politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
And therein lies the problem. The article I linked by TheGrayzone is 100% factual and every fact is traceable yet all people can do it pull up attacks from other news sites.
Instead of pulling up with more "fact checks' I'd rather people read the linked article like I did for the Wapo one about Mondoweiss and have an opinion about that. Great journalists like Ryan Grim agree with Max Blumenthal instead of Wapo in this case.
Look, honestly I don't really know who Ryan Grim is, but I googled "Ryan Grim" and "The Gray Zone" and apparently "the grayzone crowd comes after [him] all the time".
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1696331666980053126
I also don't know enough to really get into a discussion about Israel / Palestine, and I don't know anything about the drama with WaPo in the article you linked so I can't say whether or not it's 100% factual as you say.
Maybe in this specific instance, The Gray Zone is correct, and in agreement with Ryan Grim. I don't know. But the thing is, you are I are in a discussion about bias and source quality. And I'm saying to you that, in my view, The Gray Zone doesn't pass the smell test.
That's the whole point of MBFC: to get a smell test of whether a source is worth considering or not.
What I am saying is, I'm not going to spend hours of my life going through your source to check it out, and possibly verify it, or refute it point by point. Especially when the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on it is:
The article about Xinjiang that I linked to you was just from a random source I clicked from Wikipedia.
I realize that I am probably coming across in a rather dismissive way, but honestly I think that's the point -- if I can convince myself this quickly that a source looks suspicious, it's in my interest to dismiss it just as quickly. In the past I've spent dozens of hours doing deep dives on random sources that friends have sent me, and in every case it's been a waste of time because I ended up coming to the same conclusion that I did in 5 seconds of reading Wikipedia.
I know some people love doing these deep dives, but I've realized for myself -- like back in 2010 when one particular person was sending me crap from Natural News -- that unless I truly get "this needs the benefit of the doubt" vibes, all that time I spend just makes me feel bitter and angry at the world, and I end up having gained nothing and learned nothing from the experience.
So again, I'm sorry. Your source may be correct. But it looks seriously suspicious. Personally, I'm not willing to look any deeper than that.
I was referring to the GrayZones article about Wapo spouting false allegations being factually correct and easily fact checkable. It's not required to know any media or person in advance.