Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines, Even if they are Cut and Pasted from a "News" Headline?

[candycorn]

Somehow truth is subjective in 2024. You'd simply destroy the conversation entirely with your method.

Post of the year right there!

 

[Anomalism]

Nobody should be starting more than 6 threads in a 24 hour period IMHO.

They need all of the activity they can get. This forum isn't getting any younger.

 

[expat500]

I get mocked?

I haven't noticed.


I have noticed lots of special needs posters responding to me in a general sort of "I know what you are, but what am I" way, however.

I feel sorry for them being so embarrassingly limited as they are.

Special needs.

 

[luiza]

Current situation will get exponentially worse as AI completely takes over the present Internet .
Some very serious Critical Thinking is required with remedial action .
Possibly the worst situation that humanity ( less Deep State) has ever faced .

 

[toobfreak]

Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines​

Obviously yes, if it is fairly apparent they either misrepresented the linked material through either stupidity or deliberateness. Either way, through deliberateness or shallowness of investigation or reading, it would quickly teach members to be more careful of what they claim and post to keep the quality of threads above being pure trash.

 

[forkup]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

This is just too ironic. Instead of asking the mods to make sure that people check that the information they base their claims on is accurate. Shouldn't people take that responsibility themselves?

No Seymour I don't think people should be held responsible for sourcing headlines that are clickbait.

Most don't even realize that what they're posting is based on clickbait even AFTER they've read the article. For the simple reason that they don't care about the accuracy of that article, just that it confirms their biases.



In fact, a few days ago we had a conversation were you stated that your opinions were facts, about a dozen times. Were called on doing so about a dozen times. And refused to acknowledge and I suspect even understand that those opinions were wrong even after it was demonstrated by me that they weren't factual.

The way to respond to clickbait is to point out the inconsistency of the article with the headline. Just like the way to answer opinions is by refuting that opinion by stating facts. Different sides of the same coin.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I get mocked?

I haven't noticed.


I have noticed lots of special needs posters responding to me in a general sort of "I know what you are, but what am I" way, however.

I feel sorry for them being so embarrassingly limited as they are.

You are gaslighting again.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

this place is so loosely moderated i never comment on these subjects except this....they slap ya and you just shut your mouth and let the next guy get the same thing down the line

btw this place is nothing but bull shit anyway,,chuckle.100 percent usa grade A bullshat

now for those troll report button pooshers, you know who you are, are the problem...........may your report button fingers wither away so you have to use the tip of your fat, crooked nose to hit it

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

You are gaslighting again.

every poster here contributes enough gas to warm the planet for a yr...lol

 

[Libby von H]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Okay, I laughed, not loud , but I laughed.
What kind of person relies on headlines for their information ????

 

[Ringel05]

 

[Invisibleflash]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Let the forum members check it out. Sometimes we just don't know and are putting up what we find. We may not have the time to research it all or even do the best / perfect research. Or stories change with the times. Some forums put up a trolling marker. Personally, let the forum members police the veracity. Bad members will get a reputation of lies.

 

[Foolardi]

This is something that has always happened, but lately it has been taken to another level. "Jouralists" are writing headlines like (and this is only a fictional example) "Candidate Joe Smith promises to help further genocide of Jews if elected." Reading the story, it turns out that Joe Smith said "if elected, I will advocate for a cease fire in Gaza."

Now, that journalist may sincerely believe that a cease-fire in Gaza would further the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't mean that is what Joe Smith said. He said one thing, and the journalist spun it to falsely have him saying something else. Very misleading.

Nothing we can do to stop those kind of clickbait headlines, but our mods and admins can certainly do something about such headlines being regurgetated into Forum subject lines, the story linked, and the OP demanding that the claim be defended as if it were really what the candidate said.

That was a fictitious example, but I have seen many examples just as blatant in threads about Trump or Biden. I recommend that when such threads are reported, and found to be misleading, they go immediately to one of the bottom drawer sections, like CT, or Flame Zone. It is a real disservice to those who rely on headlines for their information to lend them credibility.

Too Little too late ... Pally.Journalism died a death of a
thousand cuts since Obama was elected in 2009.
Obama managed to twist the AP around his Marxist fingers.
Lied about Louis Lerner { IRS } and his IRS to Host Bill O'Reilly
on a Superbowl Sunday when asked about how the IRS Investigation
is going.Obama casually { his nominal apporoach } said ...
" Not a smidgen of Corruption ".Bill O'Reiily waited for a couple days
and responded to that quote by pleading ... The IRS Investigation
was still Ongoing How could Obama say with assurance what he
said to me on my Superbowl Interview.
Obama could for the same reason he used a word { Teabagger }
in his attempts to mock the New Political Movement { Tea Party }.
The { T-word } was officlally banned for use by the AP and
most all U.S. News sites.


It has gotten extreme since Trump beat the pants off
Hillary.Now it legion.Like trying to equate the common cold
with Legionnaires' Disease.
Getting more snarky Unamerican by the hour,the day the week.
" Journalism justifies its own existence by the great
Darwinian principle of the survival of the vulgarist. "
-- Oscar Wilde

 

[Libby von H]

Let the forum members check it out. Sometimes we just don't know and are putting up what we find. We may not have the time to research it all or even do the best / perfect research. Or stories change with the times. Some forums put up a trolling marker. Personally, let the forum members police the veracity. Bad members will get a reputation of lies.

View attachment 888230

MArk Twain said somewhere that wanting all error acknowledged INCREASES error. Tell kids what to not read, what to not think who to not listen to and you end up with gullible , stratened kids who will be the victim of every sucker in their adult life

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Leftists sure do want their ministry of truth, don't they? It goes to show that they are the most illiberal forces out there.

As far as such, this forum already has one to some extent. If a post is a blatant fabrication attacking trump, it is sanctioned as valid by the powers that be. If it is the complete truth while debunking the lies, it gets moved to the conspiracy section.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Board is protecting those who oppose Trump?

Who knew?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Should Posters be Responsible for the Truthfulness of their Subject Lines, Even if they are Cut and Pasted from a "News" Headline?​

If were reading past the headline it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[IM2]

Stopping Israel from eliminating Hamas IS enabling Hamas

No iit isn't.

 

[IM2]

If were reading past the headline it wouldn't be an issue.

Dishonesty should be an issue.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Dishonesty should be an issue.

Then start being honest.

Taking responsibility for your own actions instead of shaking down people for handouts would be a good place to start.