Immigration and multiculturalism news

[mrttao]

Okay. Sorry. My bad.

So what's his threshold of evidence IN THIS CASE?

1. Ask him, not me.

2. He said that, in all cases, he reached the point where he never trusts mass media on ANYTHING. And only believes what he sees with his own eyes.

If I had to guess, I would guess that the skin color of the people in the photos does not change this policy and he still only believes what he sees himself with his own eyes

 

[Husky_Khan]

In context with the media. Whatever the media says is the opposite of reality, ergo 'brave citizens rescuing sneakers' are 'criminal thugs looting somebody's house'.
Are we going to ignore the previous decade of insane BLM looting and crimesprees? There's a limit to where people will believe lies, after a certain point even the truth appears a lie.

Pattern recognition and media scrutiny are fine.

I really feel your standard of evidence in this case (lol) is too high. It's like a Chappelle Show skit.



EDIT:

There's no way to have a meaningful exchange of ideas with that hypothetical threshold of evidence of it can all be readily dismissed with a single quip or picture.

 

[mrttao]

Meeting them in person so I can talk to them. Because both left wing and right wing sources are going to be lying out of their ass.

To be fair, I don't consider things like fox to be "right wing". they are the controlled opposition branch of the uniparty.
As they have proven when they sacked tucker carlson.
As well as when they sacked those 4 hosts who dared to mention the 2020 election was stolen

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Pattern recognition and media scrutiny are fine.

I really feel your standard of evidence in this case (lol) is too high. It's like a Chappelle Show skit.

You don't have to like my standard of evidence, but it's still MY standard of evidence.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You don't have to like my standard of evidence, but it's still MY standard of evidence.

Liking it is immaterial. It's just not conductive to many discussions in general if a great many of your assumptions that you are sharing are for all practical purposes unassailable and you casually dismiss counterpoints to those assumptions.

Lots of people have strong and stubborn opinions on things mind you. But if you want to engage in discussion on them in a forum where there's possible disagreement there should be some actual engagement going on for discussion.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Liking it is immaterial. It's just not conductive to many discussions in general if a great many of your assumptions that you are sharing are for all practical purposes unassailable and you casually dismiss counterpoints to those assumptions.

Lots of people have strong and stubborn opinions on things mind you. But if you want to engage in discussion on them in a forum where there's possible disagreement there should be some actual engagement going on for discussion.

It's a post-truth world we're living in, everyday media people consoom without a thought is carefully constructed propaganda to get a message into people's heads and to brainwash them. You can certainly have large engaging discussions following this rule.

And given the counterpoint to the picture was 'you're a racist unless you think they're just salvaging their own home', that's hardly engaging either.

 

[Husky_Khan]

It's a post-truth world we're living in, everyday media people consoom without a thought is carefully constructed propaganda to get a message into people's heads and to brainwash them. You can certainly have large engaging discussions following this rule.

And given the counterpoint to the picture was 'you're a racist unless you think they're just salvaging their own home', that's hardly engaging either.

Initially which is normal. But when articles which were the source of your assumptions were released you dismissed them just as readily as the hot takes. And would've presumably dismissed all evidence beyond as you say, your own eyes, which is the point of it not being conductive to discussion. Like talking to a wall.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Initially which is normal. But when articles which were the source of your assumptions were released you dismissed them just as readily as the hot takes. And would've presumably dismissed all evidence beyond as you say, your own eyes, which is the point of it not being conductive to discussion. Like talking to a wall.

The opposite of 'trust the media' is equally inane though.

 

[Husky_Khan]

The opposite of 'trust the media' is equally inane though.

It is but no one here said to trust the media.

I'm more concerned with actually carrying out s discussion. If the four or whatever news articles from different sources that named the family and their home aren't enough to cure your assumption, what is?

If that's what some people see as just arguing "Trust the media" then I feel it's being taken to a ludicrously literal or at the very least impractical degree.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

It is but no one here said to trust the media.

That's the exact thing which caused this multi-page discussion of racism.

 

[Husky_Khan]

That's the exact thing which caused this multi-page discussion of racism.

No I accepted you not trusting those articles. I was just wondering what your threshold of evidence was that could challenge your assumption on Black people being looters in those natural disaster pictures and there is no threshold of evidence like you days beyond the personal interaction.

So the racist assumption will remain regardless of all plausible evidence that can be shown here to the contrary. 🤷‍♀️

At the very least it's good to know ahead of time that your assumption can't be practically challenged.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

No I accepted you not trusting those articles. I was just wondering what your threshold of evidence was that could challenge your assumption on Black people being looters in those natural disaster pictures and there is no threshold of evidence like you days beyond the personal interaction.

So the racist assumption will remain regardless of all plausible evidence that can be shown here to the contrary. 🤷‍♀️

At the very least it's good to know ahead of time that your assumption can't be practically challenged.

I know, I'm just such a nasty racist. Sorry for not trusting the media.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I know, I'm just such a nasty racist. Sorry for not trusting the media.

Everyone's s little bit racist at least. Just in your case your racist (and presumably other) assumptions that can almost never be engaged with in any practical manner.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Everyone's s little bit racist at least. Just in your case your racist (and presumably other) assumptions that can almost never be engaged with in any practical manner.

If people were pointing out issues with the picture "Her husband looks like he wears those shoes, so they probably belong to him"
"Oh they're girly pink sneakers, like what the daughter is wearing" etc, the picture would hold up. But they don't.

Sorry for saying this, but they look like a family of thieves, stealing. You can find endless pictures of people just like this. If you don't like that pattern, tell them to stop stealing. :V

 

[Husky_Khan]

If people were pointing out issues with the picture "Her husband looks like he wears those shoes, so they probably belong to him"
"Oh they're girly pink sneakers, like what the daughter is wearing" etc, the picture would hold up. But they don't.

Sorry for saying this, but they look like a family of thieves, stealing. You can find endless pictures of people just like this. If you don't like that pattern, tell them to stop stealing. :V

But your threshold of evidence wasn't "people pointing out" this or that, it was "Unless I was there personally to interact with them in that moment, I will always consider those Black people looters."

So again your racist assumptions (in this case lol) are practically unchallengeable.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

But your threshold of evidence wasn't "people pointing out" this or that, it was "Unless I was there personally to interact with them in that moment, I will always consider those Black people looters."

So again your racist assumptions (in this case lol) are practically unchallengeable.

Yeah sure, it's all because I'm a racist.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yeah sure, it's all because I'm a racist.

All of what? I'm speaking in this case lol.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

This is just stupid. He's definitely consumed way too much hatefuel, but Husky is positively delusional if he thinks he'll admit he's wrong.

And what does all this have to do with immigration anyway?

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

This is just stupid. He's definitely consumed way too much hatefuel,

At this point what the fuck even IS 'hatefuel'? You can gather the same patterns from watching mass media, as you can watching alternative media.

but Husky is positively delusional if he thinks he'll admit he's wrong.

You're right.

And what does all this have to do with immigration anyway?

Read the title, includes multiculturalism.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Not believing corporate media is being racist now?

If your threshold on believing, "black people in this picture of people combing through a home's rubble aren't looting," is only satisfied by having personally been there yourself to make sure they weren't, then yeah, you might in fact be racist.

That has little to do with corporate media.