By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Dravenet7 on 19 February 2017
Edit Thread
robzo100 said:
Dravenet7 said:

yeah this is absolutely a political discussion. The only substantive point you give regarding your (re)definition fake news is all about politics. Everything else is merely a very vague suggestion that it could be in any other subject matters. Nothing of substance. I consider this thread in the same category or your (re)definition of fake. The only reason you made this thread is because of politics. Nothing more nothing less.

If it wasn't stressed already, your definition of fake is wrong. Don't just try to change the definition of words to suit whatever agenda you have. I avoid these politics threads because they are so flagrantly annoying in regards to manipulating information.

Enough with the, "Alternative Fake News" and "Alternative Not Just Politics".

EDIT: I'd be hard pressed to bet more than 2 people in this thread discussing or suggesting anything other politics. So far there are none. This doesn't belong in the General Discussion.

It may belong in the Political Thread. Even if you're right on that count how does it carry over to the topic not having substance? Two different points.

The "general" part was in regards to this term being the equivalant of fast-food. The notion that fake news isn't just about false stories but that it is also used for shallow trivial/small news but then being passed on as though they were the opposite of that. This is the linked story/example in the OP. I'm saying it's important to realize the concept isn't exclusive to the genre of Politics. From that stand point I wasn't sure hwo the conversation would evolve.

Yes you are right those are two completely different points. I never made the second point about the topic not having any substance. I specifically said, "the only substantiave point you give regarding your (re)definition of fake news is all about politics. Everything else is merely is merely a vague suggestion that it could be in any other subject matters. [Thus, they have] Nothing of substance."

I read the op and I am aware of your analogy. Analogies are good, always good because they highlight, clarify or make information easier to understand, but they are nothing of substance. It isn't a matter of whether you are right or wrong in your argument. If you are saying something like it doesn't revolve around more than this subject matter, you actually have to give at LEAST one actual example of one instance where it isn't about that subject matter, and that is typically for one situation. You include, "videogames, entertainment, music, food, politics, sports, etc. " Yet the only actual example of fake (... or fast) anything you actually give is regarding Trump. If you want to someone to realize a concept you actually have to put context for that in your argument. I clicked on this feeling I completely wasted my time. It all comes off as you wanting to put a seed of politics into things it doesn't belong just to further "whatever agenda you have". Now again, I don't know your full agenda but I frankly don't care. I avoid politics in general to begin with. Your argument is centralized on something happening in politics not more than politics.