That's not an answer to the question I asked.

"There's no citations" is not anything like "That info is correct but I dislike the content".

In most cases I'd prefer to allow the debate to happen. the intent isn't to police the quality of sources in general. I think that would be putting the thumb on the scale a bit too heavily. That's why (for example) the general rule banning Breitbart links was rolled back.

But in this case there's two problems, and it's the combination of the two that leads me to disallow this source

1) The claims in the image are false, because of the egregiously disingenuous nature of their methodology, which they don't disclose up front.

2) The purpose of that false information is propaganda in the service of dehumanizing Muslims in general, in violation of the site rules against posting hateful content. The fact that the information is obviously false contributes to the conclusion that it violates the site rules. We don't allow links to hate sites, and in my judgment the site from which the image comes qualifies.

So, if someone was wielding actually legitimate data in order to make a hateful argument (violating (2) but not (1)), I wouldn't disallow the source, but I would probably warn them to modify their language to avoid violating the site rules.

If someone was posting misinformation but it didn't run afoul of the site rules, I would also let it be subject to discussion and rebuttal rather than ban it. But the combination of the two problems leads me to the conclusion that it should simply be disallowed.

Obviously, the downside is it's harder for anyone else to evaluate my reasons for doing so since I deleted the post, but I'm happy to discuss it with anyone interested via PM.

I didn't mistake anything. You mean that question?

My point was, how do you get from didn't provide citations for everything, to it's not a legitimate source?

Thanks for PM'ing me the source WN. I'll take a look. I appreciate your explanation.

Bladesman, I could even be wrong about whether the source is legit. That is not the point. I can be wrong, but had a reasonable argument, given, as I admitted, I didn't have the source to look at. But you go straight to "reading comp." That is my point. You call me stupid for no good reason.

I didn't call you stupid. I said that kind of reading comprehension (the kind displayed in your post) was what leads to awful graphics like the deleted one getting posted in the first place.

Let's go back to what you said:

You can play it off as a one time thing, but getting from what WN said to this is a massive failure on your end.

There you go again. Give me a break.

Obviously, I was saying that what he said could be what I said.

They don't source very many events (that's all I have), sounds like, they are weak in the research department. Full stop. That could be the problem, I say. I would like to see the material. They could be weak in research. Again, it could be worse, but that's what it could be. Sounds like, as I implied. Agreed, I did not spell all that out. But what I am saying here, now, is a reasonable interpretation of what I first wrote.

And that is all that is needed, a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote, for "reading comp" failure to be way off.

Well, which part of what WN said sounded anything like "It's a little biased. So I'm going to delete it."?

So you're admitting that "they don't cite sources for many of the events" is like "they are a little weak in the research department," and therefore that part of what I said did not calling for your "reading comp" failure statement?

Moving on, WN's statement said, "include literally any instance of violence related to any group of Muslims, regardless of whether or not those instances are actually related to terrorism. However, they clearly don't employ the same methodology when counting (by which I mean failing to count) instances of violence among non-Muslims."

That includes a reference to bias. He is saying that the source (which I didn't have at the time) included any instance of violence related to any group of Muslims, but not violence related to non-Muslims. That is a little bias. Maybe it's a lot of bias. I don't have the source. I couldn't compare and verify what WN said. So, even if it was a lot of bias, my statement was no where near a "reading comp" failure.

No.

Perhaps you could demonstrate your reading comprehension by showing where I made an admission to anything?

No, you just moved on. That's why I pointedly asked.

Anyway, I see that you accused me of reading comp failure for no good reason.

When I don't make an admission of anything, instead having just asked you a simplified question to try and get an answer, and you respond with "So you're admitting that..." that makes me think you aren't reading what I write.

OK. You didn't admit it. You haven't admitted it. I asked if you were admitting it, and you still haven't. OK.

I don't want to say that it's "like" that because I don't think being "like" it is sufficient. It's very clearly not the same. They carry very different connotations.

We might as well get back to the Manchester terror attack, if there is anything else to be said about that.

Ahhhahahahah then you went on to post what the site itself says about... itself.

Like, do you think non-credible sites just throw down disclaimers in the 'about us' section saying, 'Yeah, FYI, we're totally ****ing FOS, just a heads up here.'

Yeah dog you ought to stop saying 'we' and pretending like people would weep if you personally got jihaded.

Oh man I'm grunching like I do. A wild pokerodox aappears and these dudes are pokemoning off for F**kface Of The Year.

[personal attack line removed]

p.s. The dude had the name of the site in this thread. It's still posted. Yet and still he had to PM somebody to make heads or tails of this dastardly riddle.



mod edit: I have removed an above line of personal attack.
The mods realize that discussions in this forum can be highly charged and contentious, but we really are committed to reducing the overall vitriol level and posts which serve little or no purpose beyond a personal attack.

Yea Yea, bad Murica, uhuh..

What bout France and Sweden and Manchester and the other countries, not Murica, that are being terrorized? What are they doing presently to envoke such chaos in their countries?

Take your time

Also, in case you missed this video in O/T...



Just some education about the whole "Christian crusades" thing sprinkled with a bit (4 centuries worth) of "radical" Islamic aggro history.

You can jump to 2:00 for the breakdown decade by decade.

I'm not convinced there even is a Manchester.

Yeah I didn't watch that utubz even though Titty von Titterdonshire was all talkin bout Come Hither in the screencap, so, uh, is that where they're going now? All of the Bad Things done in the name of Christianity were secretly all Muslim dudes in Groucho Marx glasses?

I half watched it. Something about how the left is obsessed with the crusades which were all the Muslims fault anyway.

She's wearing Trump Brand Orangifier.