this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2025
-5 points (30.8% liked)
Politics Unfiltered
71 readers
59 users here now
A fresh perspective on political news, spotlighting voices and viewpoints beyond the mainstream.
We dive into third-party movements, alternative policies, and underrepresented ideas, offering a space for independent thinking.
Here, diverse political opinions are encouraged, making room for honest discussions about the full spectrum of political possibilities.
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Thanks. I will. And YOU can go ahead and belive the Democratic Oligarch without evidence.
Of course he's doing that. He kisses the ass of whoever's in charge. I think he's an obnoxious little prick. But I also think the Biden admin 100 percent tried to censor things.
I also think that many Lemmy admins and mods tried to censor things. And the media. It's all bullshit, regardless of the political side you're on.
Difference is, I am not believing the Biden admin. Zuck made the claim something happened, Zuck has to provide proof that thing happened. This is the burden of proof. So you are believing a claim without evidence, I am holding judgement until I get some. The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.
It's a fucking interview for an article. There is no "burden of proof." It's not a court case. lmao
The fact that you do not understand this calls your critical thinking skills, at least on this subject, into question.
"I believe what this guys claims"
"I need some proof to believe him personally"
"You need proof to believe a claim? This isn't as court of law. Your critical thinking skills suck if you don't understand this is just a baseless accusation I want to believe."
Dude, it's a news article. Not a court disposition. Calm your tits.
I belive him. You don't. It's ok to have a different opinion. Thanks!
It is also ok to ask for proof, and challenge people's statements, is it not? Cause this is some big "It was only a joke, you take things too seriously" energy. If you don't want people to express their opinions, about your opinions, you need to not make them public.
Sure. Just as it's ok to believe someone based on the reality of things and how things work without having to ask for proof or challenge people's statements.
Hey if you wanna live a life, where every time someone talks to you says something and you cry, "Proof! Where's the proof? I'm not gonna believe you till I see proof!" Go right ahead. That's your right.
If you don't believe Zucker, then you don't have to. I totally respect your right to that opinion. I just don't share your opinion.
And that's ok. I believe him. You don't. Cool. I also think he's an annoying little prick. And some people don't. That's ok.
I think he's telling the truth. Many others do too. But you are totally free to disagree. Thanks!
If you just want have your opinion, and not have people questioning it, all you have to do is not make it public.
You can question it all you want. I posted because I thought it was interesting. I don't have to defend why I posted it tho. Thanks!
You don't, yet here we are
Yeah, we are here.
Because you can't let it go and you keep waiting for me to give you a different answer--which I won't do.
Thanks, friend! :)
I haven't the slightest hope I will change anyone's opinion. In fact, there is evidence that things like contradictory evidence are more than likely to just make people doubly down. I am here because you felt the desire to post your opinion online, and I felt like I wanted to post my opinion about that, and now, here we are, with you claiming you don't have to defend your post, but still giving me things to post my opinion about.
Good, because you're not!
And you are totally free to do that. And I'm still not going to change my opinion, as you know. Thanks! :)
And I am still gonna demand proof of the claims of people in power. Zuck talking to some news outlet is not the same as me, at a house party, talking shit. Things he says, especially about the very important thing he has disproportionate influence over, has consequence.
Cool.
And the news will keep uncovering all the bullshit the Biden admin did, and I'm here for it. Thank you! :)
Hopefully they will, however this is not that. Until proof is provided this is just puff to gain engagement via outrage.
This is that. And it's delicious.
We know he is saying things you believe, and so you like it, and agree with it. Without proof though, it isn't uncovering anything, just rage bait.
I don't need proof, because I believe him. And I have a feeling, even if he did provide proof, you'd be quick to say stuff like, "Well of course that's easy to fake..." :)
No, if he had a record of the call/meeting. If there is an uninvested third party witness, etc. then I will take the claims seriously. Like I said, I do not doubt that the Biden admin, or any other presidential administration, has exercised undue influence over the media. It is indisputable that there is a history of it. However, I still want evidence before I go any further than "given the history, it could be true".
I do not operate on faith, and you should not either, even though you will continue to do so. You also should probably drop the shit tier rags you post all the time, like the daily mail. If something is out there, a better outlet will have it.
I like the Daily Mail. Thanks! :)
I mean, that is obvious, you post them frequently. Garbage in, garbage out.
I don't think they're garbage. Thanks!
You are free to be wrong
As are you. Thanks!
Posting garbage simply because it shits on the party they have a deep bias against, doesn't mean you are actually countering some narrative, garbage is garbage, be it pro democrat, pro gop, whatever.
The daily mail, NY Post, The militant. This makes up most of what you have been posting. daily, and post, are barely outside of being tabloids. While I have some respect for the SWP, and generally support them because there is so little actual leftist stuff in the US, the militant has a history of posting unsourced claims, straight up stuff that is wrong, and, while I can understand the desire for anonymity for the owners of a leftist circulation in the US, the lack of transparency is always suspect. While you can't really just trust news, you can at least not primarily post the bottom feeders.
Also, your profile just screams martyr complex
I like those. :)
Not at all, it's showing how I'm still here in spite of all who have tried to silence me. See, the beauty of the fediverse, is multiple instances, usernames, etc. No one person, or group of people, can silence anyone.
You are totally free to block me and/or this community if you don't like what I post. Thanks, friend!
i have no interest in blocking you. It's not like you are a nazi, or something. I also lurk at least one of your fora, solarpunk strength. However, I will voice myself over the bad sources you frequently post.
Fair enough. I'm not a huge fan of NY Post, but I do honestly love Daily Mail. Even tho I am aware everyone hates them! lol
But I do also post from Reason.com and TheHill.com which are slightly more reputable. :)