You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
9

[–] Totenglocke 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Funny how their "source" for that "New Harvard research" only links to another article that still fails to site an actual source for the new research. Very convenient to have "new research" confirming every liberal talking point and yet no one actually can see a copy of said research. Kind of like liberal's idea of a "social contract" that says "You have to do whatever I say" and yet no one has ever seen or agreed to said contract.

1
1

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

It was typical NYT double talk. They use words and phrases with slightly negative connotations and introduce little factoids into their narrative as though if they are actually well known and established fact.

I don't remember what that method of argument is called. But it was prominent in Soviet disinformation campaigns designed to discredit something while all the time seeming to support it.

I wish I'd finished that school year :-(

0
1

[–] Totenglocke 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Kind of like how their "40% of sales don't have a background check" line from the early 90's being from a study that asked "Do you think you went through a background check" and also it was done BEFORE the NICS background check system was implemented. That's like asking people if they have a license for their drone before drone licenses exist, then screaming "ALMOST ALL DRONES ARE OPERATED ILLEGALLY!".