politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This amounts to an anecdote. This is the live national television equivalent of a tweet, and then someone wrote an article about the "tweet" this bumpkin made. There is no actual reporting done, no fact-checking (in before someone objects, "But wait! there were no facts to check!"), no following up with other sources. I doubt very much the "source" would agree with her characterization here. This is a nothingburger, and I have to agree with that guy getting spamdownvoted that this source is dogshit, while merrily disagreeing that MBFC is worth even half a turd.
it's an interview with one of the people that traveled there based on the "news" they consumed. It's not just 'an anecdote', it's a first person source from someone at the location who is part of this group that went there.
This isn't just a 'my uncle once saw xyz', you are mischaracterizing the context.
Also, in regards to MBFC,
dOgShIt!!!!!
this isn't a great "article" in general to post, but you're being extreme
Oh my bad, I see where I went wrong. I thought an anecdote was "not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." Now that you've provided me with the correct definition about your uncle, it's clear I was mischaracterizing this unreliable personal account unsubstantiated by facts or research as anecdotal. How silly of me to have made such a stupid, obvious mistake, and how arrogant of me to attempt to correct someone else without checking myself first. what was i thinking