Removed by mod

This is turning into harassment.

Edit: I think not engaging is the winning move with this one :)

Removed by mod

I understand I never said what you’re claiming, thanks.

I can cross out things too, but that doesn’t make them true. You could cite where I said those exact things, which would make a much stronger case… Wait, could you?

But do you condemn Hamas?

Yes I did, NATO is not debunked, your sources do not dispute the reports contents. Sorry.

They are not debunked by your sources, nothing you provide proves the NATO article wrong. YouTube is not a source.

Bored, leaving.

I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.

It’s still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.

Go away.

Kamala is aborting this 78 year old baby on live television.

I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence

Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.

…

The “not as bad as” argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they’re doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”.

Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.

The well sourced information presented in the report has not been disputed. You’re audaciously prescribing intent onto me (?), accusing me of presenting this to defend NATO. I’m presenting corroborating well sourced information relevant to the article posted. Nothing you claim is substantiated, other than our shared agreement on Tasnim News.

This is unfounded opinion, and a means to discredit information critical of Hamas. Going by your chosen definition, AP news presents information and ideas meant to help inform people on a multitude of issues and is thus propaganda. Did you read the next definition Merriam Webster lists? A bit more critical and harder to apply to NATO huh?

Your answers contain a lot of “can be” and vague allegations. Nothing definite, no evidence. Playing along would be doing what I did, not finding an obtuse definition and applying your personal opinion to it. Like, here’s another one:

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Can’t really apply that because the information in the report isn’t misleading right? And it’s not promoting a cause, it’s providing strategies to countries in how to deal with human shield situations. Information, that’s it.

I’m tired of this game. Gonna focus on Harris ripping Trump a new one.

And AP news is clearly guilty of this because… Oh wait I missed the evidence.

No I understand the point, it’s that good news about the economy must be down played because of various unsourced opinion A, B, and C that don’t dispute anything in the article but do still manage to accuse AP news of presenting information with an agenda.

This scrutiny is not applied when the reported information is in line with what the community believes. The article even discusses caveats to the good news:

The data showed that while the typical American household regained its 2019 purchasing power in 2023, it essentially experienced no rise in living standards over that time. That is a sharp difference from the preceding four years, when inflation-adjusted median incomes rose 14% from 2015 through 2019.

But that isn’t enough. The whole article needs to be cast with doubt, not because contrary evidence was presented, but because users feel AP news is shilling.

Ridiculous.

Edit: It’s evident that, once I posted this excerpt, it was clung to like a life raft considering how many times it was spammed, and is somehow self disproving the premise of the article. Kinda sounds like the article wasn’t read completely before first (down playing) opinions were cast. But hey, who reads the article? :)

I was wondering when APnews would be suspect in this sub… turns out it’s when it veers outside the accepted discourse on lemmy… or doesn’t appease them enough.

Status quo, hiding the “real” picture… unreal. All of this while providing absolutely no evidence contrary to anything in the article. Quality discussion.

Apnews…?

I directly quoted the article indicating relevance. Not whataboutism at all.

False, this is reframing my argument again.

Changing my argument for your sake is not civil discussion.

I’m supposed to defend my position after you baselessly call NATO stratcom propaganda (by whatever definition)? Lol no no, let’s review “burden of proof”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat – the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Holder of the burden

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim, especially when it challenges a perceived status quo. This is also stated in Hitchens’s razor, which declares that “what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.” Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – which is known as the Sagan standard.

So, let’s discuss your evidence that NATO stratcom is propaganda. I’d love to see these “facts.”

For example: I can point to evidence that Tasnim News is propaganda.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tasnim-news-agency/

Analysis / Bias

Tasnim has strong links with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and according to The Guardian the US accuses the IRGC of terror mainly because of its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas, organizations that the US and EU have both designated as terrorist groups.

Although the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) don’t openly affiliate themselves with any political parties, the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran (ABADGARAN) is widely viewed as a political front for the Revolutionary Guards and they are described as “Iran’s neocons”, therefore we rate the political stance of Tasnim as right-wing bias.

Reporters without Borders has reported Iran as “One of the most oppressive countries” According to the Reporters without Borders 2023 report, Iran ranks 177 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index.

The content of headlines and articles use loaded words pertaining to national news such as “Battle against Daesh Still Continuing in Cultural, Ideological Fields: Iran’s Shamkhani” However, they poorly source their articles, heavily quoting without sourcing or providing links to the original source. In general, they promote pro-state propaganda and anti-west conspiracies.

Overall, we rate Tasnim News Questionable based on the promotion of state propaganda and conspiracy theories as well as the use of poor sources. (M. Huitsing 12/04/2017) Updated (07/08/2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2FPerennial_sources

Tasnim News Agency was deprecated in the 2024 RfC due to being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Deprecated: There is community consensus from a request for comment to deprecate the source. The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred. An edit filter, 869 (hist · log), may be in place to warn editors who attempt to cite the source as a reference in articles. The warning message can be dismissed. Edits that trigger the filter are tagged.

Statements of fact indeed :)

No, not everything is propaganda… I think I’ll trust NATO, thank you for your personal opinions though.