• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Please Stop Sharing Links to These Sites

Yes, I know you're using post 9/11 numbers and I'm telling you they are out of date. It also represents an extreme misunderstanding of statistics (e.g. Muslims make up .6% of the population).
But you haven't shown any statistics to disprove the numbers...so until you do, those numbers stand. FYI....a video compilation is not a statistic.

Here's some more stats for you...with charts and everything...

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...as-related-incidents-month-following-election


If those numbers aren't clear enough for you then I suggest you learn how to count.
 
But you haven't shown any statistics to disprove the numbers...so until you do, those numbers stand. FYI....a video compilation is not a statistic.

Here's some more stats for you...with charts and everything...

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...as-related-incidents-month-following-election

If those numbers aren't clear enough for you then I suggest you learn how to count.

First of all, you can take anything from the SPLC and dump it in the toilet. Secondly, you're using outdated numbers. Here's the original hype from the NYT....

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

...and here's the link from their own article with updated numbers.

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/

Further, again, you don't understand statistics. Muslims make up .6% of the population. If they would have to have killed 1 person, tops, to be in proportion with their demographics.
 
Why am I struck with the impression that there is far more 'fake news' being generated and promulgated from the leftist web sites?

Mind you, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, that there are rightist web sites that traffic in fake news, just as there are left leaning sources that traffic in the same, but I'm also left with the impression that some of those listed aren't those.
If you're stuck, it could be a symptom of bias confirmation...or just not paying attention.

Have you ever seen anyone on the left use any of those websites listed in the OP here on DP to support their argument?

Have you ever seen anyone on the right use the below websites to support their arguments?

Druge
Inforwars
Breitbart
Daily Caller
PajamaMedia
Heritage
American Thinker
National Review
Townhall
American Spectator
RedState
RT
WND
TPN
Newsmax
The Blaze
WUWT
 
If you're stuck, it could be a symptom of bias confirmation...or just not paying attention.

Have you ever seen anyone on the left use any of those websites listed in the OP here on DP to support their argument?

Have you ever seen anyone on the right use the below websites to support their arguments?

Druge
Inforwars
Breitbart
Daily Caller
PajamaMedia
Heritage
American Thinker
National Review
Townhall
American Spectator
RedState
RT
WND
TPN
Newsmax
The Blaze
WUWT

Well geez whiz. Listed all the non-left sources as being objectionable. Color me not surprised.

Of that list, I wouldn't bother with the others. The ones below, I think are unfairly characterized as 'fake news' sources.

Daily Caller
Heritage
American Thinker
National Review
Townhall
American Spectator

Yes, I'll admit they have a right lean, but generally speaking, I consider them fairly reliable.
 
First of all, you can take anything from the SPLC and dump it in the toilet. Secondly, you're using outdated numbers. Here's the original hype from the NYT....

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0

...and here's the link from their own article with updated numbers.

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/

Further, again, you don't understand statistics. Muslims make up .6% of the population. If they would have to have killed 1 person, tops, to be in proportion with their demographics.

I'm sorry...but you don't get to make up your own set of facts in this discussion. Further more...your weasley attempt to dismiss my evidence and arbitrarily choose a cut off date because it suits your argument is a big fat fail. As for Muslims being only 6%...it's the same logic the right uses to say that blacks commit more crime...so they can ignore the underlying causes and feel superior about themselves. So before you tell me that I don't understand again...you better look in a mirror and make sure it's not you.
 
I'm sorry...but you don't get to make up your own set of facts in this discussion. Further more...your weasley attempt to dismiss my evidence and arbitrarily choose a cut off date because it suits your argument is a big fat fail. As for Muslims being only 6%...it's the same logic the right uses to say that blacks commit more crime...so they can ignore the underlying causes and feel superior about themselves. So before you tell me that I don't understand again...you better look in a mirror and make sure it's not you.

Sorry, my numbers are up to date in the second link. Sorry that reality conflicts with the point you're trying to make. Also, it's .6%, not 6%. Obviously you continue to you don't understand statistics and how comparing net results to per capita rates is an utter fail.
 
Well geez whiz. Listed all the non-left sources as being objectionable. Color me not surprised.

Of that list, I wouldn't bother with the others. The ones below, I think are unfairly characterized as 'fake news' sources.

Daily Caller
Heritage
American Thinker
National Review
Townhall
American Spectator

Yes, I'll admit they have a right lean, but generally speaking, I consider them fairly reliable.

They're not news sites...they're opinion editorials and commentary that many on the right wing think is news. In short, they're part of the right wing echo chamber that originates, promotes and spreads fake news.
 
Sorry, my numbers are up to date in the second link. Sorry that reality conflicts with the point you're trying to make. Also, it's .6%, not 6%. Obviously you continue to you don't understand statistics and how comparing net results to per capita rates is an utter fail.

Whatever. :roll:
 
They're not news sites...they're opinion editorials and commentary that many on the right wing think is news. In short, they're part of the right wing echo chamber that originates, promotes and spreads fake news.

I didn't provide the list, that is your list. I was just choosing from the list provided.

Granted, you do have a point that they are opinion and analysis rather than news, though.

Generally speaking, I don't take anyone's opinion or analysis as fact, unless it makes sense to me. I'm not one for parroting other's talking points.

Moot, we've exchanged posts here long enough that you should know that about me (and if not, you do so now).
 
I didn't provide the list, that is your list. I was just choosing from the list provided.

Granted, you do have a point that they are opinion and analysis rather than news, though.

Generally speaking, I don't take anyone's opinion or analysis as fact, unless it makes sense to me. I'm not one for parroting other's talking points.

Moot, we've exchanged posts here long enough that you should know that about me (and if not, you do so now).

I know you were, eohrnberger....but that doesn't make those websites any less biased or more credible than the ones you didn't chose.
 
I know you were, eohrnberger....but that doesn't make those websites any less biased or more credible than the ones you didn't chose.

On this, I'm afraid, we'll have to disagree.

On balance, there is much the same ecosystem with other political perspectives.

I blame how 'cheap' mass communication has become with the advent of the Internet. Takes nearly nothing for someone to setup a web site, and start publishing, well, whatever stream of consciousness comes to their minds.

While not a bad thing in and of itself, this easy and cheap access to mass communication, it does present much more chaff for people to sort through to find the wheat.
 
Anyone of us can write a blog; that doesn't mean it's factual.
 
For Conservative/RW:

- Breitbart
- InfoWars
- Rush Limbaugh
- Savage Nation
- Faux News
- Reason
- HeavY
- Washington Times
- New York Daily News

I think you have made a mistake, confusing the NY Daily News with the NY Post. The NY Post is owned by News Corp, Rupert Murdoch's little fief. The Daily News has generally been anti-Trump, though it and the Post focus more of their coverage on the sports world than politics.
 
I think the dailycaller.com can be pretty questionable at times, and I don't know anything about ijr.com. However, The Washington Times, while solidly conservative, is still a very reputable news source.

while living outside of DC for 20+ years, i got the Times and the Post

it was an interesting contrast to see the exact same story from two different perspectives

not many cities can boast two papers still....

and i always enjoyed reading them with my coffee when time allowed
 
Back
Top Bottom