Fake target account trolls transphobes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2016, 05:44 AM
RE: Fake target account trolls transphobes
(05-05-2016 05:26 PM)Dom Wrote:  I am worried going into public bathrooms.

I worry about filth.
I worry about stink.
I worry about people not washing their hands.

I don't worry whether someone in the next stall has stuff dangling between their legs or not. They are in a stall. We are in a lady's room. Everyone is in their own little cubicle.

I am a guy and what I really can't stand is when other guys walk in when I am in there washing my hands and they finish before I get done. Then they walk right back out and touch the door handle without washing their hands. I had one guy do that, so I ran to stop the door before it closed. He asked what my problem was and I told him I didn't want to touch the handle after him, because it would be almost the same as handling his junk since he didn't wash his hands.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Birdguy1979's post
09-05-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: Fake target account trolls transphobes
(05-05-2016 05:14 AM)BnW Wrote:  
(04-05-2016 09:25 PM)DLJ Wrote:  On a side note... this surprises me. Why be dubious of a source that is transparent?

A declared non-neutrality makes life so much easier. I'm much more dubious of sources that shout about how neutral, independent or "fair and balanced" they are.

Consider

On reflection, did you intend to state that your dubiosity relates to the data rather than the sources?

My dubiosity stems from both the data and the conclusions. Sites that claim to be neutral bringers of news may not be perfect, but they are generally less likely to skew data or tell part of the story. Agenda driven sites are far more likely to do that.

For example, there is a thread in the World News forum about the OKlahoma Supreme Court ruling force oral sex is not rape if the victim was asleep. There were a number of non-news sites that put forth stories on this that made it sounds like the court was condoning this and telling frat boys everywhere to get their women drunk and take advantage of them. And, that was simply not true. The real story was that the court found the state legislator had written a crappy statute that and that, technically, no crime had been committed under the law as written. In that situation, the courts hands are tied. That is not nearly the same as condoning what this guy did. The details and nuances matter.

There are dozens, and probably hundreds, of examples like this, from both sides of the political spectrum. That's why when I see a story from a site with a clear agenda, I always try to find some kind of more neutral validation.

The last part there makes my point.

I'll rephrase what I was saying...

I would trust an overtly non-neutral source to be non-neutral ... therefore less room for doubt.

A site claiming to be neutral requires more scepticism.

Shy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: