Tucker Carlson, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, The Ukraine War

[lukethethird]

Yes, most, with the one noted screw up being their report on the Ukraine. I was not looking for a source that refuted your specific claim, that was just a sweet bonus.

Can you say, "confirmation bias?"

 

[lukethethird]

Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.Wikipedia

 

[Copernicus]

Preventing the Donbas population from speaking Russian is persecution.

According to the European Court of Justice, for example.

It does justify the will to become independent. Separatism.

So what? Ukraine is a sovereign nation and had the same right as other sovereign nations, including Russia, to declare official government languages. The single largest ethnic minority in Russia is Ukrainians, yet Ukrainian is not an official language of the Russian Federation. On those grounds, you should be declaring that Russia was also persecuting Ukrainians. What happened in the Donbas region is that separatist organizations, backed by Russian operatives, seized control of the government buildings and the media. There was never any free or independent choice by the population to endorse the insurrection against the lawful Ukrainian government, and Russia then moved to recognize the insurgent governments and send troops to defend their self-declared independence. It was an obvious set-up. At that point in time, Putin was conducting a stealth invasion and then later admitting that he was officially supporting the insurrections. Most people can see through that kind of ruse, but there will always be some who cannot or who decide to go along with it.

 

[Copernicus]

Confirmation bias
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes.Wikipedia

Right, your confirmation bias was triggered by the word "most" and caused you to ignore the fact that the Ukraine reporting was the exception. What is important in this thread is their bias regarding Ukraine, not most other subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you say, "confirmation bias?"

No, that is what you are doing by focusing on the "mostly" while ignoring why they are not highly reliable. One source thought that the bias and false reports about the Ukraine were bad enough to demote the source to "questionable" and the other thought that that error was only bad enough to demote it to "mostly factual". That was the one clearly not factual report.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right, your confirmation bias was triggered by the word "most" and caused you to ignore the fact that the Ukraine reporting was the exception. What is important in this thread is their bias regarding Ukraine, not most other subjects.

I just tried to explain this to him too. I tried to in prior posts as well. I do not think that he will get it.

 

[lukethethird]

Right, your confirmation bias was triggered by the word "most" and caused you to ignore the fact that the Ukraine reporting was the exception. What is important in this thread is their bias regarding Ukraine, not most other subjects.

Ukraine was not the exception according to Media Bias/Fact Check, that was according to Newsguard of which MBFC countered because they found CN to be factual when reporting on Ukraine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think Putin is a tyrant, a terrorist, and should stand before a criminal court, the sooner the better,

Hooray. The bare minimum.

Now, are you going to stop calling this invasion a "border dispute" and constantly putting blame for it on NATO and the USA?

and I also think you are full of BS.

This is ironic, considering I have caught you lying so many times. Want me to produce receipts?

I don't think you care that Ukrainians are dying,

I do. Hence why I think Putin is bad for doing an invasion, and I don't downplay the invasion as a "border dispute". Nor do I ignore the hundreds of civilian protesters killed in 2014 by the police that lead to the popular revolt against the Yanukovich government by calling his fleeing to Russia a "US-backed coup". Nor do I lie about 14,000 Russian-speaking civilians being killed in the Donbas when, in reality, that number is the total number of both Russian and Ukrainian people killed in the war in the Donbas that was initiated by Russian-backed separatists.

I seem to care a whole lot about Ukrainians dying. You don't. Hence why you keep writing Ukrainian deaths out of existence with your revisionist takes on its history.

I just think you have never seen a war you didn't like,

Now that's just the dumbest take I have ever heard.

Yep, I'm a big fan of war. Big war fan, me. Love a good war. When I get home from work, I love nothing more than putting on my USA Jersey and switching to my favourite 24-hour War channel (all war, all the time!) to catch up on all the best plays from the last 24 hours of War. I watch talk shows at the weekend where Shaquille O'Neill makes hilarious, flippant commentary on the best tank explosions of the week. I read Anthony Beever's "Stalingrad" the other week and I'd never laughed so hard at a book in my life.

Number one war fan, right here.

just like any other neocon that just wants to see Russia weakened at the expense of the Ukrainian people. Armchair chickenhawk warriors, gottaluv'm.

Ah yes, I'm a neocon.

I'm sure you know what that means.

And you're an imperialist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course I had an idea of whether or not it was True .. and I Gave you the Source .. told you the that the actual number given was 90 .. and I quited 80% .. but you have absolutely no idew whether it is true or not .. nor why you care so much .. and thats kind of Odd.. given it was a minor part of the commentary on Russia's overall economic wellbeing .. the war objectives factoring into that future well being.

Most of what you say is just empty rhetoric. That's why I zeroed in on the one factual claim I could pick out - a factual claim you thought was important enough to put in bold, so you obviously thought it was pretty important.

I just think it's really interesting that when you actually, finally make a hard, factual claim, it turns out you can't even say where it comes from and can't pinpoint where it was said or even what the number was. Just "I think this guy said it, but I don't know where, and I'm not sure if the number was higher or not..."

Almost as if you just made it up.

Almost as if it was just a lie.

I just think that's interesting.

The rest of your post is just more rhetoric. I'm not interested in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ukraine was not the exception according to Media Bias/Fact Check, that was according to Newsguard of which MBFC countered because they found CN to be factual when reporting on Ukraine.

Where did they say that?

 

[lukethethird]

Where did they say that?

Newsguard cites the publication of false or misleading information regarding Ukraine. However, our review indicates that most information is factual and evidence-based. They are clearly biased, but the opinions presented are anchored in fact and perhaps exaggerated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Newsguard cites the publication of false or misleading information regarding Ukraine. However, our review indicates that most information is factual and evidence-based. They are clearly biased, but the opinions presented are anchored in fact and perhaps exaggerated.

So you could not support your claim. Your bias is affecting your reading comprehension.

 

[Estro Felino]

So what? Ukraine is a sovereign nation and had the same right as other sovereign nations, including Russia, to declare official government languages. The single largest ethnic minority in Russia is Ukrainians, yet Ukrainian is not an official language of the Russian Federation. On those grounds, you should be declaring that Russia was also persecuting Ukrainians. What happened in the Donbas region is that separatist organizations, backed by Russian operatives, seized control of the government buildings and the media. There was never any free or independent choice by the population to endorse the insurrection against the lawful Ukrainian government, and Russia then moved to recognize the insurgent governments and send troops to defend their self-declared independence. It was an obvious set-up. At that point in time, Putin was conducting a stealth invasion and then later admitting that he was officially supporting the insurrections. Most people can see through that kind of ruse, but there will always be some who cannot or who decide to go along with it.

1) Do you know the Minsk agreements?
2) What do you think of them?
3) Did Ukraine comply with them?

I expect you to answer these three questions thoroughly, and I kindly ask you not to avoid answering the questions.
Thank you

 

[lukethethird]

So you could not support your claim. Your bias is affecting your reading comprehension.

Let's put this in context, this paragraph pertains particularly to war and Ukraine:

Consortium News holds strong anti-war positions, which has resulted in media credibility rater Newsguard rating them with a Red Shield, indicating they are not credible. Newsguard cites the publication of false or misleading information regarding Ukraine. However, our review indicates that most information is factual and evidence-based. They are clearly biased, but the opinions presented are anchored in fact and perhaps exaggerated.

Failed Fact Checks​

• None in the Last 5 years

How absurd. Being anti-war is not credible according to Newsguard. I guess we shouldn't allow opinions anchored in fact get it the way of Newsguard's ratings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's put this in context, this paragraph pertains particularly to war and Ukraine:

Consortium News holds strong anti-war positions, which has resulted in media credibility rater Newsguard rating them with a Red Shield, indicating they are not credible. Newsguard cites the publication of false or misleading information regarding Ukraine. However, our review indicates that most information is factual and evidence-based. They are clearly biased, but the opinions presented are anchored in fact and perhaps exaggerated.

Failed Fact Checks​

• None in the Last 5 years

How absurd. Being anti-war is not credible according to Newsguard. I guess we shouldn't allow opinions anchored in fact get it the way of Newsguard's ratings.

Oh my, just strawman arguments. Newsguard did refute their claims. Here is a clue. If only extremists, whether right or left, are making a particular claim, the odds are rather high that it is false.

 

[Tomef]

but didn't manage to state what it is that he has misrepresented

Read what I posted

you accuse the guy of a a completely false coverage of the war

No, I didn't

 

[Stevicus]

Now, are you going to stop calling this invasion a "border dispute" and constantly putting blame for it on NATO and the USA?

How does calling it a "border dispute" put the blame on NATO and the USA? The root cause of this conflict is ostensibly a disagreement over the demarcation of the borders between Russia and Ukraine. Does that not constitute a "border dispute"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How does calling it a "border dispute" put the blame on NATO and the USA?

I didn't say that. I said "Now, are you going to stop calling this invasion a "border dispute" and constantly putting blame for it on NATO and the USA?"

The root cause of this conflict is ostensibly a disagreement over the demarcation of the borders between Russia and Ukraine.

No, it isn't. The borders were agreed. Russia acknowledges it crossed the border into Ukraine. The border wasn't disputed.

Does that not constitute a "border dispute"?

No. Because then literally all wars of invasion could be called "border disputes".

 

[Stevicus]

I didn't say that. I said "Now, are you going to stop calling this invasion a "border dispute" and constantly putting blame for it on NATO and the USA?"


No, it isn't. The borders were agreed. Russia acknowledges it crossed the border into Ukraine. The border wasn't disputed.


No. Because then literally all wars of invasion could be called "border disputes".

This appears to have all the markings of a territorial dispute. We can play semantics and call it many different things, and we can even take sides over which side we think is right and which side is wrong.

You're correct that the border was already set and agreed upon, but for whatever reason, the Russians have changed their minds and no longer wish to honor that agreement. So, they violated their agreement and have engaged in aggressive invasion, as viewed in the eyes of international law.

But it's still a border dispute. I don't see how anyone can say that it's not that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This appears to have all the markings of a territorial dispute.

No no no no no. I will not let you walk this literal invasion down the route of pure semantics.

It's an invasion. Russia invaded Ukraine. They crossed their border with a military. It's an invasion. The "territory" was not "disputed". It was invaded. That's the issue.

We can play semantics and call it many different things, and we can even take sides over which side we think is right and which side is wrong.

To call it a territorial or border dispute is to play semantics. To call it an invasion is accurate.

You're correct that the border was already set and agreed upon, but for whatever reason, the Russians have changed their minds and no longer wish to honor that agreement.

BY INVADING IT.

That's the issue.

So, they violated their agreement and have engaged in aggressive invasion, as viewed in the eyes of international law.

But it's still a border dispute. I don't see how anyone can say that it's not that.

Stevicus, I am going to put you on ignore if you cannot honestly say that somebody constantly referring to an invasion as a "border dispute" is not a deliberate downplaying of the situation. This is not good faith engagement. This isn't some "oh well, TECHNICALLY...", it's plainly and clearly an attempt to downplay the act of invasion.

I'm not going to be "semantic lawyered" into both-sidsing this debate. Don't try it.

"Hey remember that time Germany had a big "border dispute" with Poland? And then a "border dispute" with France? And then a bunch of other countries got together and "border disputed" Germany right back? I think that whole thing had a name... World Border Dispute 2, or something..."