Ed Right Wing Watch

[Butter!]

I was referring to the claim that "Point is a few years ago he would have been denounced by mainstream conservatives, but now they seem afraid to denounce him."

Oh, my mistake.

Yeah, I can't speak to that. Never noticed. I'd agree it's entirely possible they just don't feel he and his fringe claims are significant enough to bother with denouncing. They'd probably be right.

 

[tyr_13]

Do people who read "right wing watch" sit there hitting f5 just waiting to get outraged and post about it on message boards?

This thread was split from ‘Duck Dynasty’ star fantasizes about atheist family’s rape and murder, and has been renamed.

Posted By: Locknar

The discussion being about an excerpt of a speech given at a prayer breakfast by a reality TV star and driven to TEN!!! by Right Wing Watch?

And here is me thinking the discussion could not get more "valuable."

Off to RIGHT WING WATCH! I love right wing watch and love to get my jimmies rustled in the morning.

And may I return the favor? Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion.

Thanks, DavidJames. Another rock solid addressing the arguer and not the argument.

Your argument was exactly attacking the arguer. You then switched into poisoning the well, basically saying 'Right Wing Watch is biased, therefore they are cherry picking'. However, this was also shown to be false. They might be biased but they accurately reported in this case what was said, with citations, and the original source shows it accurately represents what was said.

You dismissed the reporting of Right Wing Watch because they are biased too heavily in your view. But their argument and reporting was not wrong, biased or not. That's because you were relying on fallacious reasoning to conclude that they were wrong. You further disparaged those who read it, assigning them motivations in order to dismiss them. That's also fallacious reasoning. You've also disparaged the discussion in and of itself, assigning it partisan political motivations.

Someone being biased doesn't make them wrong. Someone being a hypocrite doesn't make them wrong. Someone being partisan doesn't make them wrong. Someone being a biased, rank partisan hypocrite doesn't make them wrong. It also doesn't mean they'll not have good points or the discussions they bring up are of no value.

That's why you're not on ignore.

EDIT: That last part sounds too much like an insult. To clarify, that's why anyone doesn't ignore everyone in political or religious topics.

 

[The Big Dog]

Your argument was exactly attacking the arguer. You then switched into poisoning the well, basically saying 'Right Wing Watch is biased, therefore they are cherry picking'. However, this was also shown to be false. They might be biased but they accurately reported in this case what was said, with citations, and the original source shows it accurately represents what was said.

You dismissed the reporting of Right Wing Watch because they are biased too heavily in your view. But their argument and reporting was not wrong, biased or not. That's because you were relying on fallacious reasoning to conclude that they were wrong. You further disparaged those who read it, assigning them motivations in order to dismiss them. That's also fallacious reasoning. You've also disparaged the discussion in and of itself, assigning it partisan political motivations.

Someone being biased doesn't make them wrong. Someone being a hypocrite doesn't make them wrong. Someone being partisan doesn't make them wrong. Someone being a biased, rank partisan hypocrite doesn't make them wrong. It also doesn't mean they'll not have good points or the discussions they bring up are of no value.

That's why you're not on ignore.

EDIT: That last part sounds too much like an insult. To clarify, that's why anyone doesn't ignore everyone in political or religious topics.

Lets us clarify, I think RIGHT WING WATCH is freaking garbage designed solely to pander to its audience. Further, while there may be some who look at it to get a giggle, I know that there plenty of people who post the articles without any irony or the slightest bit of proportion here and elsewhere (in fact a certain former member who regularly accused "Republicans" of "usurping" the government comes to mind).

Are there right wing sites that are its equivalent? Sure, i guess, I've heard about them, but I don't cite them.

Did I think that this opinion would spin up to a whole thread? No, did I think that calling RIGHT WING WATCH partisan would lead to me being called "cartoonishly" partisan? Hell no, no more than calling water wet would lead to someone getting called "cartoonishly" damp or something.

RIGHTWINGWATCH exists solely to call nothingburgers sirloin steak, you'll have to excuse me if I ridicule its overheated prose and chicken little attitude.

 

[DavidJames]

Lets us clarify, I think RIGHT WING WATCH is freaking garbage designed solely to pander to its audience. Further, while there may be some who look at it to get a giggle, I know that there plenty of people who post the articles without any irony or the slightest bit of proportion here and elsewhere (in fact a certain former member who regularly accused "Republicans" of "usurping" the government comes to mind).

Are there right wing sites that are its equivalent? Sure, i guess, I've heard about them, but I don't cite them.

Did I think that this opinion would spin up to a whole thread? No, did I think that calling RIGHT WING WATCH partisan would lead to me being called "cartoonishly" partisan? Hell no, no more than calling water wet would lead to someone getting called "cartoonishly" damp or something.

RIGHTWINGWATCH exists solely to call nothingburgers sirloin steak, you'll have to excuse me if I ridicule its overheated prose and chicken little attitude.

Speaking solely for myself. You would gain a lot of credibility if you were to attack the subjects portrayed by RWW instead of attacking the messenger.

Want some role models? Here is an article about a (shock) Republican who blames Abortion for the recent horror in Longmont, CO. To their credit some Republicans aren't creating threads on forums trying to shame the media for reporting his words. They are actually condemning his words. Good for them.

 

[The Big Dog]

"the media."

You think RIGHT WING WATCH is the media?

By the way, although i am going to take a big hit on my "credibility" here, can i remind you that this thread is about RIGHT WING WATCH (and the other execrable liberal hit sites) while "attacking the subjects" and "condemning his words" are the subject metter of the other thread.

Curious tho, that attacking and condemning are the only options you give me to "raise my credibility."

 

[Cleon]

You think RIGHT WING WATCH is the media?

Yes, it's part of the media. So is Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, Fox News, and Breitbart.

 

[Butter!]

You think RIGHT WING WATCH is the media?

By the way, although i am going to take a big hit on my "credibility" here, can i remind you that this thread is about RIGHT WING WATCH (and the other execrable liberal hit sites) while "attacking the subjects" and "condemning his words" are the subject metter of the other thread.

Curious tho, that attacking and condemning are the only options you give me to "raise my credibility."

Dude, it seems like you would actually have to work to misunderstand his post so badly.

Are you a politician? Spin city!

I read it as just saying that you haven't really shown how Right Wing Watch is wrong. You've just proclaimed that it is.

And of course it's part of the media. All news websites are, no matter how fringe or biased.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, it's part of the media. So is Rush Limbaugh, the Daily Caller, Fox News, and Breitbart.

Thanks, I'll check those out.

What about media matters and other organizations run and supported by political action committees?

"media" too?

 

[The Big Dog]

Dude, it seems like you would actually have to work to misunderstand his post so badly.

Are you a politician? Spin city!

I read it as just saying that you haven't really shown how Right Wing Watch is wrong. You've just proclaimed that it is.

And of course it's part of the media. All news websites are, no matter how fringe or biased.

Misunderstood? It was a useless and inappropriate recommendation regarding "my credibility" and a completely off topic link to a completely off topic article.

Not sure there is anything there there to misunderstand.

 

[Praktik]

Speaking solely for myself. You would gain a lot of credibility if you were to attack the subjects portrayed by RWW instead of attacking the messenger.

Want some role models? Here is an article about a (shock) Republican who blames Abortion for the recent horror in Longmont, CO. To their credit some Republicans aren't creating threads on forums trying to shame the media for reporting his words. They are actually condemning his words. Good for them.

Very well said kind sir

 

[The Big Dog]

Very well said kind sir

 

[DavidJames]

Well I tried. No more mister seriously trying to help.

You think RIGHT WING WATCH is the media?

Yes, a dictionary might help with your confusion. If you can't afford one or the print is to small, the Internet has a few.

By the way, although i am going to take a big hit on my "credibility" here, can i remind you that this thread is about RIGHT WING WATCH

Yes, which is why I suggested you discuss what they publish. I'm surprised you are confused by that.

Curious tho, that attacking and condemning are the only options you give me to "raise my credibility."

Even more curious is to how you add words and meaning to my words and then get butt hurt over your straw man.

Oh, for the record I'm neither surprised nor curious. Benghazi, HRC email, now this thread. repeat ad nauseam.

 

[varwoche]

I may have chanced upon RWW in the blurry past, but I'm not sure. Either way, I don't know much beyond what the name implies. So I opened this thread and lo and behold, here's the bottom of page 2 and I'm no more enlightened. That's because the only evidence presented is the use of the word fantasize. This is tea that falls short of weak -- it's downright Homeopathic.

12AX7, for sure, neutral sources are superior. But an agenda driven source can be a good way to find neutral sources, depending on what you're looking for. For instance, if I want to know the crazier things that Ted Cruz has uttered, I'm pleased when someone else has done the legwork, assuming the agenda source links to the neutral sources. I like Media Matters for this reason. If RWW follows this practice, maybe I'll check them out. I have no use for any agenda driven source that doesn't follow this practice.

 

[The Big Dog]

I may have chanced upon RWW in the blurry past, but I'm not sure. Either way, I don't know much beyond what the name implies. So I opened this thread and lo and behold, here's the bottom of page 2 and I'm no more enlightened. That's because the only evidence presented is the use of the word fantasize. This is tea that falls short of weak -- it's downright Homeopathic.

12AX7, for sure, neutral sources are superior. But an agenda driven source can be a good way to find neutral sources, depending on what you're looking for. For instance, if I want to know the crazier things that Ted Cruz has uttered, I'm pleased when someone else has done the legwork, assuming the agenda source links to the neutral sources. I like Media Matters for this reason. If RWW follows this practice, maybe I'll check them out. I have no use for any agenda driven source that doesn't follow this practice.

Does it bother you that media matters is basically part of the Hillary Clinton election campaign?

 

[varwoche]

Does it bother you that media matters is basically part of the Hillary Clinton election campaign?

How about you address the dearth of evidence you've produced concerning the thread topic before we go on a tangent?

 

[The Big Dog]

How about you address the dearth of evidence you've produced concerning the thread topic before we go on a tangent?

Lol, ok.

Checks not bothered

 

[varwoche]

Lol, ok.

Checks not bothered

I enjoy playing whack-a-mole ... at the arcade though.

 

[The Big Dog]

I enjoy playing whack-a-mole ... at the arcade though.

You mean duck a mole? Because you ducked my straightforward question.

 

[Cleon]

Does it bother you that media matters is basically part of the Hillary Clinton election campaign?

What does that mean, exactly?

 

[The Big Dog]

What does that mean, exactly?

It means that Hillary started and supports media matters and it in turn strongly supports her and her campaign.

In fact, the guy that runs media matters gave dozens of interviews when the Hillary Clinton email sever scandal came out sticking up for her and complaining about "right wing" newspapers like the ny times.

Basically mm is Hillary's unofficial propaganda/attack site.