Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ad Nausica's avatar

I didn't even get past the first line: "the Ottawa antivax convoy trucker occupation".

Was that a mistake, a Freudian slip, or an intentional smear? It undermines the author's credibility in the first line. Everybody knows that is a nonsense narrative. They are anti-mandates and passports. Most people there are vaccinated and support vaccination.

I suggest you edit to correct that.

Edit: Then later, "who posts photos and videos of antivax protesters".

OK, done. This author can't be taken seriously. Come The Line. You said No Bullshit. This author is saying multiple times the protestors are antivax either in ignorance or as a smear tactic. Come on. Don't throw away your credibility like this.

Expand full comment
Mark Ch's avatar

Not sure I should even bother commenting, after Ad Nausica's epic takedown, but I have a couple of points:

Who would say "Everything is documented from every angle and objective truth is impossible to attain. "? That makes it far easier to attain objective truth, as we have many angles from which to view what happened. It just means that we have to approach all the evidence with an open mind, and sincerely try our best to figure out what actually happened, using classic tools like careful observation and logical reasoning.

And then "People stream themselves online because online is where they feel most at home." Also absurd. People stream news events online because they believe that legacy media will simply lie about or ignore what is really happening. Of course McLeod's claim that documenting things from every angle makes objectivity impossible simply proves them right.

The actual issue is that legacy media continues to want to control the narrative, and is threatened offended by any competition. And that they do this, all the while pretending to themselves that they are telling "the truth", even when that is not supported by simple boring facts.

Expand full comment
40 more comments...

No posts