If you read the whole article and not just the headline you'd realize it's a pretty good article. From it: "It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information." Which is 100% true.
Go to some unknown blog that has a breadcrumb or two of truth and the rest lies, and you end up wasting a shitton of time weeding out disinfo from truth. Also from the article:
"The goal of disinformation is to capture attention, and critical thinking is deep attention."
But sure, just read the headline and dismiss everything out of hand like you all always do. Fuck having a nuanced take on a complex situation, everything is black and white.
But sure, just read the headline and dismiss everything out of hand like you all always do. Fuck having a nuanced take on a complex situation, everything is black and white.
Actually, I deed read the article. Then I went and found and read several other of Warzel's articles. As we both know, Warzel is a globalist propagandist masquerading as a journalist. In fact, that's the only reason why you're here.
unknown sources
I agree. The plebs should only be regurgitating state approved facts from """credible""" sources. How dare they question our superior intellect and righteous wisdom!?
"It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information." Which is 100% true.
If we only take facts from known sources, that list of """facts""" I posted would be the only truth when they were breaking news.
Well, we know there were no WMDs, the media was reporting what intelligence told them. That's true.
Epstein, no one knows. While it's highly unlikely he killed himself, it's 100% possible. There's no real info to go on here with nothing to actually look at.
Syria may have, who knows. Were you there? They also may not have.
Trump has a lot of ties to Russia, I'll leave it at that.
I'm not familiar with the last point so I won't discuss it.
The thing is, while unknown sources are a hoot, they are unknown and need corroboration. I see it as a don't waste too much time sorting through 100 blogs to find one piece of biased info.
There were objections to the WMD claims before we bombed the ever living fuck out of Iraq. But oh well, mistakes were made. The trail of corpses was all due to a misunderstanding.
The circumstances surrounding Epstiens death are more suspect than Seth Rich's murder, but official sources will call you a kook for digging deeper.
Asad denied using chemical weapons multiple times, stating that doing so would be a stupid fucking idea as it would incur international backlash. There were also several raw footage sources that supported the idea that the attacks were a false flag. Oh, and the US has been trying to annex Syria by arming rebels ever since it worked on Lybia. Chemical attacks would have been an awfully convenient excuse to invade properly like we did Iraq. Too bad Trump took office.
Trump's ties to russia were business related, and the accusations of collusion came from a bullshit dossier that was circularly sourced in order to trick the FISA courts. The evidence was so dodgy that the dems couldn't even agree to impeach him on it.
In 1898, The USS Main was at Havana Harbor when an explosion of unknown origin caused it to sink, taking the lives of 260 crew. Spain was suspect, and news papers (read: known sources) printed page after page blaming Spain and whipping up support for a war against Spain. Spain meanwhile denied responsibility and contributed tons of resources to the investigation. Spain even aided the survivors of the incident. The US public was already war hungry however, so the Spanish American War was launched.
My point is, """known""" sources actively lie to you in order to make you support terrible things. Considering all sources, especially primary sources, is a great way to avoid bloodshed.
Wow how stupid. Like CNN telling its viewers not to look at the dumped emails because it's illegal unless you're in the media.
CNN: it doesn't matter if you believe our lies, so long as you keep repeating them...
If you read the whole article and not just the headline you'd realize it's a pretty good article. From it: "It’s often counterproductive to engage directly with content from an unknown source, and people can be led astray by false information." Which is 100% true.
Go to some unknown blog that has a breadcrumb or two of truth and the rest lies, and you end up wasting a shitton of time weeding out disinfo from truth. Also from the article:
"The goal of disinformation is to capture attention, and critical thinking is deep attention."
But sure, just read the headline and dismiss everything out of hand like you all always do. Fuck having a nuanced take on a complex situation, everything is black and white.
Bunch of dummies.
Actually, I deed read the article. Then I went and found and read several other of Warzel's articles. As we both know, Warzel is a globalist propagandist masquerading as a journalist. In fact, that's the only reason why you're here.
Iraq had WMDs
Epstein killed himself
Syria totally gassed its own citizens
Trump was Russian KGB
Spain sank the Maine
That's not what I said at all but if that's your thing...
you said, and I quote
If we only take facts from known sources, that list of """facts""" I posted would be the only truth when they were breaking news.
Well, we know there were no WMDs, the media was reporting what intelligence told them. That's true.
Epstein, no one knows. While it's highly unlikely he killed himself, it's 100% possible. There's no real info to go on here with nothing to actually look at.
Syria may have, who knows. Were you there? They also may not have.
Trump has a lot of ties to Russia, I'll leave it at that.
I'm not familiar with the last point so I won't discuss it.
The thing is, while unknown sources are a hoot, they are unknown and need corroboration. I see it as a don't waste too much time sorting through 100 blogs to find one piece of biased info.
There were objections to the WMD claims before we bombed the ever living fuck out of Iraq. But oh well, mistakes were made. The trail of corpses was all due to a misunderstanding.
The circumstances surrounding Epstiens death are more suspect than Seth Rich's murder, but official sources will call you a kook for digging deeper.
Asad denied using chemical weapons multiple times, stating that doing so would be a stupid fucking idea as it would incur international backlash. There were also several raw footage sources that supported the idea that the attacks were a false flag. Oh, and the US has been trying to annex Syria by arming rebels ever since it worked on Lybia. Chemical attacks would have been an awfully convenient excuse to invade properly like we did Iraq. Too bad Trump took office.
Trump's ties to russia were business related, and the accusations of collusion came from a bullshit dossier that was circularly sourced in order to trick the FISA courts. The evidence was so dodgy that the dems couldn't even agree to impeach him on it.
In 1898, The USS Main was at Havana Harbor when an explosion of unknown origin caused it to sink, taking the lives of 260 crew. Spain was suspect, and news papers (read: known sources) printed page after page blaming Spain and whipping up support for a war against Spain. Spain meanwhile denied responsibility and contributed tons of resources to the investigation. Spain even aided the survivors of the incident. The US public was already war hungry however, so the Spanish American War was launched.
My point is, """known""" sources actively lie to you in order to make you support terrible things. Considering all sources, especially primary sources, is a great way to avoid bloodshed.
High level of reading comprehension a Jewish trait to you?
Therefore misunderstanding everything and having subnormal intelligence must be a goy thing, huh?
Just trying to understand your “logic” here.
Piece of human garbage.