How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
Ok, but since it was from 8 months ago, then you wouldn't be seeing it by only checking a few weeks back.
Why not just do a quick search on it. Anything that's actually breaking news would be in the news. In this case, all you had to do was put Gabbard's name into a search engine, and click "news", and it would give you all the most recent news articles about her. And you would have seen there was absolutely nothing "breaking" in the news in regards to what was being claimed in that post you shared.
So I then went to YouTube, did a search for "Gabbard + voting investigation" and that video clip was listed in the first 5 results. And clearly from 8 months ago.
And not just that, just the claims being made in the post. Did it never even cross your mind that the things being claimed are simply not possible, due to, you know, the US Constitution and various laws? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that states are responsible for their own voting laws and Presidents or intelligence agencies can't just cancel or postpone elections.
These are things that should be known by people who are deep into politics. Like people here are. Or should be easy to check to see if they're true for people on an elite research board. Like this one.
Just if something has posted about here in the past few weeks isn't checking to see if what is being claimed holds water or not.
Well, yes, if it's being touted as "breaking news" I absolutely do care that it's 8 months old.
I can guarantee you I am NOT the only one that has an issue with all the bogus "Breaking News!" that's just months or years old regurgitated dreck.
If you think it's interesting enough to pass on , that's fine. Do so. But make a note to tell people "Hey, I know this says "Breaking News!", but it's actually from ::insert whenever it's from here:" but I thought it would be a good idea to refresh this for ::insert whatever here::
Just because I'm the first person here, pointing out that this is NOT Breaking news doesn't mean no one else has an issue with it.
There's a whole lot of reasons why intellectual honesty matters and why misrepresenting info damages our credibility with normies, who, if you remember, we're supposed to be redpilling. And we aren't going to redpill people who think we're either liars, or that we don't pay attention to important news and don't realize that something is almost a year old, or that we just don't care about facts.
And I have not been "coming after you". I've been trying to figure out why we constantly have this issue with people constantly passing on "Breaking News!" that's months or years old. I've actually been trying very hard to be as gentle with you as possible over this, very gently steering you into better ways to check if a post is BS or not other than tediously scrolling through weeks and weeks of posts to see if someone had already posted about it or not. Now, if you want to see what me "coming after you" actually looks like, I can take the kids gloves off and put the boxing gloves on. Would you rather I do that?
The fact that you don't understand why this type of thing is problematic is troubling. It really, really is. And the fact that this has to be explained to you is troubling as well.
I'm 188% behind brain_deads efforts. But I feel the need to point it out in my case I'm just a "B" student, and you're picking on an anon called "brain_dead". So in a way there was pre-disclosure 🤔😒😉😄😄
Well, obviously I disagree that I'm "picking on them", but I feel the need to point out that my name literally means "Idiots Everywhere", so in a way, I guess I disclosed things to myself long ago. 🤷♀️
Consider there might be some "Sun Tzu" warfare going on. I haven't read the book, but "Pretend to be weak when you are strong" or "if your enemy is of a choleric temper, antagonize him" might be happening.
Or there's 82nd Airborne logic: "Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying themselves."
"I'm in the "More popcorn, please" camp 😉
How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
I usually look several weeks back. I have not seen this.
Ok, but since it was from 8 months ago, then you wouldn't be seeing it by only checking a few weeks back.
Why not just do a quick search on it. Anything that's actually breaking news would be in the news. In this case, all you had to do was put Gabbard's name into a search engine, and click "news", and it would give you all the most recent news articles about her. And you would have seen there was absolutely nothing "breaking" in the news in regards to what was being claimed in that post you shared.
So I then went to YouTube, did a search for "Gabbard + voting investigation" and that video clip was listed in the first 5 results. And clearly from 8 months ago.
And not just that, just the claims being made in the post. Did it never even cross your mind that the things being claimed are simply not possible, due to, you know, the US Constitution and various laws? You don't have to be a lawyer to know that states are responsible for their own voting laws and Presidents or intelligence agencies can't just cancel or postpone elections.
These are things that should be known by people who are deep into politics. Like people here are. Or should be easy to check to see if they're true for people on an elite research board. Like this one.
Just if something has posted about here in the past few weeks isn't checking to see if what is being claimed holds water or not.
It might be 8 months back but if I haven't seen it. I post it.
Do you mind that?
Just because it's 8 months, doesn't mean everyone else have seen it. You are the only one saying, "Hey. It's old."
I will take your idea and check but would you laid off coming after me on that?
Well, yes, if it's being touted as "breaking news" I absolutely do care that it's 8 months old.
I can guarantee you I am NOT the only one that has an issue with all the bogus "Breaking News!" that's just months or years old regurgitated dreck.
If you think it's interesting enough to pass on , that's fine. Do so. But make a note to tell people "Hey, I know this says "Breaking News!", but it's actually from ::insert whenever it's from here:" but I thought it would be a good idea to refresh this for ::insert whatever here::
Just because I'm the first person here, pointing out that this is NOT Breaking news doesn't mean no one else has an issue with it.
There's a whole lot of reasons why intellectual honesty matters and why misrepresenting info damages our credibility with normies, who, if you remember, we're supposed to be redpilling. And we aren't going to redpill people who think we're either liars, or that we don't pay attention to important news and don't realize that something is almost a year old, or that we just don't care about facts.
And I have not been "coming after you". I've been trying to figure out why we constantly have this issue with people constantly passing on "Breaking News!" that's months or years old. I've actually been trying very hard to be as gentle with you as possible over this, very gently steering you into better ways to check if a post is BS or not other than tediously scrolling through weeks and weeks of posts to see if someone had already posted about it or not. Now, if you want to see what me "coming after you" actually looks like, I can take the kids gloves off and put the boxing gloves on. Would you rather I do that?
The fact that you don't understand why this type of thing is problematic is troubling. It really, really is. And the fact that this has to be explained to you is troubling as well.
I'm 188% behind brain_deads efforts. But I feel the need to point it out in my case I'm just a "B" student, and you're picking on an anon called "brain_dead". So in a way there was pre-disclosure 🤔😒😉😄😄
Howls.
Well, obviously I disagree that I'm "picking on them", but I feel the need to point out that my name literally means "Idiots Everywhere", so in a way, I guess I disclosed things to myself long ago. 🤷♀️
Consider there might be some "Sun Tzu" warfare going on. I haven't read the book, but "Pretend to be weak when you are strong" or "if your enemy is of a choleric temper, antagonize him" might be happening. Or there's 82nd Airborne logic: "Never interrupt an enemy in the process of destroying themselves." "I'm in the "More popcorn, please" camp 😉