• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Grayzone is not reliable reporting. It is no different from the Daily Mail or Breitbart, it simply leans in a different direction.

    Reader beware.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Check OPs posting history. Pro-China content, Pro-Russia content, ignores every article critical of Russia/China. If this isn’t a troll account, then OP is the very definition of a useful idiot.

      • NightOwl@lemmy.fmhy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        checks my own posting history

        Looks fine to me. Oh wait, I’m linking to those well known pro-Russia and pro-China outlets, the Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times. Don’t listen to me, I’ll corrupt your soul with heterodox articles about publicly available government documents.

        • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Absolutely. Harvard estimates that China’s 50 Cent troll army makes 488 million comments per year. And that was their estimate from 2016. Always be skeptical of what you’re read, and if you’re suspicious, check the poster’s comment history.

          I actually got a temp ban for calling out a massive Russian troll account on Reddit because, “You have to attack the idea, not the user.”

        • MercuryUprising@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no “discussion” to be had with someone arguing in bad faith. The “I’m just asking kweschens” crowd use this method to exhaust any real discussion by putting the pressure on defending against bullshit claims. Bullshit claims shouldn’t even be acknowledged and the people presenting them shouldn’t be allowed to take part in the discussion. Don’t like it? Find a thread that accepts that bullshit. There’s a website I know that will be happy to humor that sort of discussion.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Debate requires both parties to engage in good faith. I am not engaging in debate, this is a rejection of con artists.

        • Bloops@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Correct. You are refusing to engage in good faith, dismissing discussion due to your anticommunist fervor.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I simply require that any source I engage with be better than strongly biased. Debating a fervent anyone is pointless. A fervent communist is no different from a fervent anyone else, and their passion can blind them. Once you do this enough times, you eventually find there is no point.

            The simple fact that you immediately jumped to ad hominem without even recognizing that I am not debating the source, not arguing against it, merely stating it should be rejected wholesale, is indicative of this. This is my central thesis, if you would like to debate me on something.