C:\PROGRAM
-
@Lorne Kates said:
"R believes in slave labor"
@Lorne Kates said:
"R will slit your throat in your sleep, here's an animated gif of a beheading to prove it"
I knew it! I knew R was evil!
@Lorne Kates said:
It's the same reason you wouldn't want ads for date-rape drugs, the KKK, and "watch beheading videos online now!!!~```!" ads next to your content.
Speak for yourself!
@Lorne Kates said:
Again-- it's a systemic and deep-rooted problem with ad networks. There's too many levels of abstraction between content creator and advertiser to ever trust ads from third parties.
No, you are wrong. A content creator that cares can run a clean ad network. He's only getting crap ads because he's trying to get a 100% fill-rate. It's also possible his content disqualifies him from running good ad campaigns, I dunno.
My problem here is, once again, you are trying to imply that bad ad networks used by questionable sites justifies blocking all ads. If Something Positive simply cannot get good ads, then, yeah, they shouldn't be running ads. (I just checked again.. I got one good ad and one kind of janky-looking one.) But then you're using that as a justification to block ads everywhere, which is insane. It's like saying "I won't use HTML because sometimes HTML is used to build bad sites!"
I'll reiterate: it's very convenient that your moralistic posturing on this issue just happens to line up with your aesthetic preferences. It's reminiscent of the "No Fat Chicks" bumper sticker on my pickup: I have strong moral conviction that women should be healthy. It's only a coincidence that I prefer not looking at fat chicks.
-
@Snooder said:
The problem is that people can disagree about whether a particular "social contract" that you subscribe to is one that they subscribe to as well.
To use your example of sleeping with a married woman, what if her husband is a wife-beating asshole? Or maybe he's actually a really great guy but they've grown apart and are in the process of getting a divorce. Or maybe they have an open marriage. Or maybe he cheated on her first and she just wants a quick revenge fling. Or maybe you've loved each other forever and she made a mistake when she married someone she didn't love. Maybe she's only still with him for the kids. Maybe he's gay. Maybe he's impotent, or has AIDS or for some other reason can't satisfy her sexual needs. Maybe he just has a really tiny dick.
Different people will have different answers as to the moral rectitude of each of those situations, and it's a sign of either arrogance or mental illness to believe that your answer to every situation will be or can be the same as everyone elses.We already covered this. Why do you just fabricate the arguments you want to hear in your head? I never said that a person must see every single ad or else they are evil. I even pointed out that I block Flash in my browser which sometimes blocks ads. I understand someone blacklisting the most egregious offenders of advertising. (Although, disclosure: I run no ad blocker and the only time I ever see really crazy ads is on porn sites or warez. So I guess you guys only live on porn and copyright infringement?)
My point has always been: blocking all ads is selfish, destructive behavior you should be ashamed of. Just like sleeping with every single married woman you encounter, no matter her situation, is selfish and destructive. I understand there's a middle ground grey area where people might disagree.
This is not about a grey area. This is about people like Lorne blocking all ads, even from sites that he likes and that do respectable advertising, and then trying to justify it with some lame moralistic preening. This is not "I block Flash because it kills my browser". This is not "I blacklist the most egregious ad networks." This is not "I sometimes have to block Flash or images because my bandwidth is constrained."
This is "I am a selfish, greedy bastard who has absolutely no consideration for his fellow man."
Do you see the difference? Carefully re-read this thread and see who has argued an absolutist position. I know it's not me or Blakey, because we both said blacklisting really awful ads is understandable.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
(Although, disclosure: I run no ad blocker and the only time I ever see really crazy ads is on porn sites or warez. So I guess you guys only live on porn and copyright infringement?)
lolcat and similar miscellaneous humor sites tend to have some pretty fucking egregious advertising. PS why are you seeing (ads on) warez sites?
-
@joe.edwards said:
lolcat and similar miscellaneous humor sites tend to have some pretty fucking egregious advertising.
Is this.. a problem for you? Ballpark, how many hours a day do you look at ICHC?
@joe.edwards said:
PS why are you seeing (ads on) warez sites?
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm.....
Oh, I know: I was only there to ask for directions on how to get away from there!
-
@joe.edwards said:
@anotherusername said:
@KillaCoda said:
I think it's a little less subconscious than that. If you're presented with 15 choices of rum, each equally likely to be good or bad, and you've never heard the name of 14 of them, even if you can't even remember where or how you heard that name before, you'll be predisposed to try that one first.@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
I'd find it pretty hard to believe that you could walk into your average liquor selection and only recognise 1 brand name of rum. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of at least half of them.
-
@anotherusername said:
@joe.edwards said:
I can name uhh... three?@anotherusername said:
@KillaCoda said:
I think it's a little less subconscious than that. If you're presented with 15 choices of rum, each equally likely to be good or bad, and you've never heard the name of 14 of them, even if you can't even remember where or how you heard that name before, you'll be predisposed to try that one first.@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
I'd find it pretty hard to believe that you could walk into your average liquor selection and only recognise 1 brand name of rum. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of at least half of them.
-
@anotherusername said:
Unless you've been living under a rock...
Rock, bridge, newspaper--rum drinkers live life to the fullest under them all.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I can name uhh... three?
I'll stick with brand names to keep the list shorter, but from memory:
Captain Morgan
Sailor Jerry
Bacardi
Kraken
Mt. Gay
Hana Bay
Myer's Dark
Parrot Bay
Malibu
Pusser's
Old Lahaina
Sammy Hagar's Beach Bar Rum
KoloaI know I'm forgetting a ton..
-
@joe.edwards said:
@anotherusername said:
@joe.edwards said:
I can name uhh... three?@anotherusername said:
@KillaCoda said:
I think it's a little less subconscious than that. If you're presented with 15 choices of rum, each equally likely to be good or bad, and you've never heard the name of 14 of them, even if you can't even remember where or how you heard that name before, you'll be predisposed to try that one first.@morbiuswilters said:
@KillaCoda said:
There's a billboard near my house for a brand of rum...
What brand?
Ironically enough, I can't remember off hand. I'd know it if I saw it. I do know it's NOT Captain Morgan's, as I remember thinking the pirate was a blatant way to steal some of their schtick.I really don't think it matters if you remember or not. Chances are, a few people will end up at the store with rum in mind, and as long as their product isn't hidden, people will buy it. Sure, they'll prefer if you bought their brand of rum, but now that you've seen it you'll be more likely to gravitate toward it without even consciously remembering it or realising that's what you're doing.
I'd find it pretty hard to believe that you could walk into your average liquor selection and only recognise 1 brand name of rum. Unless you've been living under a rock, chances are you've heard of at least half of them.
It's really not so many as the ones you could actually name; it's the ones you'd see and think "oh, that name looks kinda familiar".
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
No, that's the O'Reilly Maneuver.It seems like fewer and fewer people can deal with even being exposed to a diversity of opinions, despite all of the noise about how important diversity is, because it brings together people with different points of view.
SHUT UP SHUT UP I'M NOT LISTENING
Filed under: This is called "pulling a Flabdablet".
-
@flabdablet said:
No, that's the O'Reilly Maneuver.
So you spend your Friday nights watching Bill O'Reilly videos on the Youtube? O_o
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
You managed to forget my wife's two favorites: Gosling for dark rum, Cruzan for white. And then there's rhum agricole, which is a whole other thing.I can name uhh... three?
I'll stick with brand names to keep the list shorter, but from memory:
Captain Morgan
Sailor Jerry
Bacardi
Kraken
Mt. Gay
Hana Bay
Myer's Dark
Parrot Bay
Malibu
Pusser's
Old Lahaina
Sammy Hagar's Beach Bar Rum
KoloaI know I'm forgetting a ton..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
No, but I occasionally google him just to confirm that that's where you and zilla are still getting your ideas about what ought to be considered "common sense" from. I have yet to find a single counterexample; both of you seem to be utterly dependable Fox party line parrots.No, that's the O'Reilly Maneuver.
So you spend your Friday nights watching Bill O'Reilly videos on the Youtube? O_o
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@joe.edwards said:
You managed to forget my wife's two favorites: Gosling for dark rum, Cruzan for white. And then there's rhum agricole, which is a whole other thing.I can name uhh... three?
I'll stick with brand names to keep the list shorter, but from memory:
Captain Morgan
Sailor Jerry
Bacardi
Kraken
Mt. Gay
Hana Bay
Myer's Dark
Parrot Bay
Malibu
Pusser's
Old Lahaina
Sammy Hagar's Beach Bar Rum
KoloaI know I'm forgetting a ton..
My favorite is Wray and Nephew (overproof white).
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@flabdablet said:
No, that's the O'Reilly Maneuver.
So you spend your Friday nights watching Bill O'Reilly videos on the Youtube? O_o
No, but I occasionally google him just to confirm that that's where you and zilla are still getting your ideas about what ought to be considered "common sense" from. I have yet to find a single counterexample; both of you seem to be utterly dependable Fox party line parrots.Fascinating. Sounds like you watch more Fox News than I do these days (Special Report is still the best news show on the air, and I'm rarely able to catch it any more). I have to say, when I have watched O'Reilly, he's all over the place. It's to his credit that sometimes he agrees with me. I think it says a lot that lefties always assume people who disagree with them follow certain personalities blindly. I think the technical term for this is projection. You and the rest of the Aussie lefties seem to be as fascinated with Rupert Murdoch as ours are with the Koch brothers. Very cartoonish of you guys, and it gets a bit monotonous.
It's too bad that people with views like yours don't get their ideas questioned very often. It makes you guys soft and unable to argue a point, and lets you coast along with your funny ideas.
-
@boomzilla said:
You and the rest of the Aussie lefties seem to be as fascinated with Rupert Murdoch as ours are with the Koch brothers.
I can confirm that Rupert Murdoch is a cartoon villain.
-
@boomzilla said:
Sounds like you watch more Fox News than I do these days
Since the party line ("fuck you, I got mine, now gimme yours as well") is simple enough for a four year old to grasp, I imagine you'd only need a top-up every few weeks.
My own compulsion to check that Fox is still there and still completely fucked is just one of those unfortunate personal habits. Some people pick their feet and eat it; others swipe their finger down the crack of their arse to see if it still stinks; I look in on Fox. I always feel vaguely soiled afterwards.
-
@boomzilla said:
Special Report is still the best news show on the air
Best at making shit up that's completely at odds with reality, maybe.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Sounds like you watch more Fox News than I do these days
Since the party line ("fuck you, I got mine, now gimme yours as well") is simple enough for a four year old to grasp, I imagine you'd only need a top-up every few weeks.
Fascinating. You have an amazing ability to resist outside information.
-
@flabdablet said:
@boomzilla said:
Special Report is still the best news show on the air
Best at making shit up that's completely at odds with reality, maybe.Yeah, how dare anyone notice that the models don't work?! You really are the master of own goals. I can't say what the motivation was for sure, but they sure don't want anyone noticing that the models don't work. Here's the thing, if you're going to actually use a model for something important, you generally take it and try to predict real world behavior. If it is good at prediction, that's good, because you can probably use it. If it isn't good at prediction, you should improve it or forget about it, but you should definitely not rely on its predictions being useful. There really hasn't been much done in the area of verifying and validating climate models. Sadly, climate science doesn't consider knowing how good their models are to be very important.
It's possible that the IOP guys are just clueless and bad at science stuff and not activists, and maybe the Special Report piece was making that up. If you want to call them incompetent boobs instead of motivated actors in their self interest in keeping the climate science grant gravy train going, I won't stop you, and maybe there's a good case to make there.
-
Here, maybe this will help get your message of irrational panic out:
-
Fuck off.
-
@Ben L. said:
I can confirm that Rupert Murdoch is a cartoon villain.
He's like Skeletor?
-
-
@bstorer said:
@morbiuswilters said:
It's just a bullshit rationalization for your sociopathic, kleptomaniacal behavior.
Oh, is it time for ad blockers to try to justify their behavior again already?! I wonder if anyone will come up with a single argument that is even remotely novel.When I grace a website with my interest it is obviously the website which benefits from me consuming their output, but unfortunately website operators tend to have the mistaken belief that I am interested in what their ads show. As I do not wish to bother the poor website staff with my preferences (and they almost never write back or jokingly write how they would be happy if I gave them monetary compensation, as if it is [i]I[/i] who somehow benefit from this transaction), I only wish to make it easier for them to deliver the website to me in a format which I find agreeable and redirect those ads to someone more wanting for them. Obviously going to the trouble of installing an advert-blokheir, as it is known in more rarefied circles, is my solemn duty as a gentleman. And it is a duty which I will continue to perform as I would never wish to deprive those website makers from the privilege of being glanced over by my rather singular ocular apparatuses.
It's like with a pretty girl. If a gentleman doesn't even bother to look at her ankles how is she to know she's keeping herself properly shapely? Next thing you know she's trying to lose 50 pounds that she doesn't have to fit into a dress that doesn't even have a number. It's a service to mankind, really. Why, if we didn't look at these websites (and pretty girls' ankles of course) there'd be chaos. Madness. Pure madness. No Jee...bstorer, we must take the bitter pill and do what we must, no matter the difficulties.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Snooder said:
The problem is that people can disagree about whether a particular "social contract" that you subscribe to is one that they subscribe to as well.
To use your example of sleeping with a married woman, what if her husband is a wife-beating asshole? Or maybe he's actually a really great guy but they've grown apart and are in the process of getting a divorce. Or maybe they have an open marriage. Or maybe he cheated on her first and she just wants a quick revenge fling. Or maybe you've loved each other forever and she made a mistake when she married someone she didn't love. Maybe she's only still with him for the kids. Maybe he's gay. Maybe he's impotent, or has AIDS or for some other reason can't satisfy her sexual needs. Maybe he just has a really tiny dick.
Different people will have different answers as to the moral rectitude of each of those situations, and it's a sign of either arrogance or mental illness to believe that your answer to every situation will be or can be the same as everyone elses.We already covered this. Why do you just fabricate the arguments you want to hear in your head? I never said that a person must see every single ad or else they are evil. I even pointed out that I block Flash in my browser which sometimes blocks ads. I understand someone blacklisting the most egregious offenders of advertising. (Although, disclosure: I run no ad blocker and the only time I ever see really crazy ads is on porn sites or warez. So I guess you guys only live on porn and copyright infringement?)
My point has always been: blocking all ads is selfish, destructive behavior you should be ashamed of. Just like sleeping with every single married woman you encounter, no matter her situation, is selfish and destructive. I understand there's a middle ground grey area where people might disagree.
This is not about a grey area. This is about people like Lorne blocking all ads, even from sites that he likes and that do respectable advertising, and then trying to justify it with some lame moralistic preening. This is not "I block Flash because it kills my browser". This is not "I blacklist the most egregious ad networks." This is not "I sometimes have to block Flash or images because my bandwidth is constrained."
This is "I am a selfish, greedy bastard who has absolutely no consideration for his fellow man."
Do you see the difference? Carefully re-read this thread and see who has argued an absolutist position. I know it's not me or Blakey, because we both said blacklisting really awful ads is understandable.
You know, for a second there I thought we might have had a breakthrough. You actually began to admit that nuance, context and grey areas might exist.
Then you sidelined straight to "If you block all add you are a selfish greedy bastard with absolutely no consideration for his fellow man." Personally, I don't block every ad. I turn my ad block off for certain sites I visit a lot. I do block probably 90% of the ads I would otherwise get. There's not really a moralistic reason for it, any more than there's a moral imperative for the site creator to choose to get paid with ad-revenue. It's just that I've been bit with shitty malware before and it's better to just block it all and whitelist later than to let it all in and blacklist after I get something really shitty.
You can't simultaneously try to take the moral high ground by saying that ad-blocking is bad/wrong/evil while also trying to claim a non-absolutist position.
Which is all an aside from the actual point of the post you quoted. I wasn't really talking about just ad-blocking there. I was talking about the tendency of self-proclaimed "libertarians" (who aren't really, and should stop pretending to be) to rely on a nebulous "social contract" as justification for why their particular moral compass is the correct one. It's bullshit. Argue from principles, or argue based on economics. But when your argument basically boils down to "hey, most people (that I talked to) feel this way so everyone else is an asshole," that's a shitty argument. And it's made even worse when the person arguing for it is doing so as a replacement to the traditional and organized method of defining social order through laws voted upon in the democratic process.
-
@Snooder said:
your argument basically boils down to "hey, most people (that I talked to) feel this way so everyone else is an asshole,"
"If you do this, you're a bad person and you should feel bad," was the real force that drove me away from Catholicism. I started to question and subsequently reject that as a valid line of reasoning. That doesn't mean I don't believe there are things people shouldn't do, but when making that determination I try to look at actual causes and effects rather than "the church of Morbs decrees this practice to be sinful."
So, cause: a small-to-moderate percentage of users are blocking ads, effect: content authors
declare bankruptcy and poor Tiny Tim gets sick and diesadapt and add alternative revenue streams, such as subscriptions, Patreon, and merchandising. I won't lose sleep over that.
-
@joe.edwards said:
So, cause: a small-to-moderate percentage of users are blocking ads, effect: content authors
Interestingly, one site I (used to) frequent has gone the other direction. They used to have free content, with additional content available to paid members, with one or two fairly unobtrusive ads on each page. They shifted to being all-free and ad-supported, with intrusive ads, and they made it almost unusable with an ad blocker. Effect: I no longer use their site at all. (To be fair, I might have put up with this, and even disabled my ad blocker, were it not for other problems with the site. There have been recurring allegations — whether founded or not, I don't know — that they knowingly allow users to post content ripped-off from other people, and try to retaliate against the original creators when they complain. In any case, I no longer feel inclined to support that site.)declare bankruptcy and poor Tiny Tim gets sick and diesadapt and add alternative revenue streams, such as subscriptions, Patreon, and merchandising.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This is "I am a selfish, greedy bastard who has absolutely no consideration for his fellow man."
AKA Google.
-
@flabdablet said:
@morbiuswilters said:
They don't like paying their taxes in the UK either, which is pretty selfish too. Same story with Starbucks.This is "I am a selfish, greedy bastard who has absolutely no consideration for his fellow man."
AKA Google.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Same story with Starbucks.
Seriously? Please tell me you haven't fallen for that bollocks as well.
Even adding back on UK royalties paid to Holland's arm, and the UK interest paid to the US arm, Starbucks still wouldn't have made a profit in the UK. Not sure about your little world, but here in the real one, you only pay corporation tax on profits, not turnover.
If you don't make a profit, you don't pay the tax.
It's a bit like if someone had, say, £10,000 in the bank paying 2% interest. Over the year, they'd earn £200. they'd pay income tax on that at their marginal rate (for the majority that's 20%), so £40.
All you people screaming that Starbucks had a turnover of £lots and they aren't paying (sufficient) tax would have the above person paying income tax on the whole £10,200 (£2,040) and would be jumping up and down screaming that since they only paid £40 and were depriving the Exchequer of £2,000.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
They don't like paying their taxes in the UK either, which is pretty selfish too.
LOL. I'm always amused at people outraged at other people who understand and follow tax laws.
-
@PJH said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
I haven't fallen for anything. I just heard it in the news and thought I'd add it to the conversation. I don't really care about the details. That's for the other greedy bastards, the politicians, to sort out.Same story with Starbucks.
Seriously? Please tell me you haven't fallen for that bollocks as well.@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
I guess it's therefore OK to be amused at people who are outraged at those who understand and avoid website advertisements. That's where I stand.They don't like paying their taxes in the UK either, which is pretty selfish too.
LOL. I'm always amused at people outraged at other people who understand
and follow tax laws.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
They
don't like paying their taxes in the UK either, which is pretty selfish
too.LOL. I'm always amused at people outraged at other people who understand
and follow tax laws.
I guess it's therefore OK to be amused at people who are outraged at those who understand and avoid website advertisements. That's where I stand.Depends. Are they black? Half black? Quadroon? Because that would be racist.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
haven't fallen for anything. I just heard it in the news and thought I'd
HTH, HAND, etc.add it to the conversationbelieve it without question.
-
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
That makes me wonder how often advertisers attempt to do racial profiling. Of course that kind of thing is only usually possible on social networks. Come to think of it, restricting to certain states can be considered racial profiling too, to some degree.@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
They don't like paying their taxes in the UK either, which is pretty selfish too.
LOL. I'm always amused at people outraged at other people who understand
and follow tax laws.
I guess it's therefore OK to be amused at people who are outraged at those who understand and avoid website advertisements. That's where I stand.Depends. Are they black? Half black? Quadroon? Because that would be racist.
-
@PJH said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
What was actually broadcast was the fact that people are outraged about it. Whether or not it's justified, I don't really know or care. At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics, unlikehaven't fallen for anything. I just heard it in the news and thought I'd
HTH, HAND, etc.add it to the conversationbelieve it without question.virtually? every American news channel. Anyway, I guess I derailed my already-derailed-n-times topic.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
That makes me wonder how often advertisers attempt to do racial profiling. Of course that kind of thing is only usually possible on social networks.
Or, any show or publication or neighborhood where the demographics are known. It would be a waste of money to target the wrong demographic. Compare the ads you see during a basketball game and a golf tournament.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics,
Good stuff. You, sir, are en fuego this morning.
-
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
If I could see ads, I would definitely compare these out of curiosity. And also while simulating the browsing habits of different ethnicities, seeing how Google adjusts its search results according to its predetermined biases.That makes me wonder how often advertisers attempt to do racial profiling. Of course that kind of thing is only usually possible on social networks.
Or, any show or publication or neighborhood where the demographics are known. It would be a waste of money to target the wrong demographic. Compare the ads you see during a basketball game and a golf tournament.
-
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
You disagree, then? Well, they're still only human. They can't be perfect every time. Point me to a news network that does better.At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics,
Good stuff. You, sir, are en fuego this morning.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics
.. does it fuck. For example they only pulled one of their political reporters only after it became common knowledge they were severely (publicly) biased. Had it not generated so much publicity I have no doubt they'd still be covering the elections today.
Or how about the policy based evidence they constructed in cahoots with the University of Sheffield with regard to minimum alcohol pricing? When pulled up about this they quietly changed the figures, but damage had been done.
Hell, there's even a website dedicated to how biased the BBC is...
-
@PJH said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
I'll repeat myself. I didn't claim that they're perfect. Nobody is. Again, point me to a news network that does better.At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics
.. does it fuck.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Again, point me to a news network that does better.
CNN, Fox, CNBC. This seems like a really low bar to clear. They have official policies enforcing bias at the BBC, so I don't know why you think they're so unbiased.
-
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Anyone else see that goalpost move? Your claim:@PJH said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
I'll repeat myself. I didn't claim that they're perfect. Nobody is. Again, point me to a news network that does better.At least the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics
.. does it fuck.the BBC does its very best to stay neutral on all topics
I've given you a few sources that refute your assertions that (1) they try their very best and on (2) all topics.
Whether they are any worse or better than other flavours of news source is neither here nor there. As a directly tax-payer funded service one would of course expect them to be neutral. They demonstrably aren't, very frequently.
-
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Again, point me to a news network that does better.
CNN, Fox, CNBC.
Heh. Haha. Hahaha. snort Hehehe. Hahahahaaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Again, point me to a news network that does better.
CNN, Fox, CNBC.
Heh. Haha. Hahaha. snort Hehehe. Hahahahaaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH.
The goalpost was set at "better", not "perfectly".
@boomzilla said:This seems like a really low bar to clear.
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Again, point me to a news network that does better.
CNN, Fox, CNBC.
Heh. Haha. Hahaha. snort Hehehe. Hahahahaaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH.
Yeah, the BBC is pretty hilariously biased. Also, I'm considering actual news, not opinion stuff (which is a lot of the programming).
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
@boomzilla said:
I think boomzilla has found his perfect rum, and has been 'doing what he does best' while posting.@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Again, point me to a news network that does better.
CNN, Fox, CNBC.
Heh. Haha. Hahaha. snort Hehehe. Hahahahaaha. HAHAHAHAHAHA.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH.
So... I've been looking at this 'biased BBC' website. So far I've read...
Two articles bashing individual TV programme presenters for expression their personal opinions (of course, everyone who works for the BBC must be politically aligned).
Four articles about the same thing: how the Guardian (newspaper) is alledgedly posting bad articles about UKIP, and the BBC just happens to be reposting said articles... Since the Guardian refuses to give its sources, the BBC can't really verify it, so maybe they shouldn't publish it, but still, it's part of their job to collect, filter and republish news so that's a debatable issue.
A couple of articles that are just talking about news in general and don't even do a good job of identifying who they're accusing of what, or how this affects the BBC (but the articles are all tagged as Biased BBC anyway)
Article about how the BBC is supposedly ignoring issues regarding climate change because they didn't report that some professor is resigning. Yup, the public is definitely interested in yet more climate change bullshit. Nobody knows the whole truth about this, or if they do, there's no way they'll be heard through all that noise.
Someone complaining about a new presenter on Newsnight... which, despite its name, isn't supposed to tel you the news, but has always been about interviewing people and mocking them. Might not be their intention, but I'm sure that's why most people used to watch it.
Sorry, but I can't accept this shoddy blog as evidence. I'll be taking a look at the other sources later.
-
@boomzilla said:
@LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:
Now this I'd like to see. Honestly. I want to see solid evidence of this. It would be most enlightening.Again, point me to a news network that does better.
They have official policies enforcing bias at the BBC
