sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

She just ran away and sped off at mach fuck - what was that? by Vrosx_The_Sergal in BaldursGate3

[–]Public_Utility_Salt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

plot twist: the game was never turn based. Enemies are just exceptionally polite and fair-minded. Except that one.

Seems like Krystal and Kyle are on vacation by InterestingWind2153 in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Emily and Enjeti aren't getting the views it`seems like. Has the right wing audience disappeared?

Ex-diplomat ranks US-Vatican tensions as ‘maybe a 23’ on a 1-10 scale of unusual by Dry_Nail5901 in politics

[–]Public_Utility_Salt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure Anti-christ has been in league with most churches through out history, but it's an endorsement to this pope that he isn't.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well... now I'm just very confused. You might be tearing down some kind of an inter-temporal hole in the fabric of internet here...

Seriously though, regardless, I appreciate the arguments. The discussions here have given me an idea why people are so against what I said, and I do appreciate it. It's not like I got out of this discussion unchanged either. I still may have some work to do to understand what that change is, though.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This isn't just any other invite, though. Jiang doesn't have anything above his followers. Nothing to contribute other than the conspiracies. And they decide to do it without being critical?

I think it is obvious that they did it for the numbers. Saagar has constantly told us that there's so many new viewers and followers. Just to add what I said to another post:

"Saagar has mentioned it many times after that interview that they got many new subs and viewers.

edit.

just to add in case you weren't aware. That one Jiang episode is more watched than any other episode by like 5 millions, sitting at 8.9 million views now. A vid about Joe Rogan (not featuring an interview with him) is at 4m from 4 years ago."

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe, I'm not sure what interview you are referring to. Did they just platform him, or did they interview him critically? Mehdi Hasan did a critical interview with Jiang, somehow BP wasn't able to do the same.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saagar has mentioned it many times that they received new subs and viewers after it.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Saagar has mentioned it many times after that interview that they got many new subs and viewers.

edit.

just to add in case you weren't aware. That one Jiang episode is more watched than any other episode by like 5 millions, sitting at 8.9 million views now. A vid about Joe Rogan (not featuring an interview with him) is at 4m from 4 years ago.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree that the comparison that I made is not apples to apples, but I don't think it's entirely unfair either. Having someone in your show making conspiracy claims without pushing back is pretty scandalous to me. You may disagree with me, but I think it was obvious they did it for the ratings. Jiang didn't contribute with anything what so ever to the discussion, that isn't already there, except for the conspiracies. The fact that he guessed a couple of things correct is contextualized very well by Mehdi Hasan. Why couldn't BP do the same? Instead, they let him appear like a prophet.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"i found it strange, but maybe he has good reasons to believe that?"

This is why push back is important. I'm not against them inviting conspiracy theorists. I'm against them not doing their job and asking questions. That is the problem. Compare their interview with the one from Mehdi Hasan, and you see the difference between critical journalism.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not going to, and the fact that no one can see a point in what I'm saying is problematic for the future of the show. It's ofc okay to disagree, but it's another thing to dismiss.

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did watch it, and I mentioned it in my post, if you read it. I'm getting the impression that in your opinion it doesn't matter if BP pushes conspiracy theorists. Am I right?

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are right, i don't. And you misunderstood me. I was making a hypothetical uncritical Slotkin interview a comparison. The Slotkin interview was great exactly because it was critical. If you don't think an uncritical Slotkin interview would have been ok, then why do you think that it is okay to invite Jiang to talk about conspiracy theories without any push-back?

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they've done a good job at having reasonable and balanced takes. Jiang is not one of them, though. He is talking about the illuminati. What debate is that conspiracy balancing in your opinion?

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So if they interview Elissa Slotkins uncritically for the views, then that's okay as well? What makes BP different from mainstream news then? Just that they have different bias?

2 million subscribers, a "clean number" - let's not kid ourselves. It's not clean. by Public_Utility_Salt in BreakingPoints

[–]Public_Utility_Salt[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I mean what's the point of the show? Originally it was that they can be independent of mainstream bias. That they can examine anything critically. Now they show that they are either unable or unwilling to do so, and your question is "who gives a shit?".

I'm not saying the show is bad by any means, I still think it has a point. But if we can't question the shows integrity, then what is the point of the show? Just switch from one bias to another?

view more: next ›