@7bicycles@hexbear.net pinging you because I know you know a lot about bicycles, and I hope you can help. I understand if you're too busy or don't want to though - no pressure!
Egon [they/them]
0 Post – 54 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
Investigate fort detrick. At least there was some substance to the accusations against that place
Wikipedia, the website that according to itself is biased https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia
One of these biases being nazis https://www.wired.com/story/one-womans-mission-to-rewrite-nazi-history-wikipedia/
Regular sources as in MSNBC, CNN, NPR,
Which often repeat unproven stories without fact-checking them, or spinning stories to suit their agenda.
How to make a story on North Korea
They literally quoted you...
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
This is you saying the thing you said you didn't say.
I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia.
"Giving sources" isn't just mentioning them. If that's the case then I can back up the other user by saying they have their data from Reuters, the UN, the CIA, CNN, AP, internal military documents made available by FOIA, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
"Providing a source" means you give a reference to a specific text which supports the claim you're making - in other words it's it's linking to them, providing them as references. You've only done this for the aforementioned ancient history and three christian dudes.
Listen to Blowback season 3, it would do you some good.
America allows people to take time away to recuperate, even for mental health
It's always the same bullshit. If they are handling covid well "they're lying about their numbers". If they report high numbers it's "evidence they're incompetent."
What reason do I have to mistrust their numbers? They're not the ones having lied to me for decades.
And it's not like the US wasn't lying about its own numbers
Why would I trust the US to be honest about theirs? Why would I trust the US media in their claims about North Korea lying about its numbers?
The US had several whistleblowers like Rebekah Jones getting arrested/abused/harrased for their reporting on the state of the US obfuscating data.
The american media has been shown to lie time and again, especially when it comes to foreign matters - Most famously about Iraq. What reason do I have to trust it?
The United States has the largest prisoner population in the world and has a history of persecuting minorites and political dissidents like leaders of black lives matter. These dissidents are dissapeared at secret police blacksites where they are tortured. This prisoner population is used as slave labour, which is still legal.
Why would I trust the lies peddled by this authoritarian regime about a country whose population they relentlessly bombed until they'd murdered 20% of it.
This is your point? A snide one-sentence comment completely failing to engage with any bit of the argument? Do better. Interrogate why this is your reaction to being challenged
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
You're saying the same thing twice there. The fact you say it isn't, doesn't mean anything when the actual statements are functionally the same. No matter what they both place this issue at the feet of the Koreans, which is what the disagreement was about.
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbor
So you are saying they are isolationist. Super. ut that has already been argued with you and instead you moved the goalposts to be about proving you said something you thought you didn't say, which you are now once again saying
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well.
As we have already gone thru, you've hyperlinked to two things. Do you not understand how references work? Do you need everything explained twice? Yes please provide your sources for god's sake this is the third time I'm telling you how sources work.
Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it?
You do - you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
Yes this is called being critical of your sources. It's an inherent part of any dissemination of information - not to just blindly accept statements presented by others. All of the things you mention help evaluate wether the source might have a bias, though the really big thing is cross-referencing claims. Interests of conflict and bias are helpful when conflicting narratives occur.
Do you not get the point of references? Why do you think we are taught from an early age to engage sources with skepticism?
I wish I could go thru life line you, smooth-brained, unthinking, uncaring, perfectly safe in the belief that I am a special little boy. Sadly I have been cursed with the bane of Thought, and so I must interrogate my beliefs when I encounter that which conflicts with them.
I guess that's what makes me not a lib
Yeah because you totally deserve to be taken seriously, when your response is some snide little smuglord gotcha. You get what you give 
because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics.
"You can stop with pointing out what it means when I say shit, because I also said 'nuh uh'"
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices
You are correct, I have been speaking of source critique and then I have been critiquing the "sources" as far as has been possible BECUSE YOU HAVENT PROVIDED A LINK TO ANYTHING. How are you not getting it? What is with your weird circular logic?
the critique had this been limited to showing how these media have a proven track record of lying and a clear bias. This called source critique.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Get it thru your dense skull you dense motherfucker, there is no such thing as an overtly good or bad source. Did you not comprehend what I described to you?
Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
You have so far posted three links. Two of these are descriptors of medieval kingdoms.
Post your fucking references you massive brickhead porridge farmer
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
You've posted a total of three links. One of these is about a medieval kingdom, the other is a story of three Christians that died before the country we are discussing existed and then you've finally posted one single reference, to which I've asked if that is your totality of references. I've asked this because 1. A single article isn't exactly a solid foundation and you have still many unsourced claims and 2. I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article. I'd rather just get all your bullshit articles in one go, so we can skip 10 comments of me simply asking you to post your references.
Meanwhile you have claimed that they are isolationist, then claimed you never claimed that, then when that was pointed out to you, you claimed that wasn't what you said, you then went on to say they were being isolationist.
Thru all of this you have posted a total of three links.
You are either an impotent unimaginative little bad-faith goblin, or you are a brickheaded ignorant dog-headed clown.
You are putting words in my mouth
No I am presenting you with the logical conclusion to your statements.
If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth.
"Having the result of my actions pointed out to me is putting words in my mouth". Don't ask questions if you don't want them answered.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria,
Get it thru your dense skull: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECTLY GOOD SOURCE. You need to be critical of ANY source, but the only way you can do that is by PRESENTING IT so it can be studied. THIS IS BASIC SHIT. Have you never learned source critique?
When we speak about "good" and "bad" sources, it's generally common parlance to describe media that is known to lie or which had a heavy bias - Breitbart, Infowars, Epoch Times, Radio Free Asia, Wikipedia - these are all examples of being "bad". This is not to say that they cannot present useful information, but you should be extremely wary of taking anything presented by them at face value - again you should be wary of all sources, but even moreso one that has a proven track record of a bias.
A source might be good for one thing and bad for another. You wouldn't trust the press secretary oval office dismissing accusations of sexual assault made by the same press secretary, but you would probably trust it with statements about wildfires in the US. You wouldn't trust the Japanese government with statements about it having no connection to the moonies, but you'd probably feel safe in trusting it's statements about shinto shrines or whatever.
You investigate your references for bias, for lies, for truth, you cross-reference with your other references in order to gather a more complete picture, and when you encounter conflicts you weigh the validity of each reference - In large part here the question of "who to trust" should in part be answered by "who do I know has lied before?"
Jesus Christ you really are just going in a roundabout. You claim history from middle ages is relevant, but moderns history is spurious, okay good whatever. By that logic the us if a fascist slave state, as is every single European country.
Sure it's a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you, that's what a strawman is allright. Wanting to engage with your sources is whataboutism or whatever. You still haven't engaged in any source critique. You speak of studying history and linguistics, but you fail the very base-level tools of both of those studies.
Yeah good some website says they're isolationist, because they say they are.
This is due to the nation's strict closed-country policy: not many outsiders have visited there and not many North Koreans have traveled to the outside world.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us. Here's your favorite source Wikipedia here's the state dep websitehttps://www.state.gov/democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-sanctions/.
It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you're not American https://www.youngpioneertours.com/north-korea-tours/
this has already been argued with you, which you refused to engage with, which is how we ended up in this semantic rabbit hole. You keep arguing they're isolationist because of culture or medieval history, completely ignoring modern history and current affairs. But this has already been pointed out to you.
Allright you're just going in circles, it's obvious you refuse to engage with anything I put in front of you, and you keep behaving as if I haven't gone into every single one of your arguments. You're wasting both of our times by willfully choosing to be obtuse, so I am going to disengage from this conversation
Disengage
Canada and the residential schools truly is something else.
And yeah I was against removing downvotes when it happened, but it truly has only been a boon for site culture
As opposed to not lying. You're welcome
This is going in circles.
If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I'm not saying that, I've taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim. I have not simply denounced them based on vibes, as you seem to suggest, despite me taking pains to illustrate the process and reasoning.
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
This was almost something that approached engaging with a source. Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it based on a factual basis.
I've already gone thru why "well this is a famous brand" is not a good foundation for "what makes a source good for a given claim", but if you need it in reddit-language: Appeal to authority.
This is obviously going in circles, so I am going to disengage from this discussion. I hope you will one day look back and realise how obtuse you've been.
m simply stating the observation that there are other nationalities who not only might serve as a spark or derivative for whatever the American media
What does this have to do with a discussion about North Korea as presented by American media? You are not engaging with the argument or the points, you are not even relating it to your own, you are instead reframing the discussion to be about something else - You are moving the goalposts.
Never did I imply I was only talking about things because America was the one doing the narrating though.
dawg your alleged sources were all American media.
Oh hey you managed to find one whole article! Good on you! Is that article the sources you mentioned? I just wanna be sure that I'm not missing out.
It's not an insult when it's true
Dude, it's Wikipedia... How are you not getting it? I linked you a Wikipedia article about bias on Wikipedia as a joke
Your question makes no sense bud.
No, your question was
... As opposed to?
Which makes no fucking sense. Like it's a cute little snide smuglord gotcha that you can throw out, but what the fuck are you actually asking?
The basis for the second article is that there is thousands of Nazis on Wikipedia, seemingly writing barely-challenged lies. The point of the second article is that Wikipedia has a nazi problem, which leads to it having a right-wing bias.
I don't believe it's some sinister plot by Wikipedia, but it is a fact that it is an issue wikipedia has. It is the downside to the "everyone is an editor" format which the site makes use of
You initiated this with the framework of American media. Now that that media has been critiqued, you are trying to reframe the discussion to one that is being more general, rather than actually engage with the argument put forth or acknowledge in any way what I have been saying. You are not engaging with my argument, you are trying to avoid it by making the discussion be about something else.
You've given exactly one more, which I engaged with. Stop being obtuse.
I've given you the criteria. You kept asking for the criteria, yet you had received it.
Would you rephrase your question then? Because as I've made clear, I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.
Disengage
Thank you very much for your advice!
Disengage
You were being critiqued for use of Wikipedia, you defended Wikipedia as being neutral, I pointed out how it wasn't. That is the crux of the discussion you and I have been having. I am not embroiled in a larger one about the DPRK or whatever. Wikipedia sucks as a source and now you know, hopefully that'll keep you from using dogshit source material some other time
Jesus fucking Christ, you libs are so fucking dense it is incredible. Try for once to engage in good faith in a discussion, it might do you so e good
:pigpoop:
as opposed to what or who?
What as opposed to what in what way? What are you trying to say?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation.
We've already gone thru this. You've posted three links. We've already gone thru them. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself. If you're just gonna be doing this circular thing were you don't acknowledge the facts as presented to you, and don't interact with them, but instead just keep repeating the same thing, then there is no reason for this conversation to continue.
So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable.
Which I then answered. Are you dense?
Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources.
Then do so you dense motherfucker. Point out where there are issues, point out where they are clearly obfuscating the truth, point out where there are conflicts of interest, compare them to other sources.
What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources?
I would then interact with your argument. Questioning a source isn't going "well I just don't trust it". It's pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying "well I've been told they're untrustworthy." You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. If you wanna do so, please I would love for you to actually interact with the argument.
could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
Good thing I provided sources for you to critique and interact with. Please do so, providing your own references as relevant.
You said the source brands I speak of can be said to lie about what’s going on and spin it to something of their liking.
I then highlighted why and showed examples of them having done so.
. Here, the question “as opposed to what”.
Lying as opposed to observable reality, for example with regards to the Iraq war and stories about North Korean haircuts. With regards to the Iraq war they themselves have admitted to it, the untruths are well known. With regards to North Korean haircuts this lie has been highlighted by people reporting on the ground, showing it to be untrue.
called out as lying have to indicate it might be lying that the other sources anyone else can call out for lying don’t have.
The source "called out for lying" has been proved to have lied. The others have not. You are welcome to prove so - which you do by showing them lying, not by posting some us state dep ghoul saying "oh they're lying".
that's like being mad at Biden about the War on Drugs
I mean... He did author the crime bill. Dude hung out with white supremacists and was against bussing. Considering the fact that the schools were active all the way up to 1997, that's probably a better simile than you think.
You kinda lost me at the rest, I thought we were just mentioning atrocities. Your point is that we should punish people that hurt kids? Or are you trying to justify the existence of schools that tore away children from their parents due to racist assumptions about "christianizing" children?
Nah it wasn't a typo. Hexbear had a discussion about removing downvotes, I was against removing downvotes, but they were removed anyway. I mentioned that because you spoke on site culture.
Hahahaha ah yes the website with a massive nazi problem is going to be unbiased against Marxists, okay buddy