NationStates

Vassenor wrote:Remember, wanting Russia on board with an NFZ is bad.

Vassenor wrote:Remember, wanting Russia on board with an NFZ is bad.

The Portland Territory wrote:I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

The Portland Territory wrote:I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

Shrilland wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
>no proof

> https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

Shrilland wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Can you provide any examples of "unbaised" sources?

BBC, All Jazeera, CBC, uncucked news networks.

Cedoria wrote:

Shrilland wrote:
Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Saiwania wrote:This help didn't arrive soon enough. I really wanted this dirt on Macron to really swing the French election to Le Pen. I had high hopes for this.

Cedoria wrote:

Saiwania wrote:This help didn't arrive soon enough. I really wanted this dirt on Macron to really swing the French election to Le Pen. I had high hopes for this.

The fact you felt it necessary to receive the assistance of a despotic regime's security agencies to favor 'your' candidate says a lot about the mindset which explains why La Pen lost in the first place.

Europe has a long memory for Fascism, and they don't want it back. Good for them.

Proctopeo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Often, when people request an "unbiased" source, it's a request for a source with minimal bias.

Proctopeo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:The fact you felt it necessary to receive the assistance of a despotic regime's security agencies to favor 'your' candidate says a lot about the mindset which explains why La Pen lost in the first place.

Europe has a long memory for Fascism, and they don't want it back. Good for them.

I don't think Le Pen was fascist. Wasn't she just nationalist?

Cedoria wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Often, when people request an "unbiased" source, it's a request for a source with minimal bias.

No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Cedoria wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:I don't think Le Pen was fascist. Wasn't she just nationalist?

She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Proctopeo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.

Cedoria wrote:
She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

Proctopeo wrote:

Cedoria wrote:
No, often it means "I want a source that agrees with me, irrespective of whether it's actually true"

Again, what do you mean by 'minimal bias'? Minimal bias would technically mean only minimally inaccurate. Or a source that simply doesn't proclaim which agenda it supports openly? Cause the latter is even more dangerous then a source that declares its true colours.

I always am more inclined to trust the authenticity of a source that tells me in advance where it's coming from and the political position it espouses, then I am to trust in the pseduo-objectivity of those who claim the truth is their only concern, but still push just as much of an agenda. Likewise, I always try to do people the favour of proclaiming my allegiances and background openly when I try and write something, so they can understand where I'm coming from when evaluating the usefulness of my critique.

Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.

Cedoria wrote:
She denied the Vichy Government helped send the Jews into the death camps, and her father was an out and out Neo-Nazi. She's had too pretend to be more moderate, but she also once said her father never told her a lie that she knew of.

So no, Fascist pretending to be merely a nationalist perhaps, but Fascist is pretty accurate.

Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

Thermodolia wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Something can often mean two things. "Often" doesn't mean "usually". And I meant the former; I am a fan of knowing what stance something is coming from.


Looking into her comments, they seem poorly worded but not fascist/naziist in any way. She blamed the people in power, not France itself, which I see as a legitimate assessment. As for her father, I'll need actual evidence, as I'm suspecting that your statement is due to his political position relative to yours.

Her father has gone to prison for holocaust denial, hes admitted to being a neo-Nazi.

Proctopeo wrote:That makes sense.

I find it a little bit absurd that you can go to prison for denying the Holocaust. Might just be my first amendmentitis.

Vassenor wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:I like how no ones batting an eye that it is fact that the CIA meddled with the last French election but everyone's going nuts over the theory that Russia hacked the French

Let's see your source.

The Portland Territory wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Let's see your source.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

Cedoria wrote:

Shrilland wrote:
Is that an unbiased source? Exactly. Get an actual source or stop trying to cover up for (((them)))

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Imperial Zorika Jouth wrote:

Cedoria wrote:

If you mean 'unbiased' in terms of the way that term is popularly used, there is no such thing.

You are biased, so am I. Too demand an 'unbiased' source is too cry for the moon.

If you use the word unbiased according to its proper definition, which essentially means factually accurate, that's easier to do.

Just because a source makes a point that does not conform to pre-conceived notions of yours doesn't make it untrue.

Can you provide any evidence for the claim that Russia used hacks to support anyone on any side of either the US or French elections that doesn't amount to "these people say so?"

The Portland Territory wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Let's see your source.

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/