u/libra00 — Libra00

I'm gonna end the war!

Wait this is hard, nevermind.

Respectfully, you clearly don't know how I meant it.

I am biased against Israel because I do not judge it impartially. I tend to assume the worst about it (which I believe is justified through many years of reading about the awful, awful shit it does to people), in a decision about which side gets the benefit of the doubt in some matter I will never give it to Israel, and I am disinclined to believe pretty much anything it says, even after I filter out the propaganda.

If that's not bias then apparently we're using different dictionaries. Try this one.

Judging from the number of downvotes my comment got, I guess I am too now.

And yeah, I've been calling it a genocide for more than a year now, but even I know not to take such a biased source's word without some corroborating reporting from elsewhere.

Then it's a good thing I wasn't asking for unbiased reporting. What I asked for was *more* reporting, because I would like to verify it with multiple sources. Unbiased reporting doesn't exist, but there is in fact an unbiased (or at least minimally-biased) version of the news itself, and the most reliable way to get there is to hit a subject from multiple angles. If the people who love Israel are also complaining about it then it's safe to say it's legit, for example.

>“I don’t believe you because I’m offended by your tone” is miles away from “I don’t believe you because I haven’t seen enough evidence”.

It's neither of those: it's I *want* to believe you, but you're the only person I've seen mention this and I want to make sure it's legit by hearing it from multiple sources.

>Everyone has biases

Yes, which is why I try to get my news from more than one source so that I can tell whether or not it's just someone reading something into a thing that wasn't actually there or if multiple people with different perspectives have seen the same thing.

You can avoid grossly misunderstanding the point of someone's comment by reading the whole thing, too.

Did you not catch this part?

which, fair enough, that describes me too

I am also biased against Israel, for what I feel ought to be some pretty self-evident reasons. Reading comprehension in the replies to my comment has been surprisingly low.

Also can't take anyone seriously who can't read the comment they're replying to.

Did you not catch this part?

>which, fair enough, that describes me too

I am also biased against Israel, for what I feel ought to be some pretty self-evident reasons, but a single highly biased source reporting something is not news.

>Fortunately, they link to the original material.

Yeah, fair enough, I just wasn't up for reading the ~50 page report myself to find out if what they said was true.

Did you not catch this part?

>which, fair enough, that describes me too

I'm not saying the bias is a problem in general, it's just a problem for the trustworthiness of the reporting because they could be reading stuff into the source material that isn't there.

If this is true then that's great news. Unfortunately the article seems to have been written by someone who is very clearly biased against Israel and not ashamed of airing that dirty laundry in public (which, fair enough, that describes me too, but I wouldn't trust me to write an unbiased article on the subject either) so I can't take this single source's word on it. I'll definitely keep an ear out in case any more reporting gets done on it from elsewhere.

Edit: To the people downvoting and replying to this: please read past the 'biased against Israel' part - especially to the bit where I say that *I am also biased against Israel* - before assuming that I'm some pro-Israel shill here.

You can wait or you can learn how to operate google your damned self. :P I see you have chosen wisely.

LOL, nice.

"I got a fever, and the only prescription, is more cowbell!"

It might be helpful to include in your title what the headline did not: where the fuck Irpin is and why I should care about it. If I have to google that shit to figure out what the article is even talking about I'm just not gonna read it.

That title, it has one too many, commas.

No. We already have a meaning assigned to 'hydrogen bomb' and this, as interesting as it is, is not a hydrogen bomb.

I dunno if you've been paying attention, but we don't really *do* consequences for the rich in this country.

Nice. I just have a G19gen4, a heavily-customized AR15 that a gunsmith friend built and tuned specifically for me, and a Saiga 12g (with the crazy Latvian slugs that shoot through engine blocks.) I feel like they cover all the bases. ;)

Right? I'm American and even I wouldn't take that deal. Mind you I'd take the money, but then if you want me off my land you're going to have to have a conversation with Mr. Glock.

He's trying to play checkers when everyone else is playing chess. Somebody walks by occasionally, snickers, and says 'You should go there, you'll definitely win if you do' because they benefit from the chaos said 'advice' produces, and goes on about their business. Tariffs were his attempt to shout 'King me!', and he's only now realizing that his own king is vulnerable.