• @hibsen
    link
    English
    225 days ago

    Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?

    Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it’d be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?

    Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I’d rather assume you’re lazy than that you’re pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they’re true, so fuck it, you’re a war criminal that kicks puppies.

    How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you’re not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won’t believe it. What’s that? You don’t even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don’t kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can’t help you now.

      • @hibsen
        link
        English
        224 days ago

        You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don’t know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯

          • @hibsen
            link
            English
            123 days ago

            I’m sorry, you can’t even read what you wrote?

            At the very least, basic level, I don’t see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.

            Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.

            You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don’t have to.

            They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals

            It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.

            I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won’t convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.

            • andrew_bidlaw
              link
              fedilink
              English
              023 days ago

              You also indicated you trust “big” sources, who…also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.

              In the aftermath of the october attack there were numerous journalist from the publications from all around the world, not stringers, not outsourced agents. They have their biases, but at the very least they have a reputation to lose. If +972 media would report bullshit, no one would hold them responsible or start to ignore them because they are nobodies.

              necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous

              That’s judged, again, by the reputation of the writer\publisher. Half of my country’s journalist are in exile, but I can trust those I know from before the war and hunt on them. If they refer to anonymous sources in the army, I look if that overcomes my limits of a reasonable doubt.

              In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.

              I’m impressed we still have that conversation and that you take time to null my internet points on every comment in that three. It’s not big, but that’s a honest work of a dedicated individual. I felt that we on Lemmy don’t care about them at all.

              • @hibsen
                link
                English
                123 days ago

                I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.

                The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this…

                In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I’m not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.

                I really can’t resist the bait there.

                No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you’re talking about before you comment, though, or you’re adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.

                • andrew_bidlaw
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  023 days ago

                  I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.

                  Do you care about internet points on Lemmy of all places? That makes you a part of a minority. I appreciate that in some warped reality there are people who hold that opinion. Numerous threads show most netizens DGAF. You can ask Lemmy yourself or just google around since these polls already exist. What it does is it leaves a very depressing impression about the person in question.

                  No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you’re talking about before you comment

                  A contradiction. I repeat: I either verify stuff myself or outsource that verification to a source I can trust. I’m surprised you don’t do that too, or put it in the bad light for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why you have a long conversation defending questionable sources. I decided not to trust them. It’s more of an effort than blindly consuming whatever someone posts.

                  • @hibsen
                    link
                    English
                    223 days ago

                    Do you care about internet points on Lemmy of all places?

                    Not particularly. I agree with you on that; I assume not many people care about them, but when someone gives me a button to push for things that don’t add to conversations, like, say, repeated instances of aggressive ignorance and lies about what an article consists of, it’s really not a lot of effort to push it, so I’m going to keep doing that 'til either you stop with the bullshit or I get bored.

                    A contradiction. I repeat: I either verify stuff myself or outsource that verification to a source I can trust. I’m surprised you don’t do that too, or put it in the bad light for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why you have a long conversation defending questionable sources. I decided not to trust them. It’s more of an effort than blindly consuming whatever someone posts.

                    A lie. There is no evidence that the source is questionable. There is abundant evidence that they are a real journalistic source (remember when I linked you some? Those were good times).

                    You decided not to trust the source based on nothing. This is a stupid thing to do. You decided to comment on it anyway, with no knowledge or interest in discovering the truth. That is a harmful thing to do.

                    I’m going to keep having this conversation because you’ve decided to…what are we at now, quintuple-down on this? We’re far past the realm of where most Lemmy apps will even display comment chains this long. It’s just you, me, and anyone bored enough to dig into a slap fight about how difficult it is for you to read.