Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Can’t criticize the Palestinians without saying I hate them, but you are the same person who criticizes everything about Israel but then cries when someone infers you might not like Jews. Interesting

I mean at least Q is honest when he says he does not think Jews should be in the middle east. You just virtue signal.

Well, yeah, that’s how the English language works. If you repeatedly list off the behaviours and types of Palestinians you hate, using the words “I hate,” and make the list of Palestinians you don’t actually hate incredibly narrow and hard to define, people are naturally going to take you are telling the truth and that you do, in fact, hate Palestinians. You couldn’t even articulate which Palestinians you thought weren’t just “playing” the victim lol.

That’s a little different than randomly throwing around “anti-semitic” whenever someone disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by Beninho

It’s cool im out, you guys can have your anti-Israel circle jerk.

How many times have you said this or pretended to “block” someone?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

It goes deeper than that, before Oct 7th Jews had a dislike for the antics but I doubt as a whole it wasn't exactly hatred, but Arabs in general have always hated the Jews. Name a time when Israel dropped bombs that wasn't in retaliation?

I hate to think what that region would be like if there wasn't an iron dome.

They’ve marched through the streets chanting “Death to Arabs” before Oct. 7 and I feel a few posters have gone to very great lengths to stress how much Israelis have had to deal with prior to Oct. 7, so I really doubt this fantasy that Jews never hated Arabs has any weight at all.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Cool.

Now, care to answer the question?

Obfuscate all you want, it doesnt change the actual question asked. Not even a little bit cupcake.

You are either unhinged or completely losing touch with reality. But really good rebuttal.

You need a mental health break sweetheart?

Carry on....its amusing.

What question sport?

Bring it on.

You are so full of your own BS you have lost the plot....and although you aren't alone you are still WAY in the wrong.....as usual actually.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by transplant99

What question sport?

Bring it on.

You are so full of your own BS you have lost the plot....and although you aren't alone you are still WAY in the wrong.....as usual actually.

I see you have tried to stoop to your bullying ways yet again. Trying to demean people, belittle them, trying to make them think they aren't as intelligent as the fabulously knowledgeable transplant99.

LOL...wont work on this guy sport, but keep on keepin on, its a great look.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

He's on Twitter/X, so yes, he's 95% dork. The other 5% is his tweeting history, which makes him 100% ####tard.

Tranny, compadre, get off the Twitter/X platform. It's not healthy for your mental wellbeing and is poisoning your mind. There is nothing good to come from the major anti-social media platforms. You can find better and much more accurate sources of information elsewhere. It's getting sad how much sensationalistic BS you're falling for and allowing a tiny pimple on the moles ass to be turned into Mt. Everest.

Thought you were smarter than this. EVERY credible journalist/organization is....right along with those who are not.

Twitter is not MY source for news no matter what "dork" guy says. I read a lot of things...as proven in this very thread.

But...it IS a source....the fact YOU of all people think I'm influenced by it...either way...is a bit of of a mind bottle to me. Its like critical thinking has evaporated.

You have fallen victim to shooting the messenger while missing the message....though I guess I should not be surprised.

The funny thing about complaining about the "platform" you are suggesting i should get of of? Its the same news, delivered much later more often than not, by those ones you think I should wait for. Its truly amazing to me how you are unable to look at things before going off on this stuff.

If you dont like what Im posting...feel free to either report me or ignore me. I am not spreading the "misinformation" i have been accused of nor have I EVER tried to do so...much to the dork likers chagrin.

If you are telling me I should read ONLY the stuff you read/post/believe....well you know what Im saying to that.

Look in the mirror dude....you are doing what you are claiming to dislike.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I see you have tried to stoop to your bullying ways yet again. Trying to demean people, belittle them, trying to make them think they aren't as intelligent as the fabulously knowledgeable transplant99.

LOL...wont work on this guy sport, but keep on keepin on, its a great look.

Obfuscation noted....now...what question?

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

The amount of times transplant types "..." is basically a war crime against the written word.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by woob

Can we maybe agree that calling someone sweetheart and cupcake, in a clearly derogatory manner, is not OK. Though the way this thread has gone, it's on long list of items that is not OK.

Man…. Check the thanks on this.

Let’s move on.

[FormerPresJamesTaylor]

The whole sweetheart honey thing is mostly CaptainYooh being a little zesty in his later years, I'm all for it

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Beninho

Al Jazeera… what a load of BS. State sponsored Qatar garbage. One of the most biased places you can get your news, especially for this conflict.

Biased? Because they speak truth to what you view as infallible power? This may be really hard for you to understand, but there are many sides to any story and each of those sides needs to be exposed to discover the truth. You obviously only care about reporting outcome and whether it makes your team look saintly and whitewashed. I care more about process and maintenance of following the principles of journalistic integrity and following where the facts lead. Al Jazeera does an exceptional job in research and investigation, in staying above the fray, and getting as much information as possible on any story for their viewers to see. The go into harm's way to get the facts right. For that they get massive marks and trust.

Hey Lanny, maybe get a history textbook on the subject. You need it.

Care to suggest one? You are the king of driver-bys and making accusations in this thread but when asked to back up any of your claims you just run away and find another bit of self-created moral outrage to cry about. So for what feels like the billionth time in this thread, what history are you talking about? What book would YOU recommend people read to understand your twisted perspective on anything? When you can't come up with anything but the torah, then how about you help educate people and tell us where we're wrong? Because to date all you have brought is nothing more than your twisted opinion of history looks like - it looks nothing like anything documented anywhere - and how Israel is perfect and everyone is out to get them. If you have proven anything in this thread it is the Jewish persecution complex is real and is self-created. Now, time to put up or STFU.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Obfuscation noted....now...what question?

Here's some Sunday reading for ya, sport. It's good to be informed about how you are being manipulated, even if you don't know it.



https://www.cip.uw.edu/2023/10/20/ne...-hamas-israel/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Man…. Check the thanks on this.

Let’s move on.

Sorry you don’t enjoy watching transplant respond to his own posts as much as I do, but you’re missing out.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Thought you were smarter than this. EVERY credible journalist/organization is....right along with those who are not.

I don't follow....what you're trying....to say here. Sentence is....incoherent.

Twitter is not MY source for news no matter what "dork" guy says. I read a lot of things...as proven in this very thread.

Well, it appears that it is because that is the source you have cited as to where your information is coming from. If you quote somebody, you're giving them credit for the work and at the same time lending credence and support to what they say. When you keep going to the Twitter/X well and use racists, bomb throwers, and other miscreants as sources people are going to start seeing connections.

But...it IS a source....the fact YOU of all people think I'm influenced by it...either way...is a bit of of a mind bottle to me. Its like critical thinking has evaporated.

When you continue to return to the thread with sources from the same very flawed social media app what conclusion do you think people are going to reach about you and your thinking? Are you aware that in this thread your 58 posts that have featured supporting information have come from the following sources?

CBC - 1
CityTV - 1
CNN - 1
Twitter/X - 24

You were even the source for the beheaded baby hoax through your Twitter links.

You have fallen victim to shooting the messenger while missing the message....though I guess I should not be surprised.

No Tranny, you've fallen down a rabbit hole in search of information that is going to confirm your beliefs on what is happening over there. That's the problem. The Twatosphere is just full of RW provocateurs who are willing to scratch your itch right now and feed you the information you need to believe is accurate. If you go through these accounts posting history you're going to find they have not been right on much in the past are disinformation agents for an ideological perspective. They collect and disseminate information that forwards an ideological and not issue specific perspective. It's the trappings of social media and the way the algorithms are designed to work. I'm not shooting you or condemning you, because I know you and where your heart normally is, just stating a concern for you and how that cesspool can affect you. It's no different than long-term exposure to FoxNews.

The funny thing about complaining about the "platform" you are suggesting i should get of of? Its the same news, delivered much later more often than not, by those ones you think I should wait for. Its truly amazing to me how you are unable to look at things before going off on this stuff.

It's not the same news though. There's spin and there is obfuscation baked in. There are no unvarnished truths on this platform. Musk has bastardized to the point where no truth escapes the darkness that has become X. It isn't news because it is all opinion all the time.

If you dont like what Im posting...feel free to either report me or ignore me. I am not spreading the "misinformation" i have been accused of nor have I EVER tried to do so...much to the dork likers chagrin.

If you are telling me I should read ONLY the stuff you read/post/believe....well you know what Im saying to that.

Look in the mirror dude....you are doing what you are claiming to dislike.

Oh Tranny, you're at the end of the rope. "Report me or ignore me" is the last retort of those without and argument. I wish I could say you're not spreading disinformation because I know and trust where your head and heart normally are, but you have in this thread, including the severed babies heads tweet.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpo...&postcount=817

There's a lot of specious and vile things on Twitter/X and they seem credible because they are tugging at your heart strings. Read what else is coming from the source before you decide to "share their truth" because what else they're saying is pretty questionable (at best). Just want to point out, you're getting likes from Yoho. That tells you everything you need to know.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I noticed this in this thread and other political threads. What is the platform of choice to get as unbiased a news feed as possible, these days? Where are people going?

There's no longer unbiased news, every platform is playing to a side unfortunately and the audiences are asking for that now too. It's a chicken or the egg situation on whether the platforms starting duping audiences or audiences wanted slanted news, but it's where we are now. They feed each other.

I try to read both sides with a grain of salt and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

What you're seeing demonstrated in this thread is many people will only read from sources they already know agree with them and will say exactly what they want to hear.
Shooting the messenger is a defence mechanism to avoid facing information you can't refute and don't want to tackle or dare consider to have some validity.

That way, they never have to challenge anything they think, and quite frankly don't have to think at all. Everything they post is a playbook written by someone else anyway.

[PepsiFree]

“There’s no longer unbiased news” is kind of vague nonsense. There is a lot of news that has no or almost no bias, and of those with bias, there is a vast difference in how that bias is reflected in the reporting.

If you’re treating every source like it’s on one side or the other and the truth is some unsaid middle ground, you’re unlikely to ever actually hit on the truth.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

There's no longer unbiased news, every platform is playing to a side unfortunately and the audiences are asking for that now too. It's a chicken or the egg situation on whether the platforms starting duping audiences or audiences wanted slanted news, but it's where we are now. They feed each other.

Which is exactly why I framed the answer to the question the way I did. Focus on those that dedicate themselves to complying with journalistic integrity and practices, that do their best to provide balance and validate their information through multiple sources. News is fact-based and not opinion based. Too many people conflate the two and think opinion is factual and news. It is NOT. It is why I referenced who I did and made sure to point toward Columbia Journalism Review as a starting point. They have documented and maintain the gold standard for journalistic practices/behaviors for decades.

I try to read both sides with a grain of salt and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Fantastic advice, but you're making a false equivalency here, suggesting that both sides provide the same level of fact-finding and verification. You also fail to mention that many sources in the RW mediasphere do not have investigative or research organs of their own and instead rely of repacking the work of others or applying commentary to work done by others. Media literacy plays a big role in "finding a balance between the two".

What you're seeing demonstrated in this thread is many people will only read from sources they already know agree with them and will say exactly what they want to hear.

We do see that a lot, especially stuff that comes from social media. Anytime you are consuming information through a "feed" you are leaving yourself open to manipulation through the algorithm. The "feed" is packaged to your preselected likes and wants. To get out of this trap, stop relying on "feeds" and go find the reporting yourself, from multiple trusted sources. Taking information from a "social media feed" is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and exactly why our society is dumbing down to disturbing levels.

Shooting the messenger is a defence mechanism to avoid facing information you can't refute and don't want to tackle or dare consider to have some validity.

Shooting the messenger can also be just calling out bull#### when its posted. If you're posting information from a source that just weeks ago you would have jumped all over as being a disinformation agent, then you've fallen into a confirmation bias trap. Worthy of being called out IMO.

That way, they never have to challenge anything they think, and quite frankly don't have to think at all. Everything they post is a playbook written by someone else anyway.

Did you get that from your social media feed?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“There’s no longer unbiased news” is kind of vague nonsense. There is a lot of news that has no or almost no bias, and of those with bias, there is a vast difference in how that bias is reflected in the reporting.

If you’re treating every source like it’s on one side or the other and the truth is some unsaid middle ground, you’re unlikely to ever actually hit on the truth.

I'm confused. Are we talking about facts or truth when it comes to the news?

Truth and fact are often used interchangeably, but they hold different connotations. Truth refers to something that is in accordance with reality, while fact refers to something that is objectively verifiable. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation. Facts are a subset of truth; truth is broader.

Everyone experiences life from a different angle. Your truth may not be my truth.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Nailed it Flamesfever. Truth is an individual belief. It's why you speak truth to power by using facts and not opinion. Media's job is to speak truth to power for those who do not have access yet we ask/demand they do so with few if any facts. Media should come to interviews armed with the facts and hold the feet of the powerful to the fire those facts create as the power try to lie to us.

[2Stonedbirds]

Speaking truth to power using facts and opinion...

Is that what you call it when for example you buy in to a story of Israel bombing a hospital, with ballistic facts based on opinion? That sort of bastion of truth that lays the foundation to berate everyone else for their media literacy and consumption while justifying our own bs peddling?

Out####ing standing dude.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Which is exactly why I framed the answer to the question the way I did. Focus on those that dedicate themselves to complying with journalistic integrity and practices, that do their best to provide balance and validate their information through multiple sources. News is fact-based and not opinion based. Too many people conflate the two and think opinion is factual and news. It is NOT. It is why I referenced who I did and made sure to point toward Columbia Journalism Review as a starting point. They have documented and maintain the gold standard for journalistic practices/behaviors for decades.



Fantastic advice, but you're making a false equivalency here, suggesting that both sides provide the same level of fact-finding and verification. You also fail to mention that many sources in the RW mediasphere do not have investigative or research organs of their own and instead rely of repacking the work of others or applying commentary to work done by others. Media literacy plays a big role in "finding a balance between the two".



We do see that a lot, especially stuff that comes from social media. Anytime you are consuming information through a "feed" you are leaving yourself open to manipulation through the algorithm. The "feed" is packaged to your preselected likes and wants. To get out of this trap, stop relying on "feeds" and go find the reporting yourself, from multiple trusted sources. Taking information from a "social media feed" is the ultimate in intellectual laziness and exactly why our society is dumbing down to disturbing levels.



Shooting the messenger can also be just calling out bull#### when its posted. If you're posting information from a source that just weeks ago you would have jumped all over as being a disinformation agent, then you've fallen into a confirmation bias trap. Worthy of being called out IMO.



Did you get that from your social media feed?

Not much a disagree with here.
I don't use social media for news at all (except CP) and hate Twitter/X.
People getting stuck in their algorithms is a massive problem and news becomes self fulfilling to what you already believe; which is what I was stating.

A lot of people aren't actually looking for news anymore, they're looking for ammo to backup the arguments they want to win online. Social media culture at play.