In todays news...

[gremlin]

Sneaky anglers get time in prison for cheating.

Fishing cheats net prison sentence over scandal

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65567422

No getting off the hook for them. Felt the full weight of the law. The scales of justice. Ad infinitum.

[Screwdriver]

Sorry, you lost me at 'facts which the media did not want you to know'.

Presumably the 'media' hang out in some bar with the doctors who withhold that one secret fat-loss technique they don't want us to know.

Edit: I've since done a little research on these 'facts' and, as suspected, they're generally either bollocks or wildly exaggerated. You need to stop relying on Fox as a single source of 'news' and thinking it's real.

I don't know where they hang out but they are 90% owned by left wing media tycoons and are clearly being briefed by the same source, typically the propaganda machine within the Whitehouse. Naturally in order for that not to sound like mere guesswork, you would also need to know how many Whitehouse staffers pop in and out of high powered mainstream media/Whitehouse positions. Let alone all of the government operatives infiltrating social media.

Look where Karine Jean-Pierre came from (NBC, MSNBC - her partner works at CNN) and look where Jen Psaki is now for example (MSNBC). It's a left wing propaganda merry go round.

Who's to say the media outlet you used to research the falsity's of Screweds info isn't also posting false information?

It's horses for courses, i think you need to take a pinch from each media outlet and try and use your own real life experience as to what parts are actually true otherwise you could just say that all media outlets are corrupt, surely that isn't the case...? -

Incredibly both E. Jean Carrol and Roberta Kaplan appeared on CNN boasting about how they had managed to work this scam. They didn't call it a scam of course but I paraphrase their comments in my response above. Unless the interview was a ChatGPT deep fake, I take it from the horses mouth.

This is kind of the point though. I would never dream of reading 'a' media outlet. I read at least 5 or 6 for every point I researched, and as the right-wing, pro-trump media is at least as prominent as the left or balanced media, I'd have expected to have found at least some reference to some of the points that didn't appear anywhere.

It is and you should both look in a mirror and ask yourselves the same question. I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

I don't blame anyone for not being so engrossed in current affairs as I am but if you are not so well informed, I would appreciate it if you would pause a moment before making assumptions about where and how I form my opinions.

There are multiple examples of where these tactics have been used historically. Control of the media, education system, weaponise the instruments of state, smear and harass opposition figures, maintain a healthy "army" of political activists using them to harass opposition figures. You should know which types of authoritarian regimes used such tactics and they are clearly being used right now.

I would be more interested to hear why those observations are not true than dismissing my opinions with some made up excuses.

[Count Steer]

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

All it says to me is that if a media organisation does something you disagree with they lose your attention and therefore I wonder what happens to those media organisations that don't propagate your particular views.

[Screwdriver]

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

All it says to me is that if a media organisation does something you disagree with they lose your attention and therefore I wonder what happens to those media organisations that don't propagate your particular views.

Then you would be wrong. It is nothing to do with "what" they say it is more about what factual evidence supports their claims.

I lose interest in any media outlet that tells lies. Falsehoods are easy to confirm, truths are more difficult to prove. This is the foundation of science for example. The logic is fairly easy to understand, ask Betrand Russell

Is that wrong of me then?

<edit> what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it. The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media. Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is. The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

CNN perhaps? MSNBC? The fucking BBC? Don't make me laugh...

[Slenver]

You should know which types of authoritarian regimes used such tactics and they are clearly being used right now.

'"Clearly" being used right now'

[Slenver]

what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it.

I've no idea how you come to that conclusion. It is very much "what" you are saying that people react to. "Who" you are on an anonymous internet forum is essentially a word-one nickname and one small icon.

The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media.

Or, one could just as easily say, the known facts contradict the narrative from the far-right media.

Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is.

There aren't all that many to choose from. I guessed and got it right. Wasn't hard.

The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

Agreed.

[Screwdriver]

what I find fascinating is that, once again, it is not "what" I am saying people are reacting to, it is the fact that I am saying it.

I've no idea how you come to that conclusion. It is very much "what" you are saying that people react to. "Who" you are on an anonymous internet forum is essentially a word-one nickname and one small icon.

Easy, you don't ever answer any of the questions or comment on my opinion, merely suggest Screwdriver must be wrong because he must be relying on Fox News. If I could be arsed, I'd quote you doing exactly that.

The implication is that therefore it must be "wrong" simply because it does not comply with the narrative from the mainstream media.

Or, one could just as easily say, the known facts contradict the narrative from the far-right media.

Yes of course. If that was the case you could. But because it isn't you can't (in this example).

Typically the poster will then go on to criticise my "source" without even knowing what it is.

There aren't all that many to choose from. I guessed and got it right. Wasn't hard.

Err, you guessed wrong and if you could tear yourself away from your own confirmation bias and merely read what I wrote above, you'd see why you are wrong.

The flip side of that observation is that in order to have a contrary opinion, they must themselves be relying on some source of information they would claim is "better".

Agreed.

Awesome. Do tell. Which is your valued source that never lies?

[Mussels]

Sneaky anglers get time in prison for cheating.

Fishing cheats net prison sentence over scandal

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65567422

No getting off the hook for them. Felt the full weight of the law. The scales of justice. Ad infinitum.

I want to know why all the other fishermen weren't prosecuted.

They pleaded guilty in March to cheating and unlawful ownership of wild animals.

[Screwdriver]

You should know which types of authoritarian regimes used such tactics and they are clearly being used right now.

'"Clearly" being used right now'

Since you can't be bothered to think of any actual examples. let me pick your brains with a couple of "facts" you appear to refute with your <unnamed> reliable news source:

The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law i.e. the "adult survivors act"

The very next day, she just happened to pick Trump as one of the most egregious examples of a sex predator from the past two decades.**

There you go. Two easy facts you are dismissing I'm sure your superior news sources can easily debunk.


**A period which includes Epstein (who murdered himself before he could name names, much to Bill Gates relief) and Cuomo. I only pick those two because paradoxically, Kaplan actually defended those reprobates. It is only paradoxical if you ignore the obvious political bias hence I form the opinion it is "clearly" a politically motivated with hunt.

[MrLongbeard]

They pleaded guilty in March to cheating and unlawful ownership of wild animals.

Them's have some funny wildlife laws, it's illegal to filet a fish until you're back on shore, or the filets could have been from a species that's protected / out of season.

Yes I do watch too much Lone Star Law

[Count Steer]

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest. You might want to think about that.

All it says to me is that if a media organisation does something you disagree with they lose your attention and therefore I wonder what happens to those media organisations that don't propagate your particular views.

Then you would be wrong. It is nothing to do with "what" they say it is more about what factual evidence supports their claims.

I lose interest in any media outlet that tells lies. Falsehoods are easy to confirm, truths are more difficult to prove. This is the foundation of science for example. The logic is fairly easy to understand, ask Betrand Russell

Is that wrong of me then?

So until Fox dispensed with Carlson they were telling 'the truth' and had factual evidence to support their claims, so you watched it...then he left and they now they don't tell 'the truth', so you don't watch it. Hmmm. OK.

Next time I see Bertrand Russell I'll ask him. (I have read Principia Mathematica though if it helps).

It's nice that the logic is easy to understand though, even for someone that's not you.

[Horse]

Here's another way to look at that factually true spin using "alternate" facts which the media did not want you to know:

Factually true, but 'spin' because it doesn't fit the preferred narrative?

Sheesh

[Screwdriver]

So until Fox dispensed with Carlson they were telling 'the truth' and had factual evidence to support their claims, so you watched it...then he left and they now they don't tell 'the truth', so you don't watch it. Hmmm. OK.

Next time I see Bertrand Russell I'll ask him. (I have read Principia Mathematica though if it helps).

It's nice that the logic is easy to understand though, even for someone that's not you.

Wow.

So logic is not your strong point then...Makes me wonder how much of the Principia you actually understood.

I said "I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest."

In a further comment I said "I lose interest in any media outlet that tells lies."

You actually quote me.

From which you deduce the above. Your attempt at an insult looks rather pathetic now doesn't it or do I really need to explain the glaring flaws in your attempt to follow such simple logic?

[irie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65572257

I read this hoping to mock the pious twat, but £500 for 5mph over the speed limit is ridiculous, and who exactly is the victim that there's a £120 surcharge for?

God knows.

Oh.

[irie]

So until Fox dispensed with Carlson they were telling 'the truth' and had factual evidence to support their claims, so you watched it...then he left and they now they don't tell 'the truth', so you don't watch it. Hmmm. OK.

Next time I see Bertrand Russell I'll ask him. (I have read Principia Mathematica though if it helps).

It's nice that the logic is easy to understand though, even for someone that's not you.

Wow.

So logic is not your strong point then...Makes me wonder how much of the Principia you actually understood.

I said "I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson for being too honest."

In a further comment I said "I lose interest in any media outlet that tells lies."

You actually quote me.

From which you deduce the above. Your attempt at an insult looks rather pathetic now doesn't it or do I really need to explain the glaring flaws in your attempt to follow such simple logic?

Bet your sh1t smells of roses.

[Slenver]

Easy, you don't ever answer any of the questions or comment on my opinion, merely suggest Screwdriver must be wrong because he must be relying on Fox News. If I could be arsed, I'd quote you doing exactly that.

I regularly answer your questions or comment on your opinion. No, I don't have time to respond to every single point you make in every post, especially as they're often densely packed with dubious statements. This isn't a veiled insult, there's really not enough time in the day.

Err, you guessed wrong and if you could tear yourself away from your own confirmation bias and merely read what I wrote above, you'd see why you are wrong.

Confirmation bias? I said you presumably watch Fox news. You said you did until Carlson was sacked which was literally 2 weeks ago. So, in other words, I'm completely right, with the caveat that the last few days have been an exception.

Awesome. Do tell. Which is your valued source that never lies?

You clearly didn't read anything I wrote. There is no single source of truth. Reading a wide variety of sources, and understanding their particular biases and trustworthiness, will give the best impression of 'the truth'. As well you know. Obviously, how you allocate trustworthiness is subjective, but that's as good as it gets. It's an imperfect world.

But yes, I believe that reading multiple sources, including generally more reliable ones, is going to be significantly better than relying on a single source that by its own admission can't be taken seriously.

[Slenver]

Since you can't be bothered to think of any actual examples. let me pick your brains with a couple of "facts" you appear to refute with your <unnamed> reliable news source:

The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law i.e. the "adult survivors act"

The very next day, she just happened to pick Trump as one of the most egregious examples of a sex predator from the past two decades.**

There you go. Two easy facts you are dismissing I'm sure your superior news sources can easily debunk.

OK, a few points here.

1. Nobody 'makes up' new laws. You sound like Tucker Carlson himself now, in full demonic fascist-frowny-rant mode. The classic Fox/far-right technique of taking something mundane and using language to insinuate evil intent that doesn't exist. Can we settle on laws being 'passed' rather than 'made up'?

2. Was Carroll instrumental in passing this new law? Genuine question. I couldn't find any reference to this whatsoever, but am happy to read anything that there is. As Horse posted earlier, the law was based on a previous law regarding child abuse and several people are referenced in working towards it, but I've looked and failed to find any connection with Carroll to it whatsoever. Happy to learn more. But even if she did, I'm not sure how that's a negative... her point was that she wanted to sue someone for rape and US law has a strict statute of limitation that she wanted to change. Why wouldn't she campaign against it? If she did, good for her.

3. The day after it was passed, Carroll sued Trump. Well, yes. I mentioned this myself much earlier. In the context of her having a law available to her to try and get a legal resolution to her case. This isn't bias, I have no idea whether he was guilty or not any more than you do, I'm just stating the facts. Rehashing them with, again, a Carlsoneque evil overtone doesn't change anything. She sued Trump as soon as it was legally viable, yes. We're agreed.

4. Carroll 'just happened to pick Trump'?? What does that even mean? Her case is that Trump raped her. What are you suggesting? She would pick some other random person? For what reason? Yes, she sued the person she'd accused of raping her. I think your statement here is so weird as to be bordering on a bit unhinged.

So, in summary. Two facts 'I'm dismissing'. One that I'd already brought up myself before as a fact, that you even responded to, and one that I can find no evidence of whatsoever, but would happily agree on if true. But is no way a negative. Or, to put it another way, two 'facts' that I've not even hinted at dismissing in any form at all.

[Screwdriver]

Easy, you don't ever answer any of the questions or comment on my opinion, merely suggest Screwdriver must be wrong because he must be relying on Fox News. If I could be arsed, I'd quote you doing exactly that.

I regularly answer your questions or comment on your opinion. No, I don't have time to respond to every single point you make in every post, especially as they're often densely packed with dubious statements. This isn't a veiled insult, there's really not enough time in the day.

Here you are not answering the question relating to whether or not you can be bothered to answer the question by saying "I don't have time to respond to every single point" which I translate into "you can't be bothered to answer the question". A great example of dodging the issue with a hand waving non specific reference to "dubious statements". Again. If you could take the time to specifically indicate which "dubious statement" you refer to we could have a conversation. Instead you take the time to say you don't have the time...

Err, you guessed wrong and if you could tear yourself away from your own confirmation bias and merely read what I wrote above, you'd see why you are wrong.

Confirmation bias? I said you presumably watch Fox news. You said you did until Carlson was sacked which was literally 2 weeks ago. So, in other words, I'm completely right, with the caveat that the last few days have been an exception.

FANTASTIC! No. You actually said:

You need to stop relying on Fox as a single source of 'news' and thinking it's real.

In other words, you are telling me my source is "Fox News" which has become a trope in this forum. Rather than answer a specific point, people invariably use the old "Fox News" response as if 1. the information had in fact been gathered from Fox, 2. therefore it must be wrong and 3. ergo, it is not worth replying to the point being made.

You made this response after I had made it clear I had seen an interview from CNN! You and others on this forum constantly tell me I am using Fox News as my source when I have made no mention of doing so. Since it has been said so often, it is clear that you and others believe it must be true.

That is of course the very definition of confirmation bias. Screwdriver says something which contradicts the mainstream media narrative, therefore he got it off Fox News.

[Yorick]

Fuck me. The level of stupidity in here is breathtaking. 4 usual suspects
I popped in by mistake.

It's a fight to the death. No chance of a winner

[Slenver]

Here you are not answering the question relating to whether or not you can be bothered to answer the question by saying "I don't have time to respond to every single point" which I translate into "you can't be bothered to answer the question". A great example of dodging the issue with a hand waving non specific reference to "dubious statements". Again. If you could take the time to specifically indicate which "dubious statement" you refer to we could have a conversation. Instead you take the time to say you don't have the time...

It's getting late. I'm a bottle of wine down. I didn't understand any of that. If you could just tell me what question I'm supposed to respond to then I will.

In other words, you are telling me my source is "Fox News" which has become a trope in this forum. Rather than answer a specific point, people invariably use the old "Fox News" response as if 1. the information had in fact been gathered from Fox, 2. therefore it must be wrong and 3. ergo, it is not worth replying to the point being made.

Also you said earlier

I stopped watching Fox News when they sacked Tucker Carlson

Which, as I just said, was two weeks ago. Ergo, and correct me if I'm wrong, you did watch Fox News. Not sure what your point is. I say (jokingly as it goes, because I didn't expect anyone to admit to this) 'oh, you must watch Fox News'. You reply with, effectively, yes, until recently. And then follow with a barage of defence that you don't. And yes, of course people doubt its veracity if anything comes from there. Like I say, by their own admission they shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not 'news', it's nasty, vicious racist, far-right rhetoric and lies that's cost them dearly recently.

You and others on this forum constantly tell me I am using Fox News as my source when I have made no mention of doing so.

Er, see above. It's this actual thread, dude, it's this evening! You've come over all trumpian and think that denying stuff you're on record as saying suddenly doesn't count. It doesn't work like that.

Screwdriver says something which contradicts the mainstream media narrative, therefore he got it off Fox News.

Ugh, this is getting tiresome. No... Screwdriver says something which is stupid, full of holes, lies and insane conspiracy theories, easily disproven and generally a bit wacky. Yes, he probably got it off of Fox News. By your own admission. Though I think this Fox thing is becoming an irrelevant sideline you need to let go.