233
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
233 points (90.6% liked)
World News
32075 readers
800 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I added productive statements already; I'm still literally the only one in this thread that's cited anything. Are you afraid of researching your stances and backing them up? Because there is a troll here, and it is not me.
I've written papers where I just cited the articles that supported my arguments and didn't do a full analysis of the literature. It's a common practice in academia. Logic is better at convincing people.
Well, your logic has been spectacularly unconvincing. And my continual exhortations for you to offer a single shred of evidence in support of your position have gone ignored, so... honestly my conclusion is you indeed have no evidence and no logic. Why are you even still replying if you have nothing to offer other than conspiracy theories and bad takes?
I'm just entertained you're spending more time arguing than me than searching out a counter to your own argument. I do my research on both sides of an issue before sharing my opinion. You're just hiding behind a few links and foaming at the mouth that I haven't shared any links. Maybe if I'm bored this weekend I'll go through my KMS and find some citations for you since this isn't the common sense I thought it was.
They aren't hiding though, you just keep saying how you write papers and make all these claims then barely back them up. I'm considerably more convinced of their argument than yours.
I cannot conceive of how someone would find their ad-copy arguments convincing compared to the citations offered throughout the thread by others, myself included. Nonetheless, here's another [PDF], and another but again I want to point out that their arguments are worthless, so the sources are beside the point. Do people really believe again that the US was broadcasting to "combat Soviet disinformation" in the Cold War rather than merely promote its own agenda, including its own disinformation, along with casting doubt on whatever inconvenient things were said by the Soviets, accurate or not? Have we fallen back into such a pathetic level of naivety about US institutions because Trump's garishness made Democrats rally around the flag? Come on. It's literally openly an arm of US diplomacy and publishes "editorials" that are point-for-point the State Department line on any given topic, which makes sense because it's literally part of the State Department!