Comment on Don't Look Up
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 5 days agoAnd you said that “paragliders attacked small villages” which even even your pro-genocide suck-job excuse of an article doesn’t actually reach the point of claiming.
I choose to provide a link from the BBC as it is rated as high credible and close to centre.
If you read that article and say “yeah, this is highly credible and close to centre”, you are a fascist.
Because I am capable of critically reading an article without blindly internalizing it’s contents.
Clearly not, given you claimed it as “high credible and close to centre.” Do you also go around ‘critically reading’ other openly fascist news sources?
This fact does not excuse any of the IDF’s atrocities.
Actually the atrocity propaganda of far right, pro-genocide propaganda outlets like the BBC is exactly what has been used to excuse the IDF’s atrocities.
Greg@lemmy.ca 5 days ago
I use independent media ratings to determine the leaning of news agencies. Check out Ground News if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
If you think BBC News is “far right” then you are in a media bubble. Critically read articles, especially from perspectives that don’t align with your views. It will help you understand the world.
But back to my original point before this side track, paragliders were used to attack civilian targets during the October 7th attacks.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
“Independent”? Independent of who? How does that make them reliable? If they’re rating that Der-Sturmer tier genocide propaganda as “realiable and in the middle” then you should find a different ''independent media ratings".
Right back at you, chief. If you think the kind of fascist shit like the article you posted isn’t far-right, you are in a media bubble.
I do, which is how I can conclude that BBC is far right.
Right back at you, chief.
Even your fascist article doesn’t make that claim.
Greg@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
If you’re incapable of finding the reference to the paraglider in that article I question your critical thinking skills.
There are so many logical fallacies in your comments in this thread that I doubt you are arguing in good faith. You made a comment that implied that paragliders were not used to attack villagers in your initial post. That was factually untrue and instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down. To be clear, you can agree that paragliders were used to attack villager AND be against the IDFs genocide in Gaza. Don’t make the truth the enemy when it’s inconvenient.
What news agencies do you trust?
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 days ago
So you’ve Motte-and-Baillied your way from “gliders were used to attack small villages” to “gliders were used in attacks on civilian targets” to “a para-glider was referenced in this article”. Maybe you should work on your own critical thinking skills before pulling out this insults.
You know what is actually a bad faith logical fallacy? Blanket declaring that your opponent is wrong and not arguing in good faith because they apparently had “so many logical fallacies” in their comments (without actually bothering to identify any of them). Specifically Proof by Assertion, Fallacy Fallacy, and Ad-hominem. I know reddit liberals like yourself have been trained to employ the phrase “logical fallacy” like some kind of magical incantation that lets you declare yourself correct without having to actually address anyone who disagrees with you, but you actually do still have to substantiate the point.
If you actually think that I’m not arguing in good faith, you would simply stop replying, and maybe report me. The fact that you are not doing that suggests that you don’t actually believe that and are using the accusation vexatiously.
Begging the question fallacy: the whole discussion is about if it’s true; you can’t just declare it to be true. So right back at you again, chief: instead of admitting that you were wrong and adjusting your world view slightly you instead choose to double down.
As someone who has repeatedly talked about “reading critically” you should probably no that it’s not a matter of blanket trusting any whole agency, you should read closely enough to: 1. Determine the articles biases, and 2. Determine where the claims of of fact are actually coming from. You should definitely be hesitant to trust an article from a source that has a history of fierce pro-genocide support, is getting all of the claims of fact directly from IDF stormtroopers, and engages in some of the most obscenely blatant editorializing in what is ostensibly supposed to be a news article that I have ever seen.