Skip Navigation
politics @lemmy.world Socialist Mormon Satanist @lemmy.world

Harris team fighting muted mics at ABC debate after Biden requested rule

www.washingtonexaminer.com /news/campaigns/presidential/3133999/harris-team-fighting-muted-mics-abc-debate/
32

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
32 comments

  • Pointing out a source’s bias is completely reasonable. There’s literally a bot doing it using MBFC already. I already know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative rag, but others might not. It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion of the post.

    Ok, and do you do that for the pro-democrat articles? I mean, since you are being so fair and all.

    If anything, it’s kind of weird how defensive you got when someone pointed it out.

    I'm not defensive, as I didn't write the article, nor do I work for that news org.

    It's just that I noticed that you don't do it for pro-democrat articles, but maybe i missed where you have.

    So have you been doing it for the news orgs that skew pro-democrat bias? Because you do realize that media bias goes both directions, right? You know, since it's "It’s perfectly within bounds to include that in the discussion" of posts and all.

    And again, this is a political news community, not just a pro-democrat/pro-harris political community.

    • “I’m not defensive…”

      Oh yeah, totally can tell from your normal and not weirdly defensive responses. /s

      • What part of anything I said seemed "weirdly defensive" to you?

        • I mean …sort of all of it (“Do you post the history of every news organization that lists pro-democrat articles as well?”) and the quantity as well. It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments. Must be exhausting.

          • So let me get this straight. A guy decided to post a history of the news org wrote the news article that I posted.

            I told him I thought was a strange response. He replied that he felt it was a biased news source and wanted to let everyone know.

            And I asked him if he did that for other articles as well. And you think me asking that is "weirdly defensive"?

            It’s pretty obvious you have no chill and freak out constantly in the comments

            Please show me one "freak out" that I have had? I reply to comments with the same tone that is offered to me. And many times, in a much nicer tone than is offered to me.

            Several comments that people have said to me have been removed, while mine have not. Doesn't sound like the freak out is on my side.

            I'm not freak out at all or even upset by commenters on Lemmy. This is zero affect on my real life.

            You seem to know an awful lot about my comments and my so-called "freak outs." Maybe you are reading a bit much into it, friend.

            Maybe you mistake my wordiness for freaking out. I type fast because I'm a writer. None of this takes up much of my time, nor troubles me.

            Let me guess tho: I've been very wordy in my response to you. So this is yet another example of my "weird defensiveness" and "freaking out." Yes?

            • Bwhahahahaha! Well done! Wow, you really went for it.

              Or if you were being serious - what a weirdly defensive reply. But that’s par for the course isn’t?

              • Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words.

                But hey, I was right that you would think it was a weirdly defensive reply, so we can be friends now, right?

                Oh wait...crap! You probably think that this was a weirdly defensive reply too. Dammit! Oh man, we may not be able to break the cycle!

                • Well I do understand that it may take you a while to read all those words

                  Wow, so uncivil! Now edging from “weirdly defensive” to just “weird”. Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

                  • I was only assuming since you saw what I was saying as weirdly defensive and I couldn't see any other reason you would think that. So I was incorrect? It wasn't the amount of words that made me seem weirdly defensive then?

                    Which - considering your post history lately - is on brand I suppose.

                    You seem awfully interested in my post history. I feel so important now. Thank you!

                    • Interested? No. Just unwillingly subjected to your constant freakouts and weird defensiveness. Your shallow need to attack anything that gets posted in any thread you’re on. Your walls of text attempting to bludgeon others into acceptance, or at least submission. Your straw man arguments and other constant logical fallacies.

                      Probably the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen. No one needs to go looking for your post history - it exists as a sickly miasma on everyone’s /all feed. And the funniest part is that you obviously think you’re so clever, and yet everything you do just makes people want to pay attention to anything you say less and less.

                      In short - weird.

                      • Probably the worst case of main character syndrome I’ve ever seen. No one needs to go looking for your post history - it exists as a sickly miasma on everyone’s /all feed. And the funniest part is that you obviously think you’re so clever, and yet everything you do just makes people want to pay attention to anything you say less and less.

                        Sounds like you should really just block me then, since I get under your skin that much. Then you wouldn't have to see my posts or my comments or put up with my "freakouts" and "weird defensiveness."

                        So why haven't you?

    • He's free to discuss this article any way that he thinks is interesting. Just because he found it helpful to point out the bias in this case doesn't obligate him to do it in any other cases. He doesn't owe you anything.

      Also, responding to someone noting the reputation of your source with what amounts to "ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BREAKING THE RULES? ARE YOU SAYING CONSERVATIVE LEANING SOURCES ARE ILLEGAL?” is basically the textbook definition of a wildly defensive response lmao.

32 comments