nsrxn

joined 1 week ago
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

this hasn't been a conversation for hours

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I thought if you had read it this might be a worthwhile conversation.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I wanted to see if it was worth continuing this conversation

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

I'm confident it is propaganda, but not having seen it, I don't know what politics it is pushing.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (7 children)
[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

not having seen it, I obviously can't tell you what is messages are.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I have no interest though. do you have a point?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (9 children)

have you read Foucault?

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

if anyone thinks any of these spammed links is proof, please point it out. I'm not clicking every one. this is the most blatant Gish gallops I've seen in months.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

calling me names won't change the facts.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

only one of them* is peer-reviewed. it doesn't actually support the claim that you're using it to support. The others are of dubious validity, but they also don't make the same very strong claim that you have.

edit: "them" was in reference to the comment a few back in the thread. the gish gallop of links that appeared after i wrote this comment all appear to be peer reviewed.

[–] nsrxn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 days ago (4 children)

no, I'm examining your position, and the evidence provided, and found that they are insufficient.

view more: ‹ prev next ›