NSG Information Service

[Shofercia]

Wait, you clicked this thread? With that boooooring title? Okie-dokie

The gist is simple: personally, I find NSG to be more informative, on most issues, than a single news channel. Usually I watch more than one news channel, (I watch quite a few when I care about a certain issue,) but when it comes to a single channel vs NSG, I find the latter more informative. Is the same the case for you? And if so, why?

I think that NSG promotes a healthy debate on non-religious issues, and on some very limited aspects of religion, but most religious threads on NSG tend to not go well. That aside, I think that NSG is more informative, because we're not afraid to confront other viewpoints, even if they're unpopular, unlike the news networks, that just want to get their viewpoint out, be it liberal or conservative, and don't usually allow an in depth analysis. But why the polarization in the press? And what keeps NSG non-polarized on non-religious issues?

[Ainin]

NSG is magic.

/thread

(On a serious note, it's probably because of our more progressive leaning than the everyday murican press agency).

[Shofercia]

NSG is magic.

/thread

(On a serious note, it's probably because of our more progressive leaning than the everyday murican press agency).

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

[Luziyca]

NSG is magic.

/thread

(On a serious note, it's probably because of our more progressive leaning than the everyday murican press agency).

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

I see what you did there.

In any case, I find NSG more reliable than any news channel. I get 100% of my information from here, really, because it is unbiased.

[Ainin]

NSG is magic.

/thread

(On a serious note, it's probably because of our more progressive leaning than the everyday murican press agency).

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

Come on... That's a bit low... -.-

[Zweite Alaje]

There are so many differing opinions here, it could never be polarized.

[Genivaria]

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

Come on... That's a bit low... -.-

I laughed.

[Wisconsin9]

NSG is magic.

/thread

(On a serious note, it's probably because of our more progressive leaning than the everyday murican press agency).

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

What you did there... I see it.

Anyways, like Luziyca said, I get most of my news from here as well, although in my case it's because I generally don't bother taking the time to look for it myself. Also, on here I can actually get a debate, rather than one side either blindly agreeing with me or accusing me of secretly being the gay submissive boyfriend of the zombies of Osama bin Laden and Karl Marx.

[Shofercia]

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

Come on... That's a bit low... -.-

It's an NSG meme dude. It's been that way since Hippo's comment about how he's more patriotic than x amount of Americans who voted for Obama. Besides, it's not like I'm misrepresenting his views; he doesn't like the progressives, at least the current ones that want to expand the government to provide basic social services. Granted, if he says that it misrepresents his views, I'll admit that it was wrong, but short of that, I don't see how that's low.

[Shofercia]

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

I see what you did there.

In any case, I find NSG more reliable than any news channel. I get 100% of my information from here, really, because it is unbiased.

But what makes you think that NSG is unbiased?

There are so many differing opinions here, it could never be polarized.

So you're saying that we have opinions from all over the place, which will lead to strange, proverbial bedfellows, depending on the issues that we're arguing about, and since the proverbial bedfellows will always be changing, one can't really get polarized from his fellow peers?

Come on... That's a bit low... -.-

I laughed.

Thank you

Did I say that it was just American News Channels? I don't think I did

Also, I don't think it's just progressiveness. I mean we have quite a few posters who want to Hippothetically Finnish off the Progressives, and yet, there can still be an interesting debate, so I don't think that it's just political.

What you did there... I see it.

Anyways, like Luziyca said, I get most of my news from here as well, although in my case it's because I generally don't bother taking the time to look for it myself. Also, on here I can actually get a debate, rather than one side either blindly agreeing with me or accusing me of secretly being the gay submissive boyfriend of the zombies of Osama bin Laden and Karl Marx.

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

[Shrillland]

I see what you did there.

In any case, I find NSG more reliable than any news channel. I get 100% of my information from here, really, because it is unbiased.

But what makes you think that NSG is unbiased?

There are so many differing opinions here, it could never be polarized.

So you're saying that we have opinions from all over the place, which will lead to strange, proverbial bedfellows, depending on the issues that we're arguing about, and since the proverbial bedfellows will always be changing, one can't really get polarized from his fellow peers?

I laughed.

Thank you

What you did there... I see it.

Anyways, like Luziyca said, I get most of my news from here as well, although in my case it's because I generally don't bother taking the time to look for it myself. Also, on here I can actually get a debate, rather than one side either blindly agreeing with me or accusing me of secretly being the gay submissive boyfriend of the zombies of Osama bin Laden and Karl Marx.

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

Well, it's just everyday people here at NSG, mostly uncensored and speaking honestly. That's what makes me follow them more. Also because we often see and show news from other parts of the world that might seem unimportant to a lot of people, but here where there's more...well, internationalism, people see a problem anywhere as important.

[Wisconsin9]

What you did there... I see it.

Anyways, like Luziyca said, I get most of my news from here as well, although in my case it's because I generally don't bother taking the time to look for it myself. Also, on here I can actually get a debate, rather than one side either blindly agreeing with me or accusing me of secretly being the gay submissive boyfriend of the zombies of Osama bin Laden and Karl Marx.

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

Because a debate on MSNBC would just have all but one person accusing the dissenting voice of being a fundamentalist genocidal Hitler wannabe, whereas on Faux you get all but one person accusing the dissenting voice of being a gay anti-American terrorist fascist Hitler wannabe, at least here you've got roughly equal numbers of people accusing the other side of being horrendously hateful and insane Hitler wannabes and a few actual Hitler wannabes to point out why both sides are stupid for calling each other Hitler wannabes.

[Free Soviets]

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

[Shrillland]

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

Oh we should, but how?

[Priory Academy USSR]

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

Because I can post in it too: it's serious annoying watching the news, or reading the newspaper, and you can't correct a fucking imbecilic noobish bastard an ill-informed person about the subject.

Also, of course, the posters here can speak their minds; any debate where the speakers are part of a larger organisation will probably self-censor any thing that may go against the views of their organisation, or give it an unsavoury reputation by expressing questionable views. There's none of that on NSG.

[The Blaatschapen]

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

Let's make our own broadcasting company?

[Shofercia]

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

Let's make our own broadcasting company?

The Jennifer Government Broadcasting Corporation

[Shofercia]

Well, it's just everyday people here at NSG, mostly uncensored and speaking honestly. That's what makes me follow them more. Also because we often see and show news from other parts of the world that might seem unimportant to a lot of people, but here where there's more...well, internationalism, people see a problem anywhere as important.

Very interesting, I didn't think about that right off the bat, but you're right!

Come on guys, expand on this, and other comments!

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

Because a debate on MSNBC would just have all but one person accusing the dissenting voice of being a fundamentalist genocidal Hitler wannabe, whereas on Faux you get all but one person accusing the dissenting voice of being a gay anti-American terrorist fascist Hitler wannabe, at least here you've got roughly equal numbers of people accusing the other side of being horrendously hateful and insane Hitler wannabes and a few actual Hitler wannabes to point out why both sides are stupid for calling each other Hitler wannabes.

Also true!

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

I don't think it's that we know more, I think that the pundits aren't allowed to be seen as super knowledgeable. If you're too smart, you might get canned. Whereas on NSG, if you get stuff right, consistently, you could go from "that fucking bitch" to "damn, this bitch knows his shit"

But here's the question then: how did the core group form, and how do we keep on renewing ourselves?

But here's the the question: what drives you to follow an NSG debate more than, say, a debate on MSNBC, or Faux News?

Because I can post in it too: it's serious annoying watching the news, or reading the newspaper, and you can't correct a fucking imbecilic noobish bastard an ill-informed person about the subject.

Also, of course, the posters here can speak their minds; any debate where the speakers are part of a larger organisation will probably self-censor any thing that may go against the views of their organisation, or give it an unsavoury reputation by expressing questionable views. There's none of that on NSG.

That's true, there's very little censorship here, primarily done to avoid the wrath of the banhammer, and you get to sound off, which is important to any debate. I agree, sometimes I feel like screaming at the imbeciles going on and on about some minor issue, and missing the elephant in the room, whereas on NSG, you'll be talking about the elephant, even if the thread has to go off topic

[Shofercia]

this place has three very important things going for it;
1. diversity of voices - people from all over holding ideas all over the ideological map while having a wide range of interests
2. a core group of regulars that isn't so large that its impossible to keep track of
3. that core group contains a bunch of really really smart, informed, and funny people; we've got literal experts in a bunch of subjects, people you know are good for one-liners, etc.


but there is something unfortunate about the way NSG collectively knows more about the US presidential primary system (for example) than most highly paid pundits and campaign strategists. we should cash in somehow.

Oh we should, but how?

Would people actually be interested in doing something like this? I was messing around earlier, in my reply to Blaat, but I can think of several business models that might work here. I'd just have to make sure that I take everything in this thread into account, before suggesting a business model.

[Divair]

I wouldn't say NSG is more reliable, per se, but far more balanced. We still get a ton of shit, though.

[Norstal]

Wait, you clicked this thread? With that boooooring title? Okie-dokie

The gist is simple: personally, I find NSG to be more informative, on most issues, than a single news channel. Usually I watch more than one news channel, (I watch quite a few when I care about a certain issue,) but when it comes to a single channel vs NSG, I find the latter more informative. Is the same the case for you? And if so, why?

I think that NSG promotes a healthy debate on non-religious issues, and on some very limited aspects of religion, but most religious threads on NSG tend to not go well. That aside, I think that NSG is more informative, because we're not afraid to confront other viewpoints, even if they're unpopular, unlike the news networks, that just want to get their viewpoint out, be it liberal or conservative, and don't usually allow an in depth analysis. But why the polarization in the press? And what keeps NSG non-polarized on non-religious issues?

Errr, really? I don't even bother going into economic threads in this forum anymore. All it is just full of Libertarians going "LOL GOVERNMENT!"

Even CNN, no, even Mad Money is more bearable than that.

[Shofercia]

I wouldn't say NSG is more reliable, per se, but far more balanced. We still get a ton of shit, though.

But do you think that NSG is more informative?

[Divair]

Wait, you clicked this thread? With that boooooring title? Okie-dokie

The gist is simple: personally, I find NSG to be more informative, on most issues, than a single news channel. Usually I watch more than one news channel, (I watch quite a few when I care about a certain issue,) but when it comes to a single channel vs NSG, I find the latter more informative. Is the same the case for you? And if so, why?

I think that NSG promotes a healthy debate on non-religious issues, and on some very limited aspects of religion, but most religious threads on NSG tend to not go well. That aside, I think that NSG is more informative, because we're not afraid to confront other viewpoints, even if they're unpopular, unlike the news networks, that just want to get their viewpoint out, be it liberal or conservative, and don't usually allow an in depth analysis. But why the polarization in the press? And what keeps NSG non-polarized on non-religious issues?

Errr, really? I don't even bother going into economic threads in this forum anymore. All it is just full of Libertarians going "LOL GOVERNMENT!"

Even CNN, no, even Mad Money is more bearable than that.

Either that or whatshisface and everyone else fighting each other.

[Divair]

I wouldn't say NSG is more reliable, per se, but far more balanced. We still get a ton of shit, though.

But do you think that NSG is more informative?

Hmm.


No.

[Saruhan]

But do you think that NSG is more informative?

Hmm.


No.

Perhaps because you're the person I get most of my news from?