hibsen

And maybe I'm using it wrong, but it just...doesn't work. I use spotlight search on my MacBook to find programs and things and it just finds them. It's fast enough to be faster than me opening things off the dock.

I try to use the search on my wife's Win11 computer and half the time it sends me to a website for a program she already has installed.

Like if you want to imitate, even badly, the imitation should at least be functional.

Looks like a twitter poll. I wouldn't be super surprised if some of those 'yes' answers are from an "as a totally real fe-male person" folks.

Yep, definitely forgot to list this complaint. Frankly a paper with a good reputation having a left lean would seem obvious to me — the right abandoned reality a long time ago.

I think it makes more sense if you start from the supposition that centrists in America are just right-wingers who still remember how to be ashamed of their batshit views when they’re in public.

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.

Facebook is basically a modern street corner I suppose. What a jackass.

From what I've seen so far, a number of reasons:

1. It's not overly accurate, with a tendency to report from a basis of American centrism as though that's the sole metric to measure what is left and right. I assume they decided they had to pick something to base it off of, but even a lot of Americans take issue with what an American centrist considers left-wing.

2. It's a bot, and some folks hate those enough to downvote it every time rather than block it.

3. Some folks prefer to decide for themselves what's credible. I've also read comments saying they don't like that there's no disclaimer — plenty of people get riled when something is presented as though it's the sole arbiter of truth.

I've probably missed plenty, too.

I've never been this thrilled to be wrong before.

Fair amount of biblical references in it; I'd guess the poster is drawing a parallel between that and the rather unhinged nature of Christian fundamentalism. I haven't seen anything yet to indicate motives, so we'll all see I guess.

Do you care about internet points on Lemmy of all places?

Not particularly. I agree with you on that; I assume not many people care about them, but when someone gives me a button to push for things that don't add to conversations, like, say, repeated instances of aggressive ignorance and lies about what an article consists of, it's really not a lot of effort to push it, so I'm going to keep doing that 'til either you stop with the bullshit or I get bored.

A contradiction. I repeat: I either verify stuff myself or outsource that verification to a source I can trust. I’m surprised you don’t do that too, or put it in the bad light for whatever reason. Maybe that’s why you have a long conversation defending questionable sources. I decided not to trust them. It’s more of an effort than blindly consuming whatever someone posts.

A lie. There is no evidence that the source is questionable. There is abundant evidence that they are a real journalistic source (remember when I linked you some? Those were good times).

You decided not to trust the source based on nothing. This is a stupid thing to do. You decided to comment on it anyway, with no knowledge or interest in discovering the truth. That is a harmful thing to do.

I'm going to keep having this conversation because you've decided to..what are we at now, quintuple-down on this? We're far past the realm of where most Lemmy apps will even display comment chains this long. It's just you, me, and anyone bored enough to dig into a slap fight about how difficult it is for you to read.

I mean first let me thank you for speaking on behalf of all of Lemmy. Super kind of you.

The rest of this is a lovely set of excuses, but this...

In a polarising context of the Israeli-Palestinian war we already had a lot of fake or complicated stories and as I'm not myself able to verify each piece myself, I prefer big news media I can somehow trust because they do verification for me.

I really can't resist the bait there.

No one is asking you to verify every piece of information you read. In this polarizing context of the world we live in, you should at least try to make an effort to know what you're talking about before you comment, though, or you're adding to that misinformation you seem so keen to avoid.

I'm sorry, you can't even read what you wrote?

At the very least, basic level, I don't see any mention of them being in that region and IDK how they report without that.

Source is linked in the article within the first few sentences from people who are yes, actually in that region. You also indicated you trust "big" sources, who...also aggregate content from sources like this one that are actually in the region.

You skipped doing a simple internet search on any of that, which would have told you this, so I don't have to.

They refer to even less known sources, them quoting anonymous individuals

It requires a very determined level of aggressive ignorance to both blow right past why anonymity might be quite necessary here, and to at the same time completely ignore that not all of the sources are anonymous.

I understand that this will not make you happy, and it probably won't convince you, either. Neither of those factors makes these types of things less stupid to say.

You said stupid shit and then doubled-down on it when the answers were easily available. I don't know why being called out on it is so surprising to you ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Sure, I can do that for you too. Is clicking the link easy enough?

Of course the interviewees are mostly anonymous. Does the context of the situation just entirely blow past you? You think it'd be super easy to do this and face no repercussions?

Also, did you just not read the quotes from the one non-anonymous source, or was that too far down in the article and your scrolling finger got tired? I'd rather assume you're lazy than that you're pushing an agenda, but hey it seems like we can all just make assumptions and do no digging to see if they're true, so fuck it, you're a war criminal that kicks puppies.

How dare you bring your puppy-kicking into this conversation. I demand a peer-reviewed paper proving you're not a puppy-kicker and the authors must be owned by one of three major corporations or I won't believe it. What's that? You don't even have a referenced Wikipedia page with sources that demonstrate you don't kick puppies? Well fuck man, even that paper can't help you now.