BLM burnt down french town and injured police.

[Alternat¡ve]

He's not throwing a fit or trying to push any agenda.

Only source I can find on this is from Breitbart, a conservative nutjob news site. Got a reliable source?

he dismissed a news site immediately because it was right wing based. please take your memes and your big text and get out

[Ad Bot]

[WaterOre]

he dismissed a news site immediately because it was right wing based. please take your memes and your big text and get out

I think he was dismissing it more for the "nutjob" rather than the "conservative"

political affiliation aside, any nutty tabloid is automatically an unreliable source and shouldn't be presented as purely factual

[McZealot]

No, I dismissed it bceause it's Breitbart, a highly conservative (BLM is a liberal movement, so they will be biased against it) and nutjob (they frequently post false and conspiratorial articles much like this one) news site. Fox News is better than this. For as much crap as people give them, I've never seen them totally falsify a news story due to political bias.

edit: nvm that last statement wasn't true. They reported that there were large swathes of Muslim-controlled land in Paris that police were ordered never to enter lmao

[Willymcmilly]

he dismissed a news site immediately because it was right wing based. please take your memes and your big text and get out

good stuff dude

So you're going to believe a story that's only been covered by ONE major news outlet so far? Let alone one that has a BIAS AGAINST the group the news subject is on?

[otto-san]

he dismissed a news site immediately because it was right wing based. please take your memes and your big text and get out

to be more precise, he dismissed it because a site with known ideological bias was the only option. that isn't typically a good sign for the validity of your story, it's not unheard of for news outlets to misconstrue information for their own benefit, and breitbart deals pretty much exclusively in stories that they can report to their own benefit (outside of profit motive).

you seemed to imply you feel the same way about similar left-leaning sources like the young turks so i imagine you understand what the problems with consistent unapologetic ideological bias can be

[Alternat¡ve]

good stuff dude

So you're going to believe a story that's only been covered by ONE major news outlet so far? Let alone one that has a BIAS AGAINST the group the news subject is on?

again you think posting memes and making your text bigger and bold makes your point more valid than it already isn't. babbys first time figuring out bbcode?

you seemed to imply you feel the same way about similar left-leaning sources like the young turks so i imagine you understand what the problems with consistent unapologetic ideological bias can be

i don't dismiss left wing sources automatically like willymilly and maczealot, even though i usually don't agree with them.

[TheBrickBuilder]

Don't praise him. A falsified source is worse than none. If there isn't one, people will at least do their own research.

Not praising him but seeing tony post a source now is like seeing a snowflake in a desert

[McZealot]

I don't dismiss right wing sources. I dismiss stupid right wing sources. Just as I'd dismiss a backwater neo-liberal anarchist blog as a news source.

There's loads of reliable conservatives news sources:

Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, the Las Vegas Review, the Dallas Morning News, New York Post...

Even FOX News would be a more reliable source than an Illuminati conspiracy website.

[otto-san]

i don't dismiss left wing sources automatically like willymilly and maczealot, even though i usually don't agree with them.

in a situation where the only outlet providing a specific account of an event was a site that's clearly got a left or right bias, would you say that's suspicious?

confirmation bias definitely works both ways, and people will readily dismiss information if they can be convinced that it was from an opinionated source, but i think this situation warrants pretty reasonable doubt

[McZealot]

Dude, it feels so weird to be in a political majority in one of these topics. Usually I post and get 5 bad arguments from McJob and INH then a hilarious meme from Maxx.

[Willymcmilly]

again you think posting memes and making your text bigger and bold makes your point more valid than it already isn't. babbys first time figuring out bbcode?

I guess it's hard to help posting memes when i'm already laughing at you.

i don't dismiss left wing sources automatically like willymilly and maczealot, even though i usually don't agree with them.

Have you been taking anything into consideration? McZealot and I aren't dismissing the source simply for being right-wing, we're skeptic of it because it's a source with a bias against people like this and is often cited by right-wing extremists to justify their opinions, not to mention it being the only major source covering the topic.

[hillkill]

i honestly don't understand the whole "black lives matter" stuff. they say the police are savages, and then they try to kill police?

[McZealot]

i honestly don't understand the whole "black lives matter" stuff. they say the police are savages, and then they try to kill police?

1. That's not BLM, those are rioters. BLM has never condoned violence
2. There are genuine reasons to dislike BLM. For example, threatening to shut down a gay pride parade unless they were given a booth.
3. They don't say police are savages, they say that police are more likely to kill black people, which is mostly false.

[Alternat¡ve]

1. That's not BLM, those are rioters. BLM has never condoned violence

no true scotsman fallacy. BLMs inspiration is a convicted cop killer and is on the FBI most wanted list.

[JitankIsFag]

no true scotsman fallacy. BLMs inspiration is a convicted cop killer and is on the FBI most wanted list.

Um this couldnt be any further from false. If this was true then every protester would carry gun and go to town.  #BLM started as a hashtag.