Link to community: [email protected]
this post was submitted on 31 May 2021
-2 points (47.1% liked)
Announcements
23526 readers
62 users here now
Official announcements from the Lemmy project. Subscribe to this community or add it to your RSS reader in order to be notified about new releases and important updates.
You can also find major news on join-lemmy.org
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what's the difference to regular world news? Are news something political? Shouldn't they be properly researched anyway?
well, tbh all news outlets will have a political bias, capitalists news will be in favour of capitalism and vice versa.
And others will defend authoritarian regimes and push conspiracies.
You talk a lot about authoritarian countries, but simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with your opinion, as if you are somehow infallible. I think the idea that everyone should think exactly like you is in fact much more authoritarian. Dont you believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion? Or is that only if they agree with you?
Not every opinion is as legitimate as others. And yours is definitely not lol at least in my opinion. But I wouldn't be alone in thinking that, at least outside Lemmy.
So you would say that your opinion is superior to mine, because people in your surroundings agree with you? It might surprise you to hear this, but people in my surroundings also agree with me, but for me that isnt a reason to claim superiority. Would you really prefer if Lemmy was an echo chamber where everyone thinks just like you?
This chap believes all people are equal but some people are more equal than others. And if anyone questions them, they will dismiss others with some goal shifting, generalised labelling or ignorant handwaving.
Both chaps do, actually 😉
I'd consider my stance on a lot of things more reputable and more within reason than yours, yes.
In one of your earlier comments, you laughed at the notion of western propaganda. Do you believe that western sources / media are more reputable than others?
I think there exists western propaganda. But not the one you think exists.
What is the kind of western propaganda you think that Dessalines thinks exists? What kind of western propaganda does exist in your opinion and why doesn't the other kind?
I don't think this is the best place to go in to detail about that, but I'll do it since you asked.
First, I should admit there are media sources in the west that can be sensational, in-factual or even being pure propaganda outlets. However these are not regarded as reputable sources in the west either.
Where I think dessalines and others takes it too far is when they regard mainstream reputable and scrutanized sources as propagandamachines against China and Russia. And conspiracies go as far as NATO being a neo nazi organization.
Here is a rough list, although not everyone of them probably agree on who they feel about all the sources:
These people will refute everything posted that is negative towards Russia, Belarus and China. And talk down sources as these. I've also seen downvoting on criticism of north korea which I've found weird. I don't think that is very rational, at least if you understand how legitimacy and how heads will roll in media for doing inappropriate things.
At the same time they are using alternative news sources things like:
Which are specifically known for spreading conspiracies
Which I'd consider pretty bad
And why is that? Do you not think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion?
Apparently I not. And apparently you can't make value judgments on other people's opinions either.
Thanks for confirming. I will take this opportunity to ban you from /c/worldnews, because of your hostile behaviour there. This is something I should have done long ago. The main reason I didnt is that I didnt want to give the impression that you were targeted because of our political disagreements. But the fact is that you are causing too much trouble. Take this as a warning, if you keep being hostile to other users, you will get a site ban.
I think you shouldn't ban people just because they're not nice to you. Which problems did they cause in [email protected]? (EDIT: clarifying that I read some of their comments, but nothing banworthy yet – so I'm not saying they don't cause trouble, just that I'd like to see at least a few instances of hard evidence against them).
We don't all agree on Lemmy. You're doing right now what you accuse @[email protected] of:
Bruh. "Spamming" links to Reuters and Telegraph hardly counts as "hostile behaviour" in my book. If you ban them because you don't like the content they're sharing and you're the mod of [email protected], just say so. It'd at least be honest. Maybe even honest to yourself.
Censoring wrong opinions instead of answering them with proper sources is a pretty "interesting" move. Sure, you can't talk to fascists, but I don't see one here. They're entitled to their opinion, just as you are entitled to ban them from your community – don't say you're doing this because you're superior, when you claim to not claim superiority. This is an oxymoron.
Do you have a specific instance that transgress the rules though? Or is it a personal thing? Doesn't really seem fair.
I made a longer comment here. If you still dont know what the problem is after reading that, then I really dont know how to explain it to you.
You made a longer comment without concrete examples linking back to this thread here? What kind of circular doublethink is that? At least ban people because they spread verifiable misinformation. You didn't provide any of them, just your own biased sources, as far as I can tell. I'll be happy to revise this comment when you can link a few good examples where you're not just doing the spiderman pointy-game.
what
this is probably exactly the kind of comments you have been banned for. Your view is not superior to others. You have a different opinion and can't accept it.
Coincidentally, the admin can't accept your opinion either.
Come on, mate. Saying "Non-capitalist outlets defend authoritarian regimes and push conspiracies" hardly matches your mission statement from your sub:
Bashing alternative views surely isn't your best, no?
I don't get what you are trying to communicate. Could you explain it differently?
Your grandparent comment:
basically says "non-capitalist outlets defend authoritarian regimes ...". I think that's bashing anything non-capitalist / tilting towards propaganda and believe systems. There are many non-capitalist arguments that don't have anything to do with authoritarian regimes or conspiracy theories.
Your mission statement says that you want to be productive and avoid becoming an echo chamber.
Those two statements don't align as far as I'm concerned, since you basically set yourself up as an echo chamber.
Well, I beg to differ. But that is your opinion and I respect that regardless of how misrepresented I feel about how you portray my position.
Maybe you have time to explain how I misinterpreted your position?
You are trying to throw stones at a wall in hopes of getting bricks to talk.
:/
I don't believe all 'non-capitalistic outlets defend authoritarian regimes'. I believe there is a giant majority community on Lemmy with lemmygrad who will go to any length to defend authoritarian regimes. They are also highly conspiratorial and believe that all of mainstream western media is propaganda, and that there doesn't exist a true democracy in the west. They will also dominate the threads in addition to some becoming annoyed another narrative is portrayed leading the person sharing the other narrative getting all posts downvoted and most interactions tainted by their wrath.
All of this sounds quite loaded from an ideological point of view. You may not believe that non-capitalism supports authoritarians, but that is what you wrote.
It feels that your are on a mission to defend western mainstream media, but it seems that your main point is that you don't like others attacking it. The arguments you don't like, "dominate the threads" because lemmy started with people on the left end of the spectrum. Calling it "conspirational" and complaining about getting downvoted misses the idea lemmy presents.
You can get downvoted on a comment to eternity. It won't show up in your karma and you are free to engage in the next discussion as you please. People won't care about your internet points.
"but it seems that your main point is that you don’t like others attacking it."
Okai, rando
Should they be?
Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Logic, the scientific method,...
I agree, to a certain extent. Usually the natural sciences affect policy and politics and not the other way round. You can't change the laws of physics just by wishful thinking and issuing a decree things are falling upwards into the sky from now on. You can't make 2+2=5, even if you're living in the current year of 1984.
There is an explanation inside the group if you look at the description.
Imperialist capitalist echo chamber with MBFC "fact checker" as arbiter of truths is the difference.
This comment utterly destroyed and left MBFC credibility limping: https://lemmy.ml/post/68185/comment/57988
Personally I will not even touch this sub with a 100 foot pole. I love critical thinking and educating people. Everyone has freedom though lol