Jordan Lund at it again
Context:
The article in question was well sourced, factually accurate, and written by a well-renowned author and journalist whose work appears elsewhere too, regardless of which outlet published it.
Nonetheless, Jordan Lund is once again blindly trusting a pro-zionist conservative outlet masquerading as a bias and fact checker that nothing from anywhere that criticizes the fascist apartheid regime can be reliable 🤦
You're viewing a single thread.
The community rules cleary states that opinion pieces and unreliable sources are subject to removal. You posted the epitome of an unreliable source. This is just enforcing the rules.
YDI.
It's not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.
But the website that is publishing it, isn't. There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews ... doesn't mean those sources should be allowed.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article. Link to that instead.
By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.
There is no logic to that statement.
Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source. But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews
Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don't have a whole topic area where they're generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.
I'm not saying that Mint don't publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I've seen.
If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.
That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.
While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.
If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source
Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn't.
But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.
I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.
And if you asked on .grad or .ml, peopel will say their reporting on Russia/Ukraine is ok, too.
The fact that this publisher was funded by the Syrian, Russian and Iranian government is more then enough red flags for me to compleltey dismiss them as a source. If individual articles have merit, they'll be published somewhere else.
Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.
If the only site willing to publish a specific article is a Kremlin propaganda site, you should stop and ask why.
If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.
That is some terrible logic.
Ignoring someone that has repeatedly and deliberately lied to you is common sense. They can't be trusted. But that doesn't mean that someone that has never lied to you is infallible. They could still make mistakes or start lying to you tomorrow. You should never turst blindly. They are two completely indepent scenarios.
Doesn’t matter what the source is, anybody with eyes can figure out that the article is truthful from the fact Glasgow fans have a habit of bringing giant Palestinian flags to games.
Plus, Jordan is a piece of shit conservative who hates minorities.
Doesn’t matter what the source is
I disagree.
Well, you’re allowed to. But you’re not allowed to ignore the part about the source being right and still act like you’re not full of shit.
You know, you actually might be right. If the website was akin to a bar and the reasonable article was just a normal customer; however, the rest of the customers (i.e. content) were Nazis, then it definitely doesn't make it all a Nazi bar. That normal customer can absolutely be right!