Blogs, including Substack, are not allowed.
i’m more reputable than substack (yes, the entirety of it) and y’all ain’t exactly believe me when i say shit. take this down.
show a little skepticism. just because it agrees with your biases doesn’t make it true.
Oh genocide liberal, you want to nuke Iran?
do i get to press the button?
no… no i shouldn’t
Liberals when they can’t debunk the article for calling out their genocidal Nazi media:
“SUBSTACK BAD!!”"
hey i’m not the one looking at nazi bars for “news”. we considering stormfront a reliable source now? how about medium or random blogs?
Report the post. That’s the solution
yes that works.
Article asserts a bunch of things as fact without evidence. Ironic, for an article about unreliable media.
Bourgeoisie media inventing consent for bourgeoisie imperialist wars. So called “free” media
What’s the tinfoil budget in your household?
?
Calling out the Fourth Estate for its role in enforcing status quo narratives makes you paranoid, apparently.
I think most people take issue with the source of the article as less than reputable and then their willingness to make sweeping inferences from it.
That’s the one. Substack is opinionated agenda writing, but with added libel and without all that pesky journalism. If I have to choose only between those two sources, it’s not gonna be good.
Tinfoil Hat:
Conspiracy Theorists, such as yourself, are commonly depicted as wearing a Tinfoil Hat
This is due to a popular conspiracy in the 70s that FM Radio was brainwashing people and all you needed to do to prevent it was wear a tinfoil hat
I can’t take an article that calls the BBC “MI6 Media” seriously, I get that there is plenty of people with good reason to dislike/hate the BBC, and using insulting names for organizations is funny in forum posts, but in an article where you claim to work with facts, you should stick to the facts.
I may call Trump “the Drumpfster” or Putin “Putte” in informal conversations, but if I am making an article about them, I will use the proper names.
If what is claimed happened, this sounds more like a reporter with a history of similar behavior working for the BBC inventing a quote, which the BBC retracted once it was found out to be bullshit.
It’s a Substack “article”. It’s maybe one professional step above a random blog with 17 followers…
Actually its below that. Substack is famous for housing nazis and conspiracy nuts.
Oh, is it now? I don’t deal much with it and last time I checked it was a Medium wannabe with some tools geared towards tech professionals.
Its home to many weirdos (some of which i must admit i used to read) like the kind of anarcho capitalist “lets lower minimum age of consent” and “lets build special economic zones exempt from human rights laws” kinda people. Also lots of big tech adjacent peter thiel friends.
Sure there is still good stuff on there but it just doesnt make up for all the crap.
tl;dr: the BBC article removed this sentence from the quote they used and this blogger noticed it
