Leebra microblogmemes
login register

New York Post has always been garbage.

a month ago by VetOfTheSeas to c/microblogmemes

save

share

report

load all comments
pewgar_seemsimandroid 14 points a month ago

there's a reason Wikipedia only trusts NYP for stuff like pop culture and not politics

save

path: 0 24883831, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 28
MorPolitics -49 points a month ago

Wikipedia is heavily biased in favor of center-left viewpoints. It doesn't allow similar right-wing sources to be cited in the same way that it allows similar left-wing ones. My solution to Wikipedia's bias problem would be to add bias labels to edits & users instead of banning sources along partisan lines. Users could voluntarily identify their own biases, and other users could dispute those labels if they believed they were inaccurate. P.S. Wikipedia and Reddit are major contributors to why LLMs tend to have that left-of-center bias.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940, hotness: undefined, score: -49, children: 27
Fedizen 10 points a month ago

'Right wing sources' are just lies at this point: white genocide, taxing rich people is communism, climate change isn't real, women don't deserve rights because god doesn't recognize them as human, more cops make society safer, more prisons make society more free, more gun sales make society safer, trans people commit every crime and are the cause of every economic failed policy, the global elites (billionaires) are going to help us fight the real global elites (college kids, moms).

Like idk man I just don't see a way anyone honest can make the claim that factuality is not politically aligned. If you want facts you have to bias towards facts, if that creates a political bias, that's a problem for politicians not people interested reality.

Once you start trying to pander to all political groups you've abadoned factuality.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 8
MorPolitics 0 points a month ago

To fairly debate this, one would need to address your sweeping generalizations point by point. More importantly, right-wing sources aren't a monolith. For example, Fox News largely supports Israel, while the Mises Institute opposes foreign intervention & Israel. Reducing such a broad spectrum of thought into a single monolith is inaccurate. It might evince how left-wing people, when tendentious (like right-wing people can be too, since we're all flawed humans, including myself), can distort their political opposition's perspective out of convenience or rational ignorance, i.e., they don't have time to investigate what their opposition thinks.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 7
Fedizen 1 point a month ago

I mean the problem with your critique is its dishonest: prominent right wingers like elon musk promote white genocide conspiricies. Every one of those fake ass conspiricies I mentioned has been stated by a prominent republican.

In order to "balance the scales" you have to embark on campaign of finding like online commenters or drunk kids on the street to get the same level of insanity of belief on the left. Then you have to pretend like actual prominent people are saying these things on the left. Which they aren't.

All you're doing is saying that you are willing to argue against reality in order to pander to liars and comfort them.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6
MorPolitics 0 points a month ago

Honestly, white populations are being replaced through open-border policies. I'm not really a tribal person, so I don't particularly care about maintaining a population with any specific demographic makeup. I also wouldn't say that ideas about population replacement are necessarily fake or something like that. I do currently support controlled borders for a nation-state, but not because I want to control the ethnic composition of the population. In my opinion, that kind of thinking is strange and overly tribal.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 5
Fedizen 1 point a month ago

Excuse me but could you explain what an "open border policy" even is? Are you talking about visas for skilled labor? Is this something to do with migrant seasonal labor? Refugee programs?

What the fuck are you even talking about? There's not a single goddamn country in the world that meets the criteria for some definitions of "open borders" and other defitions are met by every single country on earth.

Supporting or not supporting "open borders" is not a political stance because there's no meaning to the words, its nonsense.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032 24904680, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 4
MorPolitics 0 points a month ago

It's one of those terms that means different things to different people, which can cause problems when discussing policy, similar to how people use the term "democratic socialism." The literal definition of "open borders" would be an anarchic policy. The context in which I used the term, which you probably didn't understand, perhaps due to a poor explanation on my part, was referring to open borders as a lack of adequate enforcement or supervision of the border (which, in effect, is an open border), with enough immigration to shift electoral outcomes or to supplant a native population's norms, culture, etc.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032 24904680 24904986, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 3
Fedizen 1 point a month ago

So what you're saying is "open borders" is used to describe a "feeling" you have about the border. Its not a factual description, its not an objective description, its an emotional invokation of a feeling you have regarding the border and like tourists from mexico or something.

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032 24904680 24904986 24906093, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
MorPolitics 1 point a month ago

I don't understand. The idea that inadequate border control policies & immigration policies can lead to mass migration into a country seems quite objective to me. I'd say I'd be making an empirical claim thingo there, no? Did I mess up some phrasing or something earlier?

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032 24904680 24904986 24906093 24907905, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
Fedizen 1 point a month ago

You understood "open borders" is subject to wildly different interpretations yet you still used it because it represents what you want to convey the best: Your personal feelings.

There's no way to measure the following as they are weasel words for people's feelings because they represent goals or thresholds nobody agrees on and people can always say they're upset about them regardless of measurable outcomes.

  • border patrol 'adequacy'
  • 'openness' of borders
  • 'mass migration'

There's way to measure:

  • legal immigration numbers
  • misdemeanor border crossings
  • costs and results of border enforcement
  • asylum seekers and rejection rates
  • tourist crossings
  • visa types and issues
  • immigration quotas
  • visa and tourist overstays
  • enforcement actions

Which measurable outcomes are you actually upset about?

save

path: 0 24883831 24883940 24889830 24903039 24903907 24904032 24904680 24904986 24906093 24907905 24908105, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
microblogmemes

@lemmy.world

login for more options
12032
4927
9883

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

go to feed...