- Reaction score
- 2,334
- Points
- 940
"Red Rectangle: nonsense damaging to public discourse." That's what I was trying to say. ;Dmariomike said:Some of us also refer to The Media Bias Chart,
"Red Rectangle: nonsense damaging to public discourse." That's what I was trying to say. ;Dmariomike said:Some of us also refer to The Media Bias Chart,
Journeyman said:Clearly we're going in circles here... but one last attempt:
There are two aspects to Media Bias/Fact Check, and I've already acknowledged accepting media bias. The second part, confirming facts, I thought I was also clear about, but was apparently mistaken. If a source has a consistent record of publishing lies, regardless of whether the lying supports the left, right, or flying unicorns, it is a factor when assessing Dershowitz, Ibrahim, or whoever. It's not remotely the only factor, but if posters understood that what they unthinkingly accept as gospel likely comes from a tainted source, then maybe.... just maybe… they might show more discretion in their reading material and any judgements they make.
Now, if someone consistently quoted The National Enquirer, and the only response ever was to simply repeat "Media Bias/Fact Check says they're junk," then that would likely qualify as regurgitation. If people quote different sources, but it's pointed out that they all fall into the category of 'extreme bias conspiracy lies' then it's more a case of the poster preferring the echo chamber life to the challenge of reading more widely and thinking.
Personally, I'd prefer people just refrain from posting bullshit, ill-informed drivel, or uncritical political cheerleading. Clearer?
Jarnhamar said:European countries like Poland and Hungary should be able to decide who they let into their country (and when). It shouldn't be up to the European union to decide, nor threaten consequences.
Brad Sallows said:For me, the writer's name is everything and the publisher's is almost nothing.
The recent article by Raymond Ibrahim is in this author's opinion well-researched, factual in places but whose interpretation of taqiyya is ultimately misleading. It focuses on a very narrow use of the term taqiyya, which is sometimes used to refer to dissimulation allowed to Shias to preserve their own lives and the lives of others. It appears to be a polemical piece interspersed with cherry-picked citations from the Quran, the sayings of the Prophet and secondary works.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110811212138/http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Islamic-Affairs-Analyst-2008/Interpreting-Taqiyya.html
Islam is a universal religion that spans millennia of history and covers much of the earth's population. Islam, however, does not have a central canon, a pope, or a single body that can set doctrine. So, it is extremely difficult to generalise about what Islam as a religion believes except in its core beliefs. One can always find Muslim jurists who offer opinions about matters of doctrine such as taqiyya, but it is also possible to find other respected jurists who disagree. So any assertion about doctrine needs to be carefully circumscribed.
Brad Sallows said:You've discovered that historians disagree on interpretations, but are not necessarily liars.
Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst
Key Points
■ Islam does not have a central canon, a pope, or
a single body that can set doctrine.
■ It is extremely difficult, therefore, to generalise
about issues such as taqiyya.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2ecd/8c1b76847693ba00d7efec4a9c43ae00cf58.pdf
Brad Sallows said:And to be clear: since there is no apparent general policy of attaching "reputation assessments" to links as a comprehensive service to readers, I am left wondering what is the point of throwing them in occasionally if they are not intended as exactly what I suspect: a quick drive-by ad hominem/guilt-by-association attack.
Journeyman said:Rather than an ad hominem attack, it's an effort to encourage people to read more widely and more legitimate sources (ie - beyond a self-reaffirming echo chamber), especially when a go-to media has a lengthy track record of false data and unsubstantiated conspiracies.