....that would be my job...
Lookin4GoodArgs
joined 1 year ago
How are people supposed to trust studies when stuff like this happens?
By reading the study and not relying on someone's interpretation of it.
Remember dumbass
Simmer down now....
You called all watchers of Fox News brain damaged, a mod said don't characterize a whole group of people as such, and you said no.
At the time, we had a rule against bad faith arguments, and stereotyping a whole group as textbook bad faith arguing.
BUT!
We've new rules for you to dance around. Read them for the love of being a contrarian in a community that isn't particularly welcome to your views, and...idk...tango away!
Rule 3 violation.
What makes Fox News so bad? Make the argument.
Rule 3 violation.
Next time, just make whatever argument you're trying to make, like...why are news stories from white nationalist publications bad? Tedious, I know...but do it.
Rule 3 Violation.
Do yourself a favor and make an argument...as tedious as it may be.
Child poverty more than doubles — a year after hitting record low, Census data shows
Of course that happened. (Just throwing out numbers to make a point) If child poverty started at 100,000 kids in poverty, dropped to 30,000 kids, caused by American Rescue Plan, and then it rose to 60,000 when the rescue plan expired, then the above article headline is true.
Still, fewer kids in poverty, which is what matters.
My issue was never with the argument.
That should always be the issue and the only issue.
It was with your little lapdog claiming something that their source did not corroborate, and then gaslighting everyone in that thread calling them out for it. This is the kind of shit you’re supposed to moderate. How many times do you have to be told to DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.
This was 100% unnecessary.
The article headline is wrong in multiple ways, but that's the nature of...the Washington Examiner. The content itself is intentionally written to be unclear and support a particular narrative. That is a flaw of the paper itself.
And it's certainly not an issue you should elevate into personal attacks on the poster or the mod.
Take a day and cool off.
1 day ban: Violation of Rule 3
Warning for Rule 3 Violation.
You might be surprised to find out that there are in fact, gay conservatives, or conservatives are even supportive of gay marriage. But, to do that, you'll need to give them a chance to say so rather than assuming they're against it.
1 week ban.
The mod explicitly said "fair warning", don't argue in bad faith, and you insisted on doing exactly that.
So....did it exclude Jews, really?