🎓 Dr. Freemo 
🇳🇱
@freemo@social.cleverlibre.org
- UFoI Member
- http://UFoI.org/u/freemo/
- Website
- http://JeffreyFreeman.me
- Gitlab
- https://git.qoto.org/freemo
Admin
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE
Joined Jul 2018
Wait till she finds all the porn!
(I know I posted about this but it needed a screenshot).
> of course they do exist. even if they left everyone at one side and nobody at the other, the lines would still be there. but it's certainly not the case that they do.
There are examples where a person may exploit another, and in that action be the exclusive exploiter.. but to suggest any one person exploits others and has no ways they are exploited back (either by the same groupor a different) isnt fair... The divides arent that clean cut.
> a single line separating those making a net profit out of exploitation, from those making a net loss to exploitation.
Hmmm maybe... im going to think out loud as I type this, lets see where I go on this...
So lets say person A goes and owns a sweat shop exploiting little kids and makes 100 profit a year.
Lets say, just for hypothetical sake this person was also exploited in some way... some poor person comes over and robs him of 10 a year at gun point.
So if we are talking direct profit and not secondary effects in this case its nice and clean and easy to say they profit off explotation. In the real world things are more complex, but in the end I think, at least subjectively, we could tally it in a complex system with enough time and effort... so that checks.
However where I might be critical of this thinking is pointing out in only covers direct effects. The trauma, the lost income, and bad mistakes this person might make as a result of their exploitation by beinf robbed might be significant, and in secondary ways may drastically effect how much they are exploited or do the exploiting... these effects are also much much harder to measure.
Then we also have issues with the usefulness of the measure in other ways... for example are we just measuring the profit from exploitation or the intentional profit from exploitation... So an old lady investing in her 401K automatically into a company that is a sweat shop... is she more guilty than the guy nearly murdering someone for 10$? ....
So while I'd agree the line, int he way you framed it, exists... it also looses any useful meaning as a result.
@N3VEM everyone knows CW on a sparkgap transmitter is the only true ham radio
Yes I am aware, and I did read it (though didnt need to)... Labeling anything as a conspiracy is loaded language very much conveys an opinion with bias.
Dont get me wrong I do agree all their views are conspiracies, but again I recognize that is an opinion I have (one i feel strongly is true).. but it is not an objective unbiased use of language that can be explained away as objective fact.
🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱
boosted
🇳🇱
boosted
> Again, you didn’t read the article and you are now making incorrect statements about it. You’re also making some pretty misguided assumptions about me. Ironic.
I have made no assertions about the content of the article. I made assertions about the agency, the headline and first line... the rest of the article I made **no** claims about... so why would i have to read the whole article when im not commenting on the rest of the article?
> Go read the entire article. And click on the link titled “Save the Children Convoy.” Read that one, too. They bring the receipts.
Bringing receipts to justify your opinion or bias doesnt change the fact that you express opinion or bias. So that wouldnt change the fact that it lacks journalistic integrity.
If a journalist says "Bob murdered bill, and bob is a horrible person".. while "bob is a horrible person" is an opinion I agree with, and "bob murdered bill" may be a statement of fact with proof shown... none of that changes the fact taht the conclusion of "bob is a horrible person" is an expression of opinion (drawn from facts, but still an opinion). Thus has no place in journalism... Doubly so if your website is "News on murderers so we can bring awareness to how shitty murderers are"... like yea I agree with the cause, but thats nor journalism, thats activism.
> I don’t agree with your assertion that an ideological leaning negates reliability in journalism.
Simply having an ideological leaning doesnt.. but when your news agency promises to encode that ideological leaning in their reporting (not even accidental, but intentionally incorporates it) then yes, 100% lacks journalistic integrity.
> Read the article - Then, tell me what you would change. I’m not looking for an essay, just a sentence or two reporting the facts as you think a non-biased, responsible journalist would. I’m really interested in how you will frame the pedophilia accusations the group is making.
I can already tell you what I'd change as there are enough issues in the first lines and headline... Issues that can not be corrected with "receipts" because they are opinions about the facts, not the facts themselves.
Here are the corrections I'd make:
PressProgress -> PressNeutrality
far-right -> anti-LGBT
"Pedophile Conspiracy convoy" -> This needs to be completely reworked on a few accounts.. 1) the meaning is ambiguous, it may suggest they are pedophilias who beleive in conspiuracy theoryes for example 2) Calling it a conspiracy is f course inherently bias where again anti-lgbt is factually accurate without lacking the journalistic integrity
etc etc.
LOL someone on facebook just told my my "language is not welcome" because I used fuck in a post (not in any way that was directed at a person)...
Well lady, I see this is your first day on the internet.. please let me introduce you to the back where the real shit goes down....
No fair and balanced is bias too because your suggestions you will appeal to both biases, thats not journalistic integrity either. Journalistic integrity delivers the facts and doesnt try to deliver ANY bias or intepritations, so there is no need to "balance" them.
@lxo Sadly those lines dont exist... Everyone has ways in which they are exploited, and exploiter, no one is exclusively one or the other.. its a mixed bad.
> the title and first line report objective facts
No they dont.. While I agree with you that the opinions expressed are true (and therefore i subjectively am of the opinion they are facts) .. they are not **objective** facts, they are opinions derrived from facts, but themselves are not objective.
They are anti-lgbt, and think that story time, for example, will lead to grooming, but also a ton of other issues.. Obviously I am of the opinion that this is wrong and just "conspiracy".. but i have the common sense to know that isnt an "objective" fact, it is a **subjective** **interpretation** of the fact that they are anti-lgbt. The problem is everyone on both sides of any issue is so famn hyperbolic they need to pretend their bias and retoric and opinion is "objective fact" like some how that is morally superior... No its subjective fact, and I can still be morally superior to them and my assertation that is subjective is just as valid.
The other issue is calling them far-right, or even right... while again, I agree with this assertation it is obvious to anyone that a position on the left-right scale is one that a person must weigh subjectively, it is not an objective truth.
When you take actual facts like anti-lgbt, and rebrand it as "conspiracy" right or wrong, you have lost **all** journalistic integrity and objectivity is clearly no longer the goal.
> Again, you didn’t read the article and you are now making incorrect statements about it. You’re also making some pretty misguided assumptions about me. Ironic.
I have made no assertions about the content of the article. I made assertions about the agency, the headline and first line... the rest of the article I made **no** claims about... so why would i have to read the whole article when im not commenting on the rest of the article?
> Go read the entire article. And click on the link titled “Save the Children Convoy.” Read that one, too. They bring the receipts.
Bringing receipts to justify your opinion or bias doesnt change the fact that you express opinion or bias. So that wouldnt change the fact that it lacks journalistic integrity.
If a journalist says "Bob murdered bill, and bob is a horrible person".. while "bob is a horrible person" is an opinion I agree with, and "bob murdered bill" may be a statement of fact with proof shown... none of that changes the fact taht the conclusion of "bob is a horrible person" is an expression of opinion (drawn from facts, but still an opinion). Thus has no place in journalism... Doubly so if your website is "News on murderers so we can bring awareness to how shitty murderers are"... like yea I agree with the cause, but thats nor journalism, thats activism.
> I don’t agree with your assertion that an ideological leaning negates reliability in journalism.
Simply having an ideological leaning doesnt.. but when your news agency promises to encode that ideological leaning in their reporting (not even accidental, but intentionally incorporates it) then yes, 100% lacks journalistic integrity.
> Read the article - Then, tell me what you would change. I’m not looking for an essay, just a sentence or two reporting the facts as you think a non-biased, responsible journalist would. I’m really interested in how you will frame the pedophilia accusations the group is making.
I can already tell you what I'd change as there are enough issues in the first lines and headline... Issues that can not be corrected with "receipts" because they are opinions about the facts, not the facts themselves.
Here are the corrections I'd make:
PressProgress -> PressNeutrality
far-right -> anti-LGBT
"Pedophile Conspiracy convoy" -> This needs to be completely reworked on a few accounts.. 1) the meaning is ambiguous, it may suggest they are pedophilias who beleive in conspiuracy theoryes for example 2) Calling it a conspiracy is f course inherently bias where again anti-lgbt is factually accurate without lacking the journalistic integrity
etc etc.
I was not claiming you were hallucinating.. this comment was directed at disinformation, not you... you are good and as always have discussed things in intellectually honest ways...
Dont worry your good.
@thatguyoverthere @BigMcLargeHuge @TruthSandwich @wiseguyeddie
@marathon@social.freetalklive.com Its a science sure... but most scientists would call it a "soft" science, same with psychology as a whole really. Not because it is any less rigerous, but largely because of the nature of what is being tested is hard to isolate and test, so the results are "softer"
That was directly as disinformation man, not you, sorry.
@thatguyoverthere @BigMcLargeHuge @TruthSandwich @wiseguyeddie
Just for clarity my **opinion** is that the articles bias and the conclusions that leads to is likely one I agree with... I mean there is no shortage of conspiracy theorists in the right, so it is very likely an opinion I likely would agree with... It still has absolutely no place in a news article.
> You have a lot to say about an article you didn’t read.
No, I dont.. in fact I made quite clear I have nothing to say about the content of the article, particularly cause I couldnt get past the cringe to read it.. thats ALL I said... thats not a "lot" thats very little....
> PressProgress leans left, but they are reliable journalists
That is a contradiction.. you cant have a political lean in your journalism and still be a reliable journalist... that is contrary to journalistic integrity by its very nature. That said, it is the norm in journalism these days and with few exceptions there is very little journalism that lives up to the standards of that name.
> And there’s no bias in the first line of the article - just a straight reporting of facts, ugly as they are.
Sounds exactly like what someone would say who has bias and wants their bias confirmed... It was an expression of opinion... Not a presentation of facts.. facts would be the events themselves, who said what, what actions were taken, without an a preferred interpretation sold along with that. That is not at all what the tone of the first few lines convey.
Not what I said.. you also have this bad habit of saying things I didnt say... here is what I sayd...
> Ya know who have a negative definition of it? People and grouos incapable of comrpomise :)
So I said that if you view the **definition** of compromise as negative, then you are incapable of it... In other words if you view compromise as a bad thing **by definition** then you are incapable of it.
That is the "all" state I mentioned earlier, to simplify further if you see **all** compromise as negative you will be incapable of it.. this is almost so obvious as to not need saying, yet here you are trying to disagree with it and twisting it.
What you are trying to say (and failing cause i didnt say it" is replace the "all" qualifier with "any".. you are trying to stick words in my mouth as if i said "if you see any instance of compromise as negative you are incapable of compromise"... that wasnt what i said yet somehow you insist on arguing it.
Why you and others continually insist on hallucinating things people never said then pretending to argue with it as if they said it, even after they correct you multiple times, is just beyond absurd.
@BigMcLargeHuge @freepeoplesfreepress @TruthSandwich @wiseguyeddie
I didnt say my issue with the first line was that I didnt agree with it.. I said the issue with the title, firstline, and name of the agency, espouses bias as an intentional part of their reporting. I cant take any article seriously that goes out of its way to abandon journalistic integrity.
When I agree with the bias, as I do here, doesnt change the fact that bias, intentional bias, has no place in news... I dont want to read commentary disguised as news telling me what to think, even if it is something I genuinely do think. I want it giving me objective facts and leaving it up to me to do the rest.
Am I the only one whose brain wont process RFK Jr's face as a normal face... like looking at his face causes my brain to respond the same way as the Canny Divide, like CGI that is just off enough that my brain glitches...
PS I am in no way suggesting anything conspiracy theory here... I know he isnt CGI.
🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱
boosted
🇳🇱
boosted
quinn why don't you roast the USA for a change
i think congress is doing that for me right now
- UFoI Member
- http://UFoI.org/u/freemo/
- Website
- http://JeffreyFreeman.me
- Gitlab
- https://git.qoto.org/freemo
Admin
Jeffrey Phillips Freeman
Innovator & Entrepreneur in Machine Learning, Evolutionary Computing & Big Data. Avid SCUBA diver, Open-source developer, HAM radio operator, astrophotographer, and anything nerdy.
Born and raised in Philadelphia, PA, USA, currently living in Utrecht, Netherlands, USA, and Thailand. Was also living in Israel, but left.
Pronouns: Sir / Mister
(Above pronouns are not intended to mock, i will respect any persons pronouns and only wish pronouns to show respect be used with me as well. These are called neopronouns, see an example of the word "frog" used as a neopronoun here: http://tinyurl.com/44hhej89 )
A proud member of the Penobscot Native American tribe, as well as a Mayflower passenger descendant. I sometimes post about my genealogical history.
My stance on various issues:
Education: Free to PhD, tax paid
Abortion: Protected, tax paid, limited time-frame
Welfare: Yes, no one should starve
UBI: No, use welfare
Racism: is real
Guns: Shall not be infringed
LGBT+/minorities: Support
Pronouns: Will respect
Trump: Moron, evil
Biden: Senile, racist
Police: ACAB
Drugs: Fully legal, no prescriptions needed
GPG/PGP Fingerprint: 8B23 64CD 2403 6DCB 7531 01D0 052D DA8E 0506 CBCE
Joined Jul 2018
