105
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
105 points (91.3% liked)
News
23296 readers
3568 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A couple of months ago his spokesperson did exactly that in a White House press conference though they stopped doing it as that specific propaganda trick started working in reverse.
I can't be arsed wasting my time Googling it for what sounds suspiciously like a hasbara sockpuppet. Anybody genuinelly interested can find it him/herself.
So, basically, because you can't provide it, you aren't genuinely interested in it.
Seriously, how am I supposed to know what you are talking about? If it doesn't exist, I could be searching forever and still not prove it doesn't exist. If you aren't willing to back up a claim, don't make it.
I saw it live, on TV (not even a US channel), on a news segment coverage of a White House press conference.
The effort necessary to dig the video if at all possible or actual written news of it in a language you understand (as that was not in an English-speaking channel) isn't justfied to answer a random poster on the Internet using a style of demand for "proof" which is very common amongst trolls, astroturfers and sockpuppets, especially because if you are one of such bad faith actors, you would just come up with some other "argument" willfully denying the obvious such as "yeah, but Joe Biden himself didn't do it".
Given your totally illogical argument (bad faith or just irrational?!) that me not wanting to dig it out to see it again is the same as me not being interested in it, I'm sure I'll manage to endure the stress from the risk that you're actually not a bad faith actor and still do not believe me...
Edit
here Karine implies that Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib made antisemitic remarks by using the phrase "from the river to the sea", then backtracks but not quite.
and here , a month later Karine is confronted with the son of Netanyahu having himself used "from the river to the sea" and is asked if he is thus antisemite, which apparently he is not and then she suddenly discovers that they're "out of time".
So I was off: the White House doesn't directly call people antisemitic, they just imply they are if they use sentences like "from the river to the see", but if the person is the son of Netanyahu, then the phrase is not antisemitic after all. In other words, it's the person not the sentence.
There's also A LOT of press briefings where she says pro-palestinian protests were antisemitic which as SkyezOpen in this thread has pointed out is based on things like claiming that using "from the river to the sea" (as in: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free") is antisemitic. Again, this time indirectly, it's the good old claim that "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic that apparently only applies to some people, not others.
Want to dig for yourself, here's the Google search:
Karine Jean-Pierre "antisemitic" +site:www.whitehouse.gov
I saw a live TV show not even a US channel that said you made up the story about what you saw on a live TV show not even a US channel ;)
Now that I'm not at work anymore, I've dug up and added evidence from White House Briefings.
Now you show me yours ;)
Sorry, I can't find any evidence that I was off about whatever earlier ;)
You forgot the rest.
That was the funniest part. Did I miss another joke?
Nah. It’s trolls, astroturfers, and sock puppets who come in, make extraordinary claims, and say it’s too hard to find so you should go find it yourself.
"How dare you not just believe what some random person on the internet is claiming. You must be a troll" is easily one of the most dumb arguments a person can make.
But to then to go on and make up my response to your alleged evidence, label that response unreasonable, and because "I" made argument, I must be unreasonable because of it. . .well, just that's just peak hilarity.
You really proved that I'm the unreasonable one arguing in bad faith. lol