I don’t trust them. I’m not saying that this isn’t true, but wait for secondary sources, Al Jazeera sucks IMO,
Doesn’t change the fact that Al Jazeera is biased in my opinion, I just couldn’t find anyone else that felt the same. I looked at their wiki and it says they’re under Time Warner for their TV stations, but I couldn’t tell who owns them now.
That’s kind of what I gathered from it, but it was hard to confirm. The closest was the Media Bias Check that no one here seems to like. Honestly, if people like them, believe everything they say and ignore/downvote as what seems to be happening, lol. I don’t really have skin in the game, but I could see why it looked that way.
If you believe everything the BBC says about the British government, CBC about the Canadian government… You’re a massive chud. Yet we can take some of what they publish and still believe it is the objective truth.
Everyone is biased, that’s the freaking point. “Un biased” media does not exist, it’s retoric created to make you think whatever you watch is better than the rest.
If I headline an article “Man dies in police involved shooting” instead of “Unarmed black man murdered by racist pig” both of these are technically factual aren’t they? Yet they both have a clear bias.
Let me give you another example I saw recently in a lot of Canadian media: “One arrested at pro-palestinian demonstration” vs “Zionist arrested for assault at pro-palestian protest.”… Yet now the same media is headlining “At least two pro-palestinian protestors arrested”… Do you see how all of these are factual, and yet biased?
Since you obviously didn’t read the comment I linked to, I’ll copypasta the relevant bits:
The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:
Just look at my history, you can easily see what I’m all about. I look for non-conjecture, fact-based headlines and content. Their headlines are biased. I used them as a serious source at first, but then it became where I don’t even look at them, same with Huffpost. Huffpost looks like the National Enquirer for the last few months I’ve been gathering content. I usually won’t go past the headline if I feel it doesn’t match the content or it’s shitty in some way. AP is barely in the running as well. I did post the “Florida Man with 91 indictments goes to trial” or something like that because I thought it was funny, but I’m usually pretty good.
You are correct, every source of media has a bias. To expand upon your comment. Whenever we are consuming media and in particular news that sould always be in our minds. Who’s is sponsoring this, what is trying to be accomplished by this piece?
Al Jazeera has a stronger bias than most but considering that it’s essentially state media they are a lot more objective than I expect they would be. It’s not a trash news source but it definitely takes more scrutiny than say DW news.
Yup. They do have an AMAZING documentary on Iraq though called “Iraq: Destruction of a Nation”. If you can find it it’s absolutely worth the FOUR HOURS watch. One of the most objective geopolitics documentary I’ve seen in a long time.
AJ is biased heavily on this one, more than they are on most topics. They’re practically the state media of Qatar, and Qatar shelters Hamas leaders.
But it’s hard to find any source in a conflict like this that isn’t biased somewhere to someone. This war is chaos and chaos always has a lot of wiggle room when it comes to truth. Read BBC News and Al Jazeera and take the average. It’s somewhere around there.
Israel are cunts. Hamas are cunts. Lots of innocent people getting killed. Whether 10 or 50 people got killed in any particular massacre is immaterial at this point.
So was it Israeli helicopters, tanks and drones? Or armed Palestinian gunmen and trucks? Evidence recorded in the aftermath should make one or the other clear.
To kill 21 people and injure over a hundred, it’s much easier to do that with the former than the latter.
Israel got in hot water internationally the last time for doing exactly the same thing. So blaming Hamas is an easy trick to pull to try and detract from the ongoing mass starvation they are directly responsible for.
It’s really gross.
They did the exact same thing when they first blew up a hospital. Then they proceeded to blow up all the hospitals after the major news outlets stopped covering it.
Ditto with murdering literally over 100 journalists to try and suppress independent coverage of their ongoing genocide.
You can’t trust fascists propaganda to accurately report fascist genocide.
I’d take anything published by Jerusalem Post as inherently incapable of being unbiased about Israel/Palestine. Let’s wait for a third party confirmation before making this claim.
Censorship in Israel is officially carried out by the Israeli Military Censor, a unit in the Israeli government officially tasked with carrying out preventive censorship regarding the publication of information that might affect the security of Israel. The body is headed by the Israeli Chief Censor
On average, 2240 press articles in Israel are censored by the Israeli Military Censor each year, approximately 240 of which in full, and around 2000 partially.
Articles concerning potentially controversial topics must be submitted to the Israeli Military Censor in advance; failing to do so may cause the reporter to lose his right to work as a journalist in Israe
Add comment