Yet another school with racism problems

[Revoltingest]

Oh great revolting one, you sent me to my dictionary once again.

Tis good that you're all about learn'n.
I usually just seek out porn.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I expect them to have less of a SJW perspective.
The best pictures are painted by reading competing sources.

No.
But it's odd that they practice bigotry as in the process of fighting the same.
Moreover, they further discredit themselves by over-reacting to imagined & de minimis slights.
This masks real problems.

I never signed up for the WSJ.
I was unaware that they restricted who could read it.
Btw, I always saw them as leaning somewhat to the left.
But I understand that my libertarian perspective is out of whack which the mainstream.
Anyway, it pays to not blithely dismiss others' perspective as "right wing" or "left wing".

Yes, republicans aren't cry babies about anything and never whine about ****. Lol no they don't lean left.

Political views[edit]
The editorial board has long argued for a pro-business immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the board wrote: "If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders." This stand on immigration reform places the Journal as an opponent of most conservative activists and politicians, for example National Review, who favor heightened restrictions on immigration.[41]

The Journal in recent years has strongly defended Scooter Libby, whom it portrays as the victim of a political witchhunt.[42] It has also published editorials comparing the attacks by Seymour Hersh and The New York Times on Leo Strauss and his alleged influence in the George W. Bush administration with those of Lyndon LaRouche, a fringe conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate.[43]

Some former The Wall Street Journal reporters have said that, since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, news stories have been edited to adopt a more conservative tone, critical of Democrats.[44] The op-ed section routinely publishes articles by scientists skeptical of the theory of global warming, including several essays by Richard Lindzen of MIT.[45] Similarly, the Journal has refused to publish opinions of scientists with opposing conclusions.[46]

Both the Journal and Reuters Chinese language editions were blocked by the Chinese government in October, 2013, reportedly after they had published unflattering stories about "Chinese elites". They were unblocked at the beginning of January, 2014.[47]

The Journal‍ 's editorial page has been fiercely critical of nearly every aspect of Barack Obama's presidency. In particular, it has been an unrelenting critic of the Affordable Care Act legislation passed in 2010 and regularly features opinion columns attacking various aspects of the bill.[48]

Its editorial pages and columns, run separately from the news pages, are highly influential in American conservative circles. As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C. Royster (served 1958–1971) and Robert L. Bartley (served 1972–2000) were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis.[49]

Reporting bias[edit]
The Journal‍ 's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters.[26] In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal (more liberal than NPR or The New York Times). The study did not factor in editorials.[50] Mark Liberman criticized the model used to calculate bias in the study and argued that the model unequally affected liberals and conservatives and that "think tank ideology [...] only matters to liberals."[51]

The company's planned and eventual acquisition by News Corp. in 2007 led to significant media criticism and discussion[52] about whether the news pages would exhibit a rightward slant under Rupert Murdoch. An August 1 editorial responded to the questions by asserting that Murdoch intended to "maintain the values and integrity of the Journal."[53]

Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal

So even if they once were liberal they've had plenty of criticism since the bought of it by Murdoch. The editorials aren't factored in.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, republicans aren't cry babies about anything and never whine about ****. Lol no they don't lean left.

Political views[edit]
The editorial board has long argued for a pro-business immigration policy. In a July 3, 1984 editorial, the board wrote: "If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders." This stand on immigration reform places the Journal as an opponent of most conservative activists and politicians, for example National Review, who favor heightened restrictions on immigration.[41]

The Journal in recent years has strongly defended Scooter Libby, whom it portrays as the victim of a political witchhunt.[42] It has also published editorials comparing the attacks by Seymour Hersh and The New York Times on Leo Strauss and his alleged influence in the George W. Bush administration with those of Lyndon LaRouche, a fringe conspiracy theorist and perennial presidential candidate.[43]

Some former The Wall Street Journal reporters have said that, since Rupert Murdoch bought the paper, news stories have been edited to adopt a more conservative tone, critical of Democrats.[44] The op-ed section routinely publishes articles by scientists skeptical of the theory of global warming, including several essays by Richard Lindzen of MIT.[45] Similarly, the Journal has refused to publish opinions of scientists with opposing conclusions.[46]

Both the Journal and Reuters Chinese language editions were blocked by the Chinese government in October, 2013, reportedly after they had published unflattering stories about "Chinese elites". They were unblocked at the beginning of January, 2014.[47]

The Journal‍ 's editorial page has been fiercely critical of nearly every aspect of Barack Obama's presidency. In particular, it has been an unrelenting critic of the Affordable Care Act legislation passed in 2010 and regularly features opinion columns attacking various aspects of the bill.[48]

Its editorial pages and columns, run separately from the news pages, are highly influential in American conservative circles. As editors of the editorial page, Vermont C. Royster (served 1958–1971) and Robert L. Bartley (served 1972–2000) were especially influential in providing a conservative interpretation of the news on a daily basis.[49]

Reporting bias[edit]
The Journal‍ 's editors stress the independence and impartiality of their reporters.[26] In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The Journal was the most liberal (more liberal than NPR or The New York Times). The study did not factor in editorials.[50] Mark Liberman criticized the model used to calculate bias in the study and argued that the model unequally affected liberals and conservatives and that "think tank ideology [...] only matters to liberals."[51]

The company's planned and eventual acquisition by News Corp. in 2007 led to significant media criticism and discussion[52] about whether the news pages would exhibit a rightward slant under Rupert Murdoch. An August 1 editorial responded to the questions by asserting that Murdoch intended to "maintain the values and integrity of the Journal."[53]

Source- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal

So even if they once were liberal they've had plenty of criticism since the bought of it by Murdoch. The editorials aren't factored in.

Meh....all sources have their different biases.
To read competing ones affords us the best chance of understanding an issue.
So I read sources I like & dislike.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Meh....all sources have their different biases.
To read competing ones affords us the best chance of understanding an issue.
So I read sources I like & dislike.

Your using someone else's opinion as a source. Sources aren't opinion and opinions aren't sources. Would you want me to use Charlie Pierce in response and his take on things? Probably not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your using someone else's opinion as a source.

This is always the case when we post a news article.
I found this one interesting.
And I love a good neologism.....especially one so cromulent.

Sources aren't opinion and opinions aren't sources. Would you want me to use Charlie Pierce in response and his take on things? Probably not.

I don't understand this.

 

[LittlePinky82]

This is always the case when we post a news article.
I found this one interesting.
And I love a good neologism.....especially one so cromulent.

I don't understand this.

Another person's opinion isn't a source. I think they're fine to use if they say something better than you do or explain something better but they're not a source. Only time they might be a source is if they're giving their opinion as a legal expert or military expert etc. But even with that it's still their opinion in the matter and if they aren't directly involved in the situation it only matters to a point. Something they're an expert at. But if it's just their opinion about something, like this seems to be, it's just not a source. But like I said, sometimes other people say things better than we can and I think they're fine in that regard. An opinion isn't straight news or facts about the situation. It's literally just another opinion on the internet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another person's opinion isn't a source. I think they're fine to use if they say something better than you do or explain something better but they're not a source. Only time they might be a source is if they're giving their opinion as a legal expert or military expert etc. But even with that it's still their opinion in the matter and if they aren't directly involved in the situation it only matters to a point. Something they're an expert at. But if it's just their opinion about something, like this seems to be, it's just not a source. But like I said, sometimes other people say things better than we can and I think they're fine in that regard. An opinion isn't straight news or facts about the situation. It's literally just another opinion on the internet.

Is this author's opinion any less cromulent then the authors you've cited (in your links)?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Is this author's opinion any less cromulent then the authors you've cited (in your links)?

Nope. It's just another opinion. My point is it's just that. It's not a source.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope. It's just another opinion.

Then what do we achieve by dismissing an opinion as a mere "opinion", when it's so useful to cite opinions?

 

[LittlePinky82]

Then what do we achieve by dismissing an opinion as a mere "opinion", when it's so useful to cite opinions?

Because it's just another opinion. Is their opinion more important than anyone else's? No. So, meh it's just another opinion. I can easily cite another person's opinion opposite of their's.

Here's an opinion opposite of the one you post-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/o...tion-of-safety-on-campus-and-beyond.html?_r=0

(you don't have to sign up to read the whole thing)

So does her opinion matter more than the person from the WSJ? No, they're just two different opinions on the opposite side of the same issue.

Nothing wrong with it. It's just not a source.

Like I said, it's fine to use because sometimes other people can say things better than we can.

So, I hope you see I'm not saying to not use someone else's opinion. I'm just saying that's all it is.

Make sense?

So yes it's useful to use if it helps you in your arguments (because, like I said, sometimes other people do a better job at it) but that's all it is. Nothing more and nothing less. But it's not a source.

I hope you understand and see the difference.

If it's just talking about the issue one opinion is no more important than someone else's. The only time it might be is if it's someone who has their opinion tied to their job. For ex a legal professional talking about legal issues with the opinion.

I hope I'm making sense and not just rambling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it's just another opinion. Is their opinion more important than anyone else's? No. So, meh it's just another opinion. I can easily cite another person's opinion opposite of their's.

Here's an opinion opposite of the one you post-

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/o...tion-of-safety-on-campus-and-beyond.html?_r=0

(you don't have to sign up to read the whole thing)

So does her opinion matter more than the person from the WSJ? No, they're just two different opinions on the opposite side of the same issue.

Nothing wrong with it. It's just not a source.

Like I said, it's fine to use because sometimes other people can say things better than we can.

So, I hope you see I'm not saying to not use someone else's opinion. I'm just saying that's all it is.

Make sense?

So yes it's useful to use if it helps you in your arguments (because, like I said, sometimes other people do a better job at it) but that's all it is. Nothing more and nothing less. But it's not a source.

I hope you understand and see the difference.

If it's just talking about the issue one opinion is no more important than someone else's. The only time it might be is if it's someone who has their opinion tied to their job. For ex a legal professional talking about legal issues with the opinion.

I hope I'm making sense and not just rambling.

A source of an opinion is indeed a source.
You offer the ones you wish to present.
I do the same.

 

[LittlePinky82]

A source of an opinion is indeed a source.
You offer the ones you wish to present.
I do the same.

There are two different types of sources. Primary and secondary. A person's opinion is secondary. It's not a primary source and not taken as such. It's just another opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are two different types of sources. Primary and secondary. A person's opinion is secondary. It's not a primary source and not taken as such. It's just another opinion.

Nonetheless, each is a source.
Both have their usefulness.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Nonetheless, each is a source.
Both have their usefulness.

I didn't say they didn't. I just said an opinion is just that. It's just an opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Now, really, can we stop with the circle jerking? It's really getting off topic now. Just saying.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say they didn't. I just said an opinion is just that. It's just an opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Now, really, can we stop with the circle jerking? It's really getting off topic now. Just saying.

Tis odd that you'd object to the tangent which you so vigorously pursued.

Btw, I don't think your metaphor (ew) works with you (a female) in the circle.

It bears repeating.....ew.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Tis odd that you'd object to the tangent which you so vigorously pursued.

Btw, I don't think your metaphor (ew) works with you (a female) in the circle.

It bears repeating.....ew.

In regards to your post about my "tangent"

And no it's going around in circles now. We both agree an opinion is just an opinion. What don't agree on is it being called a source.

And we're just repeating the same thing now and going off topic. Really, how much more do I have to explain it? It's not bad to use it's just not anymore important than the one I used. Is it? No. Editorials are just that. They're not sources in the sense of someone providing an expert view or something like that. It's just someone with a platform writing about something. Nothing more and nothing less.

As far as it being about the "source" let's just agree to disagree. We're going to get whip lash !

As far as the metaphor- Your mind is in the gutter. Naughty naughty.

 

[Revoltingest]

In regards to your post about my "tangent"

And no it's going around in circles now. We both agree an opinion is just an opinion. What don't agree on is it being called a source.

And we're just repeating the same thing now and going off topic. Really, how much more do I have to explain it? It's not bad to use it's just not anymore important than the one I used. Is it? No. Editorials are just that. They're not sources in the sense of someone providing an expert view or something like that. It's just someone with a platform writing about something. Nothing more and nothing less.

As far as it being about the "source" let's just agree to disagree. We're going to get whip lash !

As far as the metaphor- Your mind is in the gutter. Naughty naughty.

You sure use a lot of words to object to the perfectly permissible linking of an article.
Red herring?

 

[LittlePinky82]

You sure use a lot of words to object to the perfectly permissible linking of an article.
Red herring?

I really don't care if you post them or not. It's JUST another opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. I even posted an opinion from someone at the NY Times. Imagine that! Yes, I so object I even did it myself. Sarcasm. One opinion out of how many on the internet? Who cares. If I don't care about the WSJ I don't care.

I guess you like whip lash? Really, you need to move on. I don't care. It's nothing more than just another opinion. And I don't care for the WSJ and am not going to thus care about that opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol I'm not objecting to it. Try reading what people are saying and comprehending their words. I'm just pointing out that it's just another opinion. Why is that hard to understand? And I don't care for the WSJ and don't take right wing editorials seriously. If I don't want to care about another person's opinion that's my right. So, what's your problem? I'm not going to change my mind. So just really you should move on. Unless you like giving yourself whip lash. Just agree to disagree and move on with things. It's really useless to keep going around and around. If I don't want to care about the WSJ I'm not going to care. Just like if you don't want to care about the NYTimes link I posted you don't have to care. It's not a big deal. Really, it's not. You can move on with things.

And you're still going off topic.

Do you have anything to say about the actual topic of the thread now?

This is about the topic.

 

[LittlePinky82]

This is about the topic.

No, it's not. It's talking about opinions. Really, who cares that you posted a link from the WSJ that agrees with you. Good for you. Really, move on. It's gone far off topic now.

If you're not going to comprehend what I'm saying just move on with it.

You know how to find people who agree with you on the internet. Wow, amazing. Welcome to 2015.

Now, do you have anything to actually talk about with the op and topic of this thread?