It's just biology, isn't it?

[LDUBS]

All I know is some guy with a doctorate in a pretty much useless field of study is saying some really dumb-a$$ things.

I actually can't believe we have gotten to the point where anyone is actually questioning why males should not be allowed to compete in female sports. What the heck. PC is completely out of hand.

 

[mbullen]

Often times there's an extreme shortage (usually non-existent) of outlets that will report on certain instances. Here we have a story that you likely would not have been able to read about without the report from DM. The biases are in the bias which is generally blatantly obvious to spot no matter where it's coming from. Here we have direct quotes and video. So now you can take the direct quotes and video and make your analysis without having to fault the outlet who brought them to you.

The Daily Mail is garbage. No need to extract anything.
In fact, I didn't even read the article, see the video, or need to discern the bias or absence of bias on any quotations.
I dismissed the entire package because it came from a garbage source.
This is the proper procedure to remain in an evidence-based reality.

 

[LDUBS]

The Daily Mail is garbage. No need to extract anything.
In fact, I didn't even read the article, see the video, or need to discern the bias or absence of bias on any quotations.
I dismissed the entire package because it came from a garbage source.
This is the proper procedure to remain in an evidence-based reality.

I don't read or know much about the Daily Mail other than it has a rep for a certain bias. What source do you use that is fair and reliable? Did your preferred news outlet contradict in any way the quotes attributed to this Yearwood person? Or, do they just put a different spin? I would love to find a US based news outlet that is not biased.

 

[mbullen]

I don't read or know much about the Daily Mail other than it has a rep for a certain bias. What source do you use that is fair and reliable? Did your preferred news outlet contradict in any way the quotes attributed to this Yearwood person? Or, do they just put a different spin? I would love to find a US based news outlet that is not biased.

You will not find a news outlet without bias.
You *will* find many outlets with extreme bias. First step is to eliminate those wholly.

Even the most centrist outlets are subject to the bias of the reporters now as the traditional newsroom with editors does not exist. All outlets are monetized for subscription or clicks. Both scenarios lead to sensational headlines and subject matter - especially culture war nonsense. Outrage is the commodity.

As far as this article, I didn't read it, nor do I care to. I already know that after nearly a decade of studying the tools of propaganda that it would be a waste of energy. The Daily Mail falls squarely in the extreme bias category. It's would be a waste of time. I would not use such a source to confirm or deny any other source. And if it is hosting a topic singularly, that is the very definition of a propagandized story.

As far as sources for sources, your best bet is to follow an aggregator and look at the trends. I use the Ground News app among several others. However, Ground News uses AI to aggregate over 50,000 global outlets, aggregates content, rates legitimacy based on common information, and charts distribution. It also has a 'blindspot' feature that shows only info being released wholly on either right wing or left wing outlets and calculates the percentages of potential viewership.

Basically, don't trust anyone. Verify the important stuff with multiple outlets. And discard the easily discardable "sources".
It actually won't take long to not only be able to glean the important details, but also to recognize the tools of spin.

It's also worth noting that "spin" is an entirely different animal than misinformation and disinformation.

Brave new world, eh?

 

[Sinkingfast]

I remember when Walter Cronkite came back from Vietnam and gave us his opinion...caught a ton of crap for it.

 

[LDUBS]

You will not find a news outlet without bias.
You *will* find many outlets with extreme bias. First step is to eliminate those wholly.

Even the most centrist outlets are subject to the bias of the reporters now as the traditional newsroom with editors does not exist. All outlets are monetized for subscription or clicks. Both scenarios lead to sensational headlines and subject matter - especially culture war nonsense. Outrage is the commodity.

As far as this article, I didn't read it, nor do I care to. I already know that after nearly a decade of studying the tools of propaganda that it would be a waste of energy. The Daily Mail falls squarely in the extreme bias category. It's would be a waste of time. I would not use such a source to confirm or deny any other source. And if it is hosting a topic singularly, that is the very definition of a propagandized story.

As far as sources for sources, your best bet is to follow an aggregator and look at the trends. I use the Ground News app among several others. However, Ground News uses AI to aggregate over 50,000 global outlets, aggregates content, rates legitimacy based on common information, and charts distribution. It also has a 'blindspot' feature that shows only info being released wholly on either right wing or left wing outlets and calculates the percentages of potential viewership.

Basically, don't trust anyone. Verify the important stuff with multiple outlets. And discard the easily discardable "sources".
It actually won't take long to not only be able to glean the important details, but also to recognize the tools of spin.

It's also worth noting that "spin" is an entirely different animal than misinformation and disinformation.

Brave new world, eh?

This story was far from hosted singularly by any one news outlet. It was all over the news.

In general I agree our news has turned into talk show channels with biased commentary targeting specific audiences. Everything needs to be fact checked and put into context.

Watch out for catch-22. That channel is biased because the other biased channel told me to think that!

 

[mbullen]

This story was far from hosted singularly by any one news outlet. It was all over the news.

In general I agree our news has turned into talk show channels with biased commentary targeting specific audiences. Everything needs to be fact checked and put into context.

Watch out for catch-22. That channel is biased because the other biased channel told me to think that!

Well, if it was all over the news, zero of the AI aggregators can find it.
This made me curious, so I actually read the DM article...
This is not a story at all. Nor an article.
It is a retelling of an response given to a conservative speaker on a university campus.
There is no primary information here.
It's gossip.
If folks are finding this all over the news, it is being amplified by an echo chamber.

As for a catch-22, did I mention an aggregate of over 50,000 global sources?

 

[LDUBS]

Well, if it was all over the news, zero of the AI aggregators can find it.
This made me curious, so I actually read the DM article...
This is not a story at all. Nor an article.
It is a retelling of an response given to a conservative speaker on a university campus.
There is no primary information here.
It's gossip.
If folks are finding this all over the news, it is being amplified by an echo chamber.

As for a catch-22, did I mention an aggregate of over 50,000 global sources?

If you found nothing in your sources, I would suggest there are some filters in place. I'll try to give another perspective to what you call gossip. A woman athlete spoke out about the unfairness of allowing biological males to compete in her sport. A professor tried to use his PhD credentials to justify what is apparently a very unscientific comment about skeletal differences between males and females. You can agree or disagree with either or both the athlete or professor, but calling it gossip implies something unconfirmed, which is not the case here.

 

[mbullen]

If you found nothing in your sources, I would suggest there are some filters in place. I'll try to give another perspective to what you call gossip. A woman athlete spoke out about the unfairness of allowing biological males to compete in her sport. A professor tried to use his PhD credentials to justify what is apparently a very unscientific comment about skeletal differences between males and females. You can agree or disagree with either or both the athlete or professor, but calling it gossip implies something unconfirmed, which is not the case here.

Its a tabloid gossip piece contextuized to illicit emotion.
The swimmer was on a talk circuit of universities. A talk circuit. Not a class. Not a press conference. A circuit.
The audience - who obviously lean conservative or they wouldn't be there - laughed at a response from a professor.

All of it third hand information contextualized to highlight the laughter. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, that means its wholly unimportant.
There are no primary sources to the science one way or another.
There are no citations to anything.
Its a *reporting* of an exchange, not a report.
It's gossip disguised as news.
Its par for the Daily Mail.
Its sensationalized garbage.

The kernel of truth that makes it seem relevant is that it touches on a culture war talking point. But don't be mistaken....this piece does not report on science, it "reports" on an exchange of quips.
The AI aggregators are not picking it up because its not news.

 

[LDUBS]

Its a tabloid gossip piece contextuized to illicit emotion.
The swimmer was on a talk circuit of universities. A talk circuit. Not a class. Not a press conference. A circuit.
The audience - who obviously lean conservative or they wouldn't be there - laughed at a response from a professor.

All of it third hand information contextualized to highlight the laughter. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, that means its wholly unimportant.
There are no primary sources to the science one way or another.
There are no citations to anything.
Its a *reporting* of an exchange, not a report.
It's gossip disguised as news.
Its par for the Daily Mail.
Its sensationalized garbage.

The kernel of truth that makes it seem relevant is that it touches on a culture war talking point. But don't be mistaken....this piece does not report on science, it "reports" on an exchange of quips.
The AI aggregators are not picking it up because its not news.

Oh boy. That woman athlete has had many press conferences. I believe what she and many other women athletes are saying is important, and along with those who push back, is considered news. I certainly do not consider it a "quip". It was reported by several news outlets in addition to the one you dislike. The professor's comment is not unsupported gossip. That is just deflection. About the laughter, It is good to see at least some students don't quietly accept nonsense.

Rant about Daily Mail all you want. But agree or not, you can't say these women don't have a valid and newsworthy complaint about biological males competing in their sports. Not to mention hanging their dicks out in the women's locker rooms. Not to mention the PhD's attempt to push back with a lame comment.

 

[mbullen]

Oh boy. That woman athlete has had many press conferences. I believe what she and many other women athletes are saying is important, and along with those who push back, is considered news. I certainly do not consider it a "quip". It was reported by several news outlets in addition to the one you dislike. The professor's comment is not unsupported gossip. That is just deflection. About the laughter, It is good to see at least some students don't quietly accept nonsense.

Rant about Daily Mail all you want. But agree or not, you can't say these women don't have a valid and newsworthy complaint about biological males competing in their sports. Not to mention hanging their dicks out in the women's locker rooms. Not to mention the PhD's attempt to push back with a lame comment.

What I think is irrelevant and the ideas you present are not conveyed in that Daily Mail link.
You are extrapolating beyond the information given.

This is point I have been underlining.

If you want actual news and information about any of that stuff, it is available from legitimate sources. Sources that will give citation to real data and present the concepts of friction.

The Daily Mail piece is about a quip and a response.
It is framed to illicit emotion and lead you to extrapolate.
It is full of textbook keywords and leading phrases to illicit a desired response.

It's how propaganda works.
The Daily Mail is a tool of propaganda.
This piece demonstrates that by definition.
It is noise that infiltrates and influences the background of legitimate conversations.

I'll repeat the opening statement I presented even without knowledge of the content of the article...
The Daily Mail is not a legitimate source for anything.
It's tabloid garbage.
For instance, there can be a legitimate conversation of extraterrestrials, including experts in the field, cited and sourced data, and eyewitness accounts...
...but no one will advance their knowledge of any of that through the National Inquirer.
Same thing.

 

[mbullen]

This is the last post I'll speak to this matter.
I knew better than to engage in non-boat material.
I did not intend to weigh in on any of the controversy, in fact, I stepped in without even knowing the content of the controversy.
I didn't even read the article until much later in the exchanges.
My every statement has centered on the quality of a news source -or the lack thereof- and the pitfalls of the modern information sharing.
When I say this isn't news, I'm speaking entirely if *this exchange* as reported in the DM article.
When I say that its reported singularly, I'm speaking of *this exchange* as reported in the DM article.
And *this exchange* is the whole report.
Any other feelings on the broader subject matter is an extrapolation. The exact response meant to be illicited by a non-news report *on an exchange* of words. A quip.
It's a matter of one person speaking to a singular tree while other folks exclaim, " butwhatabout the forest??".
Its how this crap works.
Doesn't matter the subject...enter your favorite culture war here.

Ultimately I stand by every comment vehemently...and I would urge everyone to recognize every comment is about the source - not the subject matter.
The subject matter is irrelevant to my every point.

later taters.

 

[mbullen]

...and one more just for giggles.
It is in fact *very* difficult to identify the *** of a skeleton.
Especially pre-pubescent skeletons.
I'm not a anthropologist with a PhD, but I do have an Bachelors in Biology and have spent some quality time at Dr. Bass' Body Farm.
And ultimately, identifying skeletons doesn't have a damn thing to do with transgender conversations or sports or any culture war of choice.
It's just the science of identifying skeletons. Full stop.
Sometimes, being educated is just that.

 

[CRS]

A few things about the "news" it's all biased in one way or another. Facts are left out, statements are edited, photos and clips are edited and staged. Nothing said or seen on the news can be believed. The producers choice of "facts" and photos are not really lies except they are presented in such a way that makes them lies. When the producers support a cause or person all photos show mass support or empty seats, both are available. A persons statements are taken out of context or partial, leaving out qualifiers that completely change the meaning. All this has led me to ignore the "news" totally, the "reporters" are biased and the "news" anchors are just plain talking parrots without any intelligence.

 

[LDUBS]

This is the last post I'll speak to this matter.
I knew better than to engage in non-boat material.
I did not intend to weigh in on any of the controversy, in fact, I stepped in without even knowing the content of the controversy.
I didn't even read the article until much later in the exchanges.
My every statement has centered on the quality of a news source -or the lack thereof- and the pitfalls of the modern information sharing.
When I say this isn't news, I'm speaking entirely if *this exchange* as reported in the DM article.
When I say that its reported singularly, I'm speaking of *this exchange* as reported in the DM article.
And *this exchange* is the whole report.
Any other feelings on the broader subject matter is an extrapolation. The exact response meant to be illicited by a non-news report *on an exchange* of words. A quip.
It's a matter of one person speaking to a singular tree while other folks exclaim, " butwhatabout the forest??".
Its how this crap works.
Doesn't matter the subject...enter your favorite culture war here.

Ultimately I stand by every comment vehemently...and I would urge everyone to recognize every comment is about the source - not the subject matter.
The subject matter is irrelevant to my every point.

later taters.

And, my comments clearly focus on the issue, taken as a whole, not the news source. That is what is important here. So as not to dilute the issue, perhaps you should start your own thread about biased news sources.

I won't guarantee this is my last post.

 

[LDUBS]

...and one more just for giggles.
It is in fact *very* difficult to identify the *** of a skeleton.
Especially pre-pubescent skeletons.
I'm not a anthropologist with a PhD, but I do have an Bachelors in Biology and have spent some quality time at Dr. Bass' Body Farm.
And ultimately, identifying skeletons doesn't have a **** thing to do with transgender conversations or sports or any culture war of choice.
It's just the science of identifying skeletons. Full stop.
Sometimes, being educated is just that.

My focus has been clear and my comments hopefully fair, and not once have I said anything about transgender conversion. The argument is that biological men and women are different, including their skeletal structure. Hence the question. The question of a biological male's skeleton being larger and more robust should have a place in the discussion about biological males competing against women. Disagreement on this is surprising to me, but so be it.

I made it clear in my early post I agreed about bias in our news, and I'm sure you will take exception, but I would include all news sources. What should not happen, in my opinion, is an important issue is ignored because it is more important to take sides against either the conservative or liberal news outlet.

BTW, it has nothing to do with this discussion, but coincidentally, my son has a PhD in Anthopology. He managed a dig in Romania for a couple of years that focused on a pre-Roman settlement. He also did field work in Turkey and Scotland.

 

[LDUBS]

A few things about the "news" it's all biased in one way or another. Facts are left out, statements are edited, photos and clips are edited and staged. Nothing said or seen on the news can be believed. The producers choice of "facts" and photos are not really lies except they are presented in such a way that makes them lies. When the producers support a cause or person all photos show mass support or empty seats, both are available. A persons statements are taken out of context or partial, leaving out qualifiers that completely change the meaning. All this has led me to ignore the "news" totally, the "reporters" are biased and the "news" anchors are just plain talking parrots without any intelligence.

Very true. It is common to hear things completely out of context. Then when you listen to the actual comment, it is completely different that what was reported. Happens on both sides routinely I'm afraid.

 

[-CN-]

If you want actual news and information about any of that stuff, it is available from legitimate sources. Sources that will give citation to real data and present the concepts of friction

Citation to real data would include video evidence and direct quotes, which are used to report what happened here. To put your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes to an exchange regarding a subject that factually happened just because you don't like the outlet that it came from is ***inine. Quotes and video snippets do not tell the whole story, but no singular outlet does. I prefer to know more, not less, and here's something you didn't know before as you have stated adamantly that you were not even aware that this happened. How many things do you not want to know just because you don't like an outlet that brings them to you? Again, ***inine.

 

[mbullen]

Citation to real data would include video evidence and direct quotes, which are used to report what happened here. To put your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes to an exchange regarding a subject that factually happened just because you don't like the outlet that it came from is ***inine. Quotes and video snippets do not tell the whole story, but no singular outlet does. I prefer to know more, not less, and here's something you didn't know before as you have stated adamantly that you were not even aware that this happened. How many things do you not want to know just because you don't like an outlet that brings them to you? Again, ***inine.

Do you actually know more having the Daily Mail event in your quiver?
Or do you now hold more outrage about the subject as a whole after having read their framing about an inconsequential exchange of words.
How does a conversational exchange out of context further your knowledge?

You guys are missing the point about how propaganda works.
It is indeed possible -and proper- to dismiss entire sources out of hand when their intent is known.
These are the tools of an echo chamber and outrage machine.

But do carry on, culture warriors.
I believe I've had enough. Some folks comprehension coils are just wired differently.

 

[-CN-]

Do you actually know more having the Daily Mail event in your quiver?
Or do you now hold more outrage about the subject as a whole after having read their framing about an inconsequential exchange of words.
How does a conversational exchange out of context further your knowledge?

You guys are missing the point about how propaganda works.
It is indeed possible -and proper- to dismiss entire sources out of hand when their intent is known.
These are the tools of an echo chamber and outrage machine.

But do carry on, culture warriors.
I believe I've had enough. Some folks comprehension coils are just wired differently.

That is the first Daily Mail posting I believe I have ever read. I don't arm myself with "facts" from any particular sources. Video and quotes, WHEN YOU SEEK OUT THE CONTEXT are what are indisputable. I don't care either way about this story as I am already aware of the ignorance propagated on college compuses. But here is an example of it. which is factual. I don't care if the name of the site was ifancypeepeehoaxes.com. I am intelligent enough to decipher the takeaway. And if I can know something, I welcome knowing it, not shutting it out.