POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[SeventhSandwich]

I mean I guess I can understand if you mean articles where they outright claim she's a murderer or something

You mean like the Seth Rich conspiracies you were shilling just yesterday?

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

even if the facts are true, presenting facts in a way that's supposed to state a claim as fact is dangerous, and that's one of the real dangers of pulling a biased source in argument. if you're pulling from a source for objective truths, then those truths should (ideally) be presented with unclouded clairty and not be attached to argumentative content, no matter how peripheral it is, otherwise it can skew and confuse discussion. sites dedicated to supplying that kind of content are abundant and they exist to feed bias rather than provide honest, clear information

[Deus Ex]

"NEW BOMBSHELL! will ruin CORRUPT HILLARYS CAREER! country SHOCKED!"
'its not slander if its the truth' doesn't work in a world of opinionated politics. of course, the ones reporting on like, the deplorables incident or other mishaps aren't necessarily slander, but the automatically generated clickbait titles on how hillary plans to nuke the entire world isn't necessarily the most trustworthy
yes, these are the exact sites that master matthew checks on the daily. slant doesn't hurt sites credibility, but the clickbait attack-a-candidate-and-get-money type news that just exists only to get as much attention as possible are not credible.

even if the facts are true, presenting facts in a way that's supposed to state a claim as fact is dangerous, and that's one of the real dangers of pulling a biased source in argument. if you're pulling from a source for objective truths, then those truths should (ideally) be presented with unclouded clairty and not be attached to argumentative content, no matter how peripheral it is, otherwise it can skew and confuse discussion

Fair statements

You mean like the Seth Rich conspiracies you were shilling just yesterday?

Not a conspiracy, get your head of your ass

[GRIMLOCK_]

Kimon is the king of cringe

[SeventhSandwich]

Not a conspiracy, get your head of your ass

You're accusing the DNC of murdering their political enemies without any real evidence. That's a textbook conspiracy theory. What else would you call it?

Hell, come to think of it, that's giving it too much credit already. There isn't even any evidence that Seth Rich was an enemy of the DNC.

[Master Matthew²]

-word soup parahraph-

Literally wrong
https://www.google.com/search?q=slander+definition&oq=slander+definition&aqs=chrome..69i57.4175j0j4&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[St. Francis Xavier]

"NEW BOMBSHELL! will ruin CORRUPT HILLARYS CAREER! country SHOCKED!"
'its not slander if its the truth' doesn't work in a world of opinionated politics. of course, the ones reporting on like, the deplorables incident or other mishaps aren't necessarily slander, but the automatically generated clickbait titles on how hillary plans to nuke the entire world isn't necessarily the most trustworthy

SLANDER:

• n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed.
  

[PhantOS]

obviously you can't slander if its the truth, but using that as an excuse doesn't work when the 'truth' isn't always true, per se

that's like saying "hillary wants to start nuclear war" isn't slander because its the truth. clearly it being true or false is up for heavy debate, so until then it's obviously slander

Literally wrong

literally right. the amount of false bullstuff cnn spewed out during the election was crazy. all the 'hillary will blow up the world' or 'hillary is hatching a murder plot' conspiracies are a word or two shy of slander

[Master Matthew²]

obviously you can't slander if its the truth, but using that as an excuse doesn't work when the 'truth' isn't always true, per se

Its either true or it isn't.
There is no in between.

[PhantOS]

Its either true or it isn't.
There is no in between.

you're right, let's just call it false for now. so the claim of 'its not slander if its true' is not correct, because its not true

[Punished Toxicology]

how about forever

[Master Matthew²]

literally right. the amount of false bullstuff cnn spewed out during the election was crazy. all the 'hillary will blow up the world' or 'hillary is hatching a murder plot' conspiracies are a word or two shy of slander

I wasnt arguing that info wars was right, i was arguing that you dont know what slander means.

you're right, let's just call it false for now. so the claim of 'its not slander if its true' is not correct, because its not true

Thank you, now we can stop saying bulkstuff like
"The Russians hacked the Election"
Or "The tribal Immigration ban"

[PhantOS]

I wasnt arguing that info wars was right, i was arguing that you dont know what slander means.

i do, and i explained why

Thank you, now we can stop saying bulkstuff like
"The Russians hacked the Election"
Or "The tribal Immigration ban"

sure

[Conan]

I wasnt arguing that info wars was right, i was arguing that you dont know what slander means.Thank you, now we can stop saying bulkstuff like
"The Russians hacked the Election"
Or "The tribal Immigration ban"

how do you reach these conclusions jesus

[Deus Ex]

You're accusing the DNC of murdering their political enemies without any real evidence. That's a textbook conspiracy theory. What else would you call it?

Hell, come to think of it, that's giving it too much credit already. There isn't even any evidence that Seth Rich was an enemy of the DNC.

Jesus christ we've been over this multiple times I'm not even gonna bother with you anymore