Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

Posted by timothy on from the tag-this-story-recursive dept.

PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."

3 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Same thing Washington Post did with Palin's by Salo2112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/...

  2. Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is still a fallacy though.

    Let me help you understand how to stop fallacies:

    X must equal Y because Variable M that does not require under all circumstances that X must equal Y given the presence of Variable M.

    So for example, does news corp or the wallstreet journal ALWAYS lie? Obviously not.

    What is more, MUST they lie? For example, if we had a computer program that reported on a binary value and it always gave the opposite value to whatever it read. Then you could conclude that variable X was the opposite of whatever that program said. Neither newscorp nor the Wallstreet journal are reliability reporting the opposite of anything.

    Therefore it is logically fallacious to say that something they said is a lie because they said it.

    See?

    Fallacies are about LOGIC. Not you fucking politics.

    You can't say anything is automatically bullshit no matter who says it because no one is reliably wrong 100 percent of the time.

    You can of course take what they say with a grain of salt. You can choose to ignore them. You can hold any sort of opinion you want.

    You cannot say that everything they say is wrong or that any given thing is wrong simply because they said it.

    You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.

    If you can't be bothered to do that, then your opinion is based entirely on your own bias and the value of your opinion is based on the value of your bias. Which in this place is literally nothing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  3. Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have been modded down. Whatever.

    If one side is lying and the other side is telling the truth, then the truth is not somewhere in the middle.

    I'll let the reader decide which side is which.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.