Over the past 2 months I've seen a lot of posts making claims without providing a source link. Many of us come to TD for our news, and have way to much trust in each other with no sources. Here is a prime example from today.
https://thedonald.win/p/FzBFY8zE/guess-who-was-a-child-abusing-dr/c/
Here at TD we should set the bar high when it comes to news. Failing to provide any source makes us look just as bad as CNN, MSN, MSNBC etc.
Let's all work on being better at providing source link for an image immediately or just make it a link post. Use image posts for memes, shitposts.
Happy Sunday Gunday, Happy Flag Day, and Happy Birthday Donald Trump!
Source? Oh, wait a minute.
Most of what I post is either common knowledge or a quick search away if you don't know it yourself. Should we start to post footnotes now? Not understanding the op's intent unless he means original posts and not the comments to them. Then yeah if the info is controversial there should be a link so some credible source.
edit; I'm a moron he means original posts.. We do need to watch out for instigators who pose as patriots and post disinfo to muck up our overall credibility.
I've seen sometimes memes will have the URL in the meme
A link in the comments works too. Sometimes, the source of the meme is a rambling mess, and the meme version of the info is much more direct. Too many times, the claim needs a source and doesn't have one.
Also, stop posting shit from 3 years ago with the implication that whatever you posted "just happened" or is "breaking news", it makes you look like a up vote whoring faggot.
It's not that what your posting isn't real news or even worth reading, but to try and attach an old news story to some current event going on right now is just stupid and misleading.
I posted this comment three years ago.
I did too. I posted it recently as well, and over and over again over the years. We all make mistakes or read too fast, but some are serial karma whores.
#PoundMeToo.
WEW LAD
I can, but I get a lot of "nuh uhh, I ain' readin all dat" already as it is!
You a doctor now, shill wank?
Trying to turn causal discussion into wikipedia and maintaining a high bar is EXACTLY the strategy the left would apply at scale to attempt to shutdown discussion.
Extreme caution is advised. I think it's a courtesy to provide sources if you have them on hand but I've not seen any problem with absence of sources. This is a call to impose excessive standards. It bogs down the ability to discuss things when you have to cite sources for everything all the time.
If something's new and I don't know about it then I've had to ask of someone happens to have sources on hand once in a blue moon.
This is also a comment forum. People come here to talk about things. I think it would be destructive to try to turn it into reddit where every other comment it's citations because it's filled with academic leftards who think they're educated because they can cargo cult follow procedure by rote.
I know people like this in real life and it's so hard to hold back from punching them. Anything they don't like they demand sources to your face. Most of them are so institutionalised they need treatment to be able to rehabilitate. I've not even seen people come out of prison after years so dysfunctional as those who have attended academia for many years. It's impossible to have a conversation on any sensitive topics with these people.
You say you saw a dog on the way to the shop they demand sources.
I'd potentially suggest a stronger burden for submissions though most people are sensible enough to raise in comments where something's from if it seems plucked out of thin air.
I don't think requiring a source for news related posts is some leftist strategy, in fact its the opposite of their fact-less news media who make shit up attributed anonymous sources and then claiming it to be true.
Now if its an opinion piece, then by all means post it but mark it as such (do we even have tags specific for 'news' and 'opinion'? I know there is one for shitposting. lol.
A lot of us come here for news and information which we can then use to shove down the throats of some liberals we know and doubt any of would disagree that you don't want your fellow pede to get into a pissing contest with liberals without being fully hydrated with facts.
edit/ I hate to be that guy complimenting himself but damn that last sentence was good. lol
There's some scope to say we should check some things but it's very important to be careful to keep the scope to a minimum and to not allow scope creep.
Users are already smart enough to generally speaking ask for sources in the rare case something comes up and that already tends to be well in scope.
This isn't a news site it's a kind of combined content feed and forum which happens to routinely relay news items or information found online. Any examples that slip through the filter (not scrutinised fast enough) that are malicious falsehoods should be highlighted though so people can learn.
It's more important that users are able to quickly recognise when things are unsourced and to take that into account. Users are already doing that healthily and I think we already have a good thing. People seem to already scrutinise things and that's one of the benefits of the comments. It's always possible to cross reference things, ask questions and get to the bottom of things. The comments serve as peer review.
If something's new then maybe a tag or something might be helpful but having to source common knowledge... it really has to be news. New revelations. It's a fair argument that in that case the source should ideally be the first thing posted itself.
Everyone has had it up to here with people having to source other people for the news they missed and if they don't source it then they must be lying.
I should note however that news sites are not required to provide sources. They do often cite that information is from a third party for indemnity.
For example, protesters said, or someone knowledgeable about the matter I met last night at the pub. You can make up anything you like, then say "A little bird told me.", then it'll be gospel and you'll be fine. Media standards are absolutely atrocious and we should not be using them as an example.
Only a minority of news sources have consistently good standards and they're hard to find. When we skip sources it's not through ill intent. It's only the MSM that does that to hide things such as conflicts of interests and that their sources are completely unreliable. In many cases it's because they made the story up as a fiction piece but don't want to be liable for it so all you have to do is say a little bird told me so and you can't be sued. Different potatoes. One's sloppy one's malicious.
Relaying news does not make it a news site no do I consider this one. What it is though is a collaborative effort by mostly good people (yeah, fuck off brigaders) where Trump supporters can arm themselves with shit to throw, facts to drop, and to rejoice in our successes against the enemy. It does nobody any good to post stuff without even a shred of evidence to back it up. Like i said, we all need to be fully hydrated before we go piss on the left.
There is a lot more i want to bring up but unfortunately i have things to do.
There have been a lot of posts here that made me say "damn that's interesting," but... no source. My pede is just calling for a courtesy here, not a flame-fingered inscription on a tablet.
If it's a new revelation and the source hasn't been dropped or made clear before, that is it's not verified then indeed it's good to drop the source. Generally speaking it's ideal if that's the first post.
It's not always going to be possible or practical to do that. To get it perfect you'd end up having to do it most of the time to cover for just a few times.
If you want it perfect it's not just a courtesy but a significant undertaking to meet your expectations.
OP is presenting it almost like a mandate. We're not a one way publishing stream like common media so if something slips through someone doesn't realise isn't well sourced already or is difficult to source it's very easy already for people to ask in comments and have two way dialogue.
Nobody's mandating you bro, r e l a x
The fuck are you talking about? How is posting sources "attempting to shutdown discussion"? If anything, failing to do so is what shuts discussion down as it comes off as little less than pointless shit-talking.
No one's asking anyone to post their shoe size or whatever. However, if you're going to make a post attributing a quote to someone, claiming an event happened on such-and-such date or that this or that person was at said event, provide something supporting it.
There's already a procedure for missing sources. People ask in comments or check themselves and share.
If you ever used reddit or have been exposed to opposition tactics then you might understand the problem.
It shuts down debates because not everyone meticulously keeps notes, indexes and detailed records to be able to source the sum of their knowledge but also people post information that to them is common knowledge and they don't know if it has been sourced or not.
If handled wrong we're talking about a full time job. If poorly applied it can really stymie submissions having to check for sources all the time. Retrospective works a lot better.
It's a simple tactic to add drag. Increase the entry fee. Impose extreme overhead. Rather than debate in good faith they use dirty tricks one of the most common being imposing every increasingly extreme and disproportionate standards. Quite often the information can easily be found if people can be bothered to look or have been following.
Sounds more like you're bringing up a problem that doesn't exist or greatly exaggerating. If you want to talk about "opposition tactics", I've seen more "Google it" demands than people asking for sources.
Asking for a source isn't demanding anyone keep "meticulous notes". It's literally a copy/paste action, takes a few seconds. It isn't a "full time job" or "increasing the entry fee". If you can't or won't source your claim yourself, posting it quite literally wastes everyone else's time. Saying "just ask in the comments" is barely any different than "Google it" as it not only presumes that the original poster will come back and post it (something they should've done in the first place anyway), but that anyone else in the comments can source said claim in lieu of the original poster. Not to mention the other similar problem of scrolling through quite literally hundreds of comments to find said source.
If we're going to talk about pre-existing procedures, the current procedure for missing sources is to remind the original poster that talk is cheap and there's very little reason to believe someone who is unwilling to back their shit up. Unsupported or poorly claims is what gave us the Russian collusion hoax, the Justice Kavanaugh spectacle, and the current spergfest going on in many cities right now (the "pandemic" plus the perpetually indignant rioters).
Unless you happen to have a source on hand then saying it's literally copying and pasting something in a few seconds is patently untrue.
The particular example given the records may not have been linkable, instead behind a search form. Though I'm not sure if early release specifically due to COVID-19 has been verified.
By far the most important thing is maintaining an audience and userbase that is good at asking for information and being aware of if something isn't verified or otherwise requires scrutiny.
There are many actions that assist with that, most commonly example as sleuths in comments regularly fact the details of something for further insight, to judge for themselves, etc.
Depending what criteria you pick you might be surprised at how much overhead sourcing each time involves. It's easy to pick on example in a case of confirmation bias that wanted sourcing but you also have to consider submissions that haven't such as because it's common knowledge and/or has been previously sourced or verified.
If you look at that example it was brought up and source or verified in comments. It might not always been easy to anticipate beforehand what level of sourcing or verification is needed. The user base quickly rectifies that and people who submit content may better learn to make the call though not perfectly.
A gullible audience that really doesn't care for sources because they want to believe gave us those things. That doesn't mean it's not important to verify things. That's to say it's being patronising of the audience here.
Such examples of media might abuse source obfuscation and fail to verify but it's not the case here nor is it entirely as responsible as you might think.
The verification process here is different. To some degree all submissions should be considered unverified until they are. Comment is a part of the review and editorial process.
Where it's obvious that it might be necessary and is relatively easy then it's good practice to try to source things before hand with comments as a fallback but it's not always obvious or easy.
If you're more smart and thoughtful about this then it's possible to come up with better guidelines and better ideas for features that leverage what we've already got, stream lines and enhances that making the best out of it.
I’m gonna link your comment as a source
I think I just leveled down. This game needs some rebalancing.
Pretty sure you are now the editor of nyt.
I leveled down hard, I guess
Sorry fren
I think this one was ok, if the information can be looked up independently, it doesn't offend me in any way. If I find out it's a lie, then we call it out.
I found the picture, looks like him.
Found the FBI agent.
Found the FBI agent validating a Russian dossier.
Bad bot
About 80% of the quotes you see on the internet are false - Thomas Jefferson
And that is false as well. Everybody knows Mark Twain said that.
But that's false as well!
Everyone knows he's Samuel Clemens! ;)
i shall now admit i was wrong and tweet this correction out to an entire audience of 15 people
You're assuming they're people!
Billy Thorp, after losing the Battle of the Children of the Sun back in 1978.
I thought it was Ru-Paul, not to be confused w/ Sean Paul.
64.372% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The science is settled
Then you may as well claim they are a senior official with knowledge of his thinking. I mean who is going to know?
A sourceomo then?
On that note, here's the source which media isn't showing. Full body cam footage from both cops in the Rayshard Brooks case. MEDIA IS NOT SHOWING THE WHOLE TRUTH. Here's both the full body cam videos where you see Rayshard Brooks passed out at Wendy's drive through, gets waken up multiple times by cop, is completely wasted, resists arrest, fights with cops, steals the weapon, then shoots taser at the cop while running:
1st: https://youtu.be/zVkXqgGkEL8
2nd: https://youtu.be/h30MJIdRMeg
Also this:
http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender/Query
Go to Search by ID or Case Number, then input his Georgia Department of Corrections ID
GDC ID: 1001370147
This is why "film the police", which was a reform movement slogan for a few years, has turned into "defund the police" - body cam footage has done more to exonerate police officers before civilian oversight boards, committees, and juries than any "trust the experts" testimonies ever could.
blm and other organizations coming out against body cameras is one of the the things that made them lose my support. allegedly body cameras are "racist" and "mass surveillance of black communities". i'm strongly anti-surveillance but if we're allegedly dealing with police abuse and systemic malpractice we need hard evidence of what's going on in these interactions to find and fix the problems. if anyone is being subject to mass surveillance it's the police and as public servants that seems reasonable for while they're on duty. it's not like everyone is being filmed always it's only when an officer has to get involved which means there's already a problem and evidence is important.
https://archive.fo/SVyTi (2016)
https://www.wsmv.com/news/black-lives-matter-nashville-release-statement-on-body-camera-deployment-for-mnpd/article_6212592a-a995-11ea-a1c3-83009ae44710.html (2020)
This is insane. I can stand behind having greater accountability for police through body cameras and better training. These people don’t care. They just want to be mad and to rid themselves of responsibility.
One of BLM's demands is to end police bodycams because they're racist.
BLM also thinks tacos are racist, but I think they are delicious!
The cop had to explain to him how to walk forward as the sobriety test 3 or more times. The guy’s response was that his shoes were kind of long so it might be hard. The officer asked him if he wanted to take them off to do it, because that would be fine, as it’s only 9 steps. He said the shoes were new and he just put them on. The officer asked if he wanted to take off his shoes or not. He reassured the officer that the shoes were new and he just put them on.
He was so fucking drunk.
Then after the officers being super nice and patient and informing him he was wasted based on that and the breath test, as they were cuffing him, he lost his shit and things got bad from there. The part where he shot the taser at the cop’s on video here, not that it wasn’t already on video elsewhere.
What do people want the cop to have done, kneel?
Bend over and offer him his butthole as reparations. The only way
There's also the fact that with as wasted as he apparently was, there's public safety to consider beyond just the police.
He was aiming at the police, but imagine if he'd aimed the wrong direction and hit an innocent bystander instead.
The guy was driving drunk. So drunk he passed out. He could've killed someone.
Wait, I'm not sure I fully understand. Are you saying his shoes were new? But when did he put them on?
“These shoes are new. I just put these on,” to give a reason for why he couldn’t take them off or do the walk test. Said after he took more steps out of the car than the test required. Drunk people say the darnedest things.
KNEEL AND PAY REPARATIONS
I downloaded it on my computer.
Repost to BitChute
I downloaded these videos so they don't disappear.
The bystanders in that video are unbearable
The bystanders in the video are chimping out per usual
If we do stuff like this consistently, I predict lots of people who are not even big trump supporters will be coming here for news
Too much bitching here as well.
Disagreed.
Agreed
Yeah, I'm gonna disagree for the sake of Disagreeeeeeing
I neither agree nor disagree.
If trudeau showed up in the states, would he wear something to insult us, or would he wear something obnoxiously american, like an alien wearing an american as a skin suit?
He would wear blackface.
Fuck off Chico. Your only thread is about Biden taking adrenochrome.
Pedes, keep posting to New. Fuck this guy.
kek
I think the better option would be if TD were to expand to create separate rooms for different kinds of material, including a room for holding all the super-informative news stories.
I’m OK with that. Platform expansion would be a good thing.
Maybe something like a moderator curated chronological feed rather than another board. We're big but not big enough that we dont benefit from more activity.
Exactly. We need to start being more informative rather than post memes all the time. There should be a permanent sticky that explains every single subject related to corruption, election fraud, terrorist activity, the status of Trump's plans, etc. The sticky would be a nexus that links to threads explaining a specific subject rather than try to cram it all in one post, but anyone can go to the sticky and get up to date on everything.
Unfortunately I don't think this will ever happen. When Trump leaves office and we haven't organized ourselves then we're going to have a bad time.
Memes happen to be extremely important.
The core of the Left is Bluepilled, they're being dragged around by their emotions and a complicit press.
Memes can be a way to edge past a little bit of the reflexive defenses (if they're done right). If they're done wrong, they're just a brick in the ongoing brick-flinging contest. But done right they are setting up little messages of the total absurdities that pass for journalism has buried in it.
Last Republican Mayor of Atlanta: 1879. Who is to blame? Clearly Republicans. It's silly.
Informative articles important too - not disagreeing - but think of this as trying to talk people off the ledge a little too.
Just sticky a link to purchase Spygate by Dan Bongino
It would be even better if the devs added a specific spot for sources. This would allow for easy and systematic fact-checking by readers - they could just check the bottom of the post for a source.
Link vomit parties
Yeah, this really should be a rule.
If we get too many rules it's no fun... But it should be a 'norm' where if you don't do it we all call you names and downvote you tho
4chan already does the linkless, title-Less clickbait better than anyone.
There’s no need to replicate it here. I often wonder if many are simply cross posts and while they do their own culture over there and that’s fine, I’m happy to see a higher standard for truth
This guy gets it.
Thanks friendo
It doesn't have to be a "rule". Users can just not upvote shit without a source or call out the post for not having a source in the comments.
Too many rules obstructs the free meme market. I think the meme economy needs to reward the sauced links
Just regarding the example post, it looks like source is in comments here:
https://thedonald.win/p/FzBFY8zE/x/c/12iNiuuD8J
OFFENSE: simple battery CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014 SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: cruelty to children CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014 SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: FALSE IMPRISONMENT CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014 SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: family violence battery CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/31/2014 SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: THEFT BY REC STOLEN PROP CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013 SENTENCE LENGTH: 7 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: CRMNL INTERFERE GOVT PROP CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013 SENTENCE LENGTH: 5 YEARS, 0 MONTHS, 0 DAYS CASE NO: 794205
OFFENSE: obstr of law enf officer CONVICTION COUNTY: CLAYTON COUNTY CRIME COMMIT DATE: 03/02/2013 SENTENCE LENGTH: 0 YEARS, 12 MONTHS, 0 DAYS STATE OF GEORGIA - PRIOR SENTENCES STATE OF GEORGIA - INCARCERATION HISTORY INCARCERATION BEGIN: 08/29/2014 INCARCERATION END: 12/23/2014
My example post was posted 4 hours ago, and yes your correct someone posted that 15 minutes ago. The OP should be providing this link not another pede doing good work. Much respect to you, and Toohershat for posting it.
The source was posted 6 hours ago, long before the post you took issue with was posted. Not only that, it was stickied almost immediately.
The only thing false in the one you didn't like is the part about him being released because of Kung Flu.
He was released less than 4 months after being sentenced, despite being sentenced to 9 years.
Oh, and that picture may or not be him since it says he's 5'9" and the mug shot shows 5'11".
The info on the right hand side is a direct screenshot from the GA DOC website, though. I don't know how much more veracity you want.
If you go to that source, it in no way provides a single item of evidence that the image posted is true. It's not the source for that image.
That's really what I meant. Where did that set of images come from to make the meme? Yes going to georgia DOC looking up his ID # gets a result, but it wasnt that picture.
No worries! I agree.. sources and more information is always desired, especially in today's 'information war' (oh, Alex Jones, you got it right again you bastard!).
Have a great day! :)
It's smart to have the sources. Not just to prove the claim is correct, but BECAUSE the claim is correct.
Thanks for having this discussion. Important!
The claim isn’t correct. Brooks was not terrorizing the public due to an early release “because covid”.
I still haven't seen any source about him being released due to 'Rona
How is 12 months 0 years?
This post does not collaborate the original meme, which state Brooks was on the streets because he was released due to covid.
Listen, Karen.
I want to talk to your manager about this . . .
His name is Mike Hunt but he's busy and can't talk right now.
Mike Rotch, his boss is available though
Mike Litoris is the regional manager and can be contacted by calling the corporate number.
Send a squad car out there dispatch. Karenwaffen is calling in a disturbance of the peace.
my sides
Seriously needs framing.
I was going to ask who made OP the source monitor but it's a good point
Look, Fat...
Source links for news/info are vital because without them it makes the site an easy target for shills pushing false narratives. For this reason alone, source-less posts claiming to be news, especially if controversial, should be cause to hit the "deport" button.
Mods should add a "no source" option under deport, and/or, perhaps, a "no source" tag, similar to the "shitpost" tag.
Can I just say, personally I don't mind if there isn't a source link included AS LONG AS you are able to provide sauce when asked. I don't want this to be some thing where if you don't include your meticulous bibliography you are piled on.
One should always be generous with the sauce, but if you forgot to add it, its not a big deal to me as long as you understand it is a pedes right to request your sauce if you left it out, and the onus is on you to provide it.
Can we add that we should be using archive links to avoid giving lefty media any clicks? Or maybe the mods can create an algorithm to automatically turn them into archive links (while keeping OANN, breitbart, etc. links as is)?
Or just use an adblocker so you take their bandwidth and give them nothing.
Nah, I'm going to assume people don't have it. Also, I don't want them to erase history, archiving is better.
Pro tip:
When there's no link, rely on your own intelligence and internal BS detector.
Many of us we're alive before the internet and remember what it's like to have no information immediately available at our fingertips and what it's like to have to make judgement calls based on probably bad information
And please stop giving clicks to MSM — CNN, NPR, etc.
Use an archive link, but for fucks sake post the source.
I tried archiving NYT because they had an interview but their paywall blocks it everytime.
Text post then copy-paste entire article.
an archive link indicates the source by default...
Right ... because a communist retard in front of a camera has more credibility to you than a random nobody on the internet. Could you please explain why that is?
My idea might get buried, but why do we have to be EXACTLY like reddit?
Why can we not have another entry for when we make posts called 'Source', then we can put links next to our memes.
Instead of copycatting, why can't we be better and more specified for our independent political nature?
After all, we're a political forum, not a cat picture forum.
to stop misinformation campaigns from spreading here.
How about giving us the ability to post a picture and a link at the same time?
That'd make it a heckuva lot easier.
A good feature request for whenever the mods do another updates post.
And while we're at it, stop it with the "<----- this many people..." click whoring.
Same for tweets. If you post an image of a tweet, also post the link to said tweet.
I love the tweets from 300 years ago that are played off like they just came out today.
Gotta love how .win has greater journalistic integrity than the actual journalism industry
You just gotta look it up, Mr. Hererer.
please link to the source of your concern, thanks.
Step one, demand sources for everything.
Step two, purge sources as "debunked conspiracy theorists"
Step three, you're a leftist now.
When someone does a video dump, the video is the source. Claiming it was staged because it came from infowars, veritas, etc is ad hominem attack. See something false? Say something in comments.
You know that people also post just pictures of things, with a photo and a caption and no source? Just made-up shit, or shit from three years ago, or whatever. This post is not talking about video posts, nor memes which are not ever confused with news, it's talking about that bullshit, which needs to stop.
And you know step one will discourage contribution.
The left will claim the high ground with their fake news MSM regardless of what is done here. The real power here is raising awareness about what the MSM won't cover. If everyone needs an "official" source, that power is rapidly diminished.
We can't discuss spygate because wikipedia calls it a conspiracy theory and locks the page? When it is allowed, oh gatekeepers of fact? When a blue check mentions it perhaps? That's bullshit.
Here's the source of that TD link's info:
http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/GDC/Offender/Query
Go to Search by ID or Case Number, then input his Georgia Department of Corrections ID
GDC ID: 1001370147
Not sure what good sourcing does, the Fake News and the Radical Leftists just source themselves and other radical Socialist/Communist elites and we know exactly how accurate those sources are. The China Virus hoax was a prime example along with the coverage of the Atlanta Shooting and CHAZ. They just fucking make up their shit moment by moment and again source anonymous.
I love the 4chan vibe this gives off. Have an upwall.
If you believe anything Q says at this point, you're a coward and a dumbfuck. Q said "trust the plan" while Sessions was AG. Sessions! Q said in 2018 "the elections are safe" right before they were blatantly stolen, with no repercussions! You are a coward because you too afraid to face the truth, and accept that things really are as bad as they are. You'd rather believe in the fantasy while the world burns down around you.
Ohhh ... and what exactly makes something "news" and others things not "news" ? Do you need someone like a pastor , or a licenced journalist , to tell you if you should believe something or not ? Or you only take your "news" from the justice system ? I'm really curious . Oh and btw ... when a prosecutor starts an investigation into a group , they are starting from A CONSPIRACY THEORY . They make a theory ... about a conspiracy ... and THEN they TRY to find PROOF to PROVE their THEORY . They might not PROVE IT and then it remains a CONSPIRACY THEORY !
About retards that treat authority as evidence.
Go suck a licenced journalist dick and take your news from the DOJ .
Hear hear, stop fucking posting screenshots of tweets and articles, post the damn link.
If you're posting obvious fake shit, flair it.
Goes double for tweets talking about a thing with no backing evidence.
I feel like 99.9% of these "Antifa came to my small town" stories are LARPs with absolutely no proof. It's shit that was designed to get us riled up.
Same goes for the fake news about Hillary having to testify in September. I saw that loads of times and the source was one blog that since deleted that part.
Yeah's pretty much. A couple of them do anyway.
Though from the looks of things I someone came in here and downvoted everyone for no reason.
I think we need to be pickier than that. Sometimes the “source” is a screencap from an article. Screencaps alone shouldn’t be acceptable, ESPECIALLY if they conveniently cut off the date! In the early days of TD shills would do that just to score community rep so they could infiltrate.
We also need to vet articles because their titles can be very misleading, or even their content out right wrong. Clickbait is not just for liberal rags!
Good example. Years ago there was some article that decried some standard for officer or specop qualification or training, something like that, being dropped because wahmen. Except if you read on the topic from other sites, you’d find out this standard used to just be a guideline just a few short years ago and most qualifying men usually didn’t meet it.
It doesn’t matter how you feel on any subject, clickbait is clickbait and fake news is fake news.
And how did you figured out which one of the sites was accurate ? Did you just count the articles or either side ? Did you actually do "journalism" yourself and went to the people that did the recruiting themselves and asked them ? Or did you just trust whatever you felt like ? How did you do it?
It's called I read multiple other articles, some by the military themselves, and they all mentioned this fact except for the topic's linked article (the clickbait).
So you went by counting. Got it.
I have no problem with status quo. If I want something firm, I will look for it myself. Posts just give me enough to point me somewhere.
My request to posters here is use buzz words in your titles that would make content of your post, especially videos, searchable.
Been BEGGING this and get called a shill almost every time
If a story does not have a link I will search for it and try to find a link to help the poster.
You really should have a link before you post it. I would still give The Donald about 96% accuracy with the news stories posted. Even if it was 50% it would still be 30% higher than what the news media does.
I disagree. Babble for your life.
Conjecture and hearsay are not without value.
And to all you who get mad at people asking for sources - stop.
Yes, it can be easy to find sources. But sometimes it isn't. It is OP's responsibility to provide a credible source.
Also, only use archived links! NO AD REVENUE FOR THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA!
https://media.thedonald.win/thedonald/post/LUbVYMIL.jpeg
well. I have seen a lot of source links in my time, and that looks like a source link that links to a source.
I don't understand how he was out
Stop upvoting shit without a link.
Here here
Amen.
Completely agreed, I come across many posts a day that make bold claims but no source is provided. I’ve stopped bothering with these posts, but it can be damaging to us as a group because it can fool some people to their detriment and make us look silly at best and unreliable conspiracy nuts at worst. With more people coming here, we need to have reliability and that starts with sourcing our claims.
that is mainly from trolls that pedal false information here to make us look bad. If you see this, please deport them. I go to see all their posts from the past, and if they don't have truth on their side, I well deport them
Would love a link for suggestions on how to post on the Rules page. Preferred methods for pics, articles, Twitter (I know you hate it but its quick and relevant sometimes) etc. I see suggestions occasionally and save them but they seem to change and I miss some updates.
Like: https://thedonald.win/p/4FVeU7y/tips-to-make-you-a-nimble-naviga/
Been with you all since 10/15/16. Spent election night with you all. Will admit to being very woke in Californiastan and a patriot but not always a nimble navigator....
You know what is really sickening. The article in the AJC started out by describing him as a father of mnay children killed by a white police officer.
Like him being a father made a difference. Now we know he was an abusive father.
Q predicted this...
Thank you for making this post, and thank you Mods for stickying it.
Agreed, if there’s a screenshot then they should be able to post a link easily, unless they’re just grabbing it from FB or somewhere else and we’re getting 3rd degree news, not good. I will say the example you posted though, there is usually a reason fight the police and resist arrest like that, and it’s not only because they’re black, but because they’re a piece of crap and know they’re going away for a long time.
Couldn't have said it better myself. We need to do better than mainstream lying media, not stoop to Brian Stelter's level.
On a serious note, if you are trying to argue your point about something or redpill a friend or relative, you don't want your argument to fall apart or be destroyed because you used a false or phony example to illustrate your points.
Absolutely.
I see too much dubious and ill informed opinion being passed off as fact on here. Someone else then repeats it and before you know it utter bullshit is suddenly 'Fact'.
It leaves us wide open to being criticised as dishonest.
Yup. We have to be better than them. If we become just as bad then our victories mean nothing as dishonesty wins.