Articles & Happening Meta Discussion

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Articles & Happenings is the third attempt at a news board on the Kiwi Farms. It is a cursed place. Every moderator who has been assigned here has resigned within a year. During 2016, the political crossfire was so bad it spread to different boards and culminated in me banning American news discussion entirely for several months. It has been deleted in its entirety twice. There is no actual discussion here, it's people posting garbage. It leans much further right than the rest of the site and doesn't particularly conduct discussion because dissenting opinions are dogpiled by a thousand memelords posting shit they read on /pol/ without any critical analysis.

The only rules that can be enforced are empirical ones with boolean violation answers. New threads must cite a real source directly and must use the headline of the article as a thread title without any editorializing. Articles must be archived in some way and must link to the original article. Replies that are one word or a reaction images are automatic one-month bans from the board.

I'm creating this now because it seems like this place is here to stay and is one of the largest areas of the entire site. I might as well throw in bare minimum effort to improve it. I don't even try to find mods for here because they will quit, without exception. I've added new prefixes ("Business" and "Crime") just now.

Discuss.


New threads should be made like this.
1570266734258.png
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Look I'm just as retarded as the next guy but for me the only issue is if you neg/pos rate but never post yourself.

Its very low effort to never share your own opinions. Why dont you just lurk then? Why have an account?

I guess this is more so true in A&H than cow threads. For example I dont have an interest in talking about NicoAvocados asshole but I did die at some of the good jokes in that thread and let people know with whatever was the appropriate sticker.

Then again it's just fucking stickers. Can we go back to arguing about whether or not posters can name the jew?
 
Cpl. Long Dong Silver said:
Look I'm just as retarded as the next guy but for me the only issue is if you neg/pos rate but never post yourself.

Its very low effort to never share your own opinions. Why dont you just lurk then? Why have an account?

I guess this is more so true in A&H than cow threads. For example I dont have an interest in talking about NicoAvocados asshole but I did die at some of the good jokes in that thread and let people know with whatever was the appropriate sticker.

Then again it's just fucking stickers. Can we go back to arguing about whether or not posters can name the jew?
Click to expand...

I can! @Cpl. Long Dong Silver
 
Since the sticker talk is getting kind of boring, there's been a trend for awhile in A&H that irks me. For at least as long as I've been helping to moderate the board, it's not unusual to get the occasional report that either boils down to or is quite literally, "lol [source]." I can understand taking a stab at a news source because God knows I fucking laugh at CNN as often as the sun rises, but my policy has always been that I could not give half of a rat's ass where the story comes from, I only care about the content of the story. If the information that the story is presenting is viable, verifiable, and free of overtly partisan bias a la, "The fucking shit libs are trying to X!" or "These racist Nazis are going to X!" that's genuinely all that I care about.

Even then, I think that there's entertainment value in both of those examples because it's fun to watch extremists leap to ideological extremes. VICE articles are absurdly stupid and typically involve trying to convince the reader to literally shove something up their ass, and Ghost / Alex Jones are goddamned national treasures.

There's been an idea floating around in the 'back rooms' once before to draw up a list of "verified sources", but I shot it down because--and apologies to the person who suggested it-- that sounds like the faggiest goddamned thing anyone's ever said since the first caveman asked if he could suck dick. Even when I was personally asked if I could help come up with that sort of list, I don't think it's even possible to do that in the current environment because every source is potentially disreputable. I think that weighing things as a source is no longer possible, and with the ease that people can verify information for themselves these days, no longer necessary.

The focus has generally been on reporting stories that come from Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, Zero Hedge or National File, and while I can easily agree that all of these sources can be inflammatory and have a tendency to exaggerate a story or omit important information in order to push a narrative, this applies to literally every other news source. CNN does this, Washington Post does this, The New York Times, Axios, AP, Guardian, BBC, Slate, Salon, FOX, The Independent, VICE, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, I could produce dozens of examples from every single one of these sources who are committing the exact, same infraction and yet for some reason they're all still considered reputable news sources, I assume, as I have never received nor seen a single complaint when anyone uses any of these as a source.

Please don't wrap your head in tinfoil because I can assure that there's no grand conspiracy in the moderation to try and exclusively omit certain sources over other ones. This is something that's only come up maybe a handful of times, and most all of the moderation team genuinely doesn't give give a shit one way or another as to what happens inside of A&H. These reports are genuinely few-and-far between, but this is just an inconsistency that I've noticed and rather than keep batting it around in the occasional report or in the once-in-a-blue-moon moderation thread, I wanted to push it out into the open and see what the general opinion on this would be.

Assuming that the story isn't from a ridiculously partisan source like an angry Christian's Blog or some unhinged Vegan's TikTok account, (With the exception of whatever random bullshit CatParty finds, because that's just tradition at this point.) is it unreasonable to take each source not as a whole but to examine the individual story, and if it's found lacking, to tear into it in the thread itself in whatever way that the journalist fucked up, or should stories be weighed on the source that they're coming from?

I am clearly biased in the direction of weighing each story individually, but I'm curious to see if there are any genuine arguments to be made for weighing these articles on their source, because for the life of me I can't think of one. Places like CNN and MSNBC and BBC routinely post rage-bait, they cite anonymous sources that frequently turn up to be fictional, they frequently have to retract stories because they got the information so wrong that in some cases they've been sued and lost the lawsuit, so how are they any different than Gateway Pundit or ZeroHedge, other than that the latter two have yet to lose a lawsuit to a child?
 
Personally, I understand both sides of the sticker issue.

On the one hand, you have those who give out neg-rates, and then they don't contribute in any real discussion. They believe as if the sticker should be the signifier of their opinions and viewpoints and nothing more. They don't feel the need to add to the discussion to make it more autistic or to get validation for their opinion. Their sticker speaks for itself and they move on with their day. Or sometimes, they add the sticker because "lol ur (this sticker)". After all, that's what they're there for. That's their purpose. To be a representation of your approval or disapproval or just your reaction.

But then you have those who get those negrates and are desperate in wanting someone to come at them with a rebuttal to their viewpoints or whatnot. But they grow increasingly dissatisfied with the idea that LOL IT'S JUST STICKERS. Well obviously, the person using those ratings rated the person's response with the sticker, the sticker being the thing that represents their beliefs on a situation. The person rated with that sticker wants to hear more from that person beyond the sticker shitposting to see if their arguments have weight. So if you don't give any sort of rebuttal and just leave it at a sticker, the person becomes increasingly angry at you or whatnot, irrationally. This is what led to that utterly hilarious thread with @crocodilian sperging out about @snailslime and @zedkissed60. After all, it's a forum where we can say whatever the fuck we want almost as long as it doesn't inconvenience Our Dear Leader.

There's an interesting grasp of psychology to it all. To the way we use the internet, the way we communicate, interactions, and whatnot. How the stickers are so specific in their purpose in response to other people's posts. How one can become obsessed with people's opinions and perspectives and what they meant by just one sticker. They are quite an interesting weapon.
 
Synthetic Smug said:
I'll probably move on once there's someplace better for my needs.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that shit, fag.

Also why @CatParty is a god.

1594400487455.png


It's HK-47 said:
Since the sticker talk is getting kind of boring, there's been a trend for awhile in A&H that irks me. For at least as long as I've been helping to moderate the board, it's not unusual to get the occasional report that either boils down to or is quite literally, "lol [source]." I can understand taking a stab at a news source because God knows I fucking laugh at CNN as often as the sun rises, but my policy has always been that I could not give half of a rat's ass where the story comes from, I only care about the content of the story. If the information that the story is presenting is viable, verifiable, and free of overtly partisan bias a la, "The fucking shit libs are trying to X!" or "These racist Nazis are going to X!" that's genuinely all that I care about.

Even then, I think that there's entertainment value in both of those examples because it's fun to watch extremists leap to ideological extremes. VICE articles are absurdly stupid and typically involve trying to convince the reader to literally shove something up their ass, and Ghost / Alex Jones are goddamned national treasures.

There's been an idea floating around in the 'back rooms' once before to draw up a list of "verified sources", but I shot it down because--and apologies to the person who suggested it-- that sounds like the faggiest goddamned thing anyone's ever said since the first caveman asked if he could suck dick. Even when I was personally asked if I could help come up with that sort of list, I don't think it's even possible to do that in the current environment because every source is potentially disreputable. I think that weighing things as a source is no longer possible, and with the ease that people can verify information for themselves these days, no longer necessary.

The focus has generally been on reporting stories that come from Gateway Pundit, Breitbart, Zero Hedge or National File, and while I can easily agree that all of these sources can be inflammatory and have a tendency to exaggerate a story or omit important information in order to push a narrative, this applies to literally every other news source. CNN does this, Washington Post does this, The New York Times, Axios, AP, Guardian, BBC, Slate, Salon, FOX, The Independent, VICE, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, I could produce dozens of examples from every single one of these sources who are committing the exact, same infraction and yet for some reason they're all still considered reputable news sources, I assume, as I have never received nor seen a single complaint when anyone uses any of these as a source.

Please don't wrap your head in tinfoil because I can assure that there's no grand conspiracy in the moderation to try and exclusively omit certain sources over other ones. This is something that's only come up maybe a handful of times, and most all of the moderation team genuinely doesn't give give a shit one way or another as to what happens inside of A&H. These reports are genuinely few-and-far between, but this is just an inconsistency that I've noticed and rather than keep batting it around in the occasional report or in the once-in-a-blue-moon moderation thread, I wanted to push it out into the open and see what the general opinion on this would be.

Assuming that the story isn't from a ridiculously partisan source like an angry Christian's Blog or some unhinged Vegan's TikTok account, (With the exception of whatever random bullshit CatParty finds, because that's just tradition at this point.) is it unreasonable to take each source not as a whole but to examine the individual story, and if it's found lacking, to tear into it in the thread itself in whatever way that the journalist fucked up, or should stories be weighed on the source that they're coming from?

I am clearly biased in the direction of weighing each story individually, but I'm curious to see if there are any genuine arguments to be made for weighing these articles on their source, because for the life of me I can't think of one. Places like CNN and MSNBC and BBC routinely post rage-bait, they cite anonymous sources that frequently turn up to be fictional, they frequently have to retract stories because they got the information so wrong that in some cases they've been sued and lost the lawsuit, so how are they any different than Gateway Pundit or ZeroHedge, other than that the latter two have yet to lose a lawsuit to a child?
Click to expand...

Ive just done one of those personality tests on reddit and I confirmed myself as an INTJ. It made me ponder about the other denizens of this so called web forum. After a decent amount of surfing around the various sub-forums of this website and analyzing alot of posts, I just started laughing. Why am I laughing, you ask? Apologies. It's because I am an INTJ and the illogical and idiotic posts of most of the users here....... Well, I find them amusing to say the least. It struck me that the majority of kiwi farm users are simply white, low IQ and low income. It’s lonely at the top if the IQ ladder and it is often a challenge for me to find like-minded individuals who are able to keep up with my relentless intellectualism and chess-like maneuvering.

So as a generalized statement to most of the posters who will now reply to this thread: The next time you're working your shitty minimum wage job at Walmart handing out free samples of your store's new crisped potato snacks: dont offer me one. It's simply not necessary as I've already calculated its flavor in my head. Heh... Perhaps a little more sodium chloride next time! (that's table salt by the way)
 
You shouldn't make a list of verifiable sources since anything you can accuse one source of applies to all the rest. It worse for sources that have been around for awhile as their track record is longer. The only fair, reasonable, or sensible thing to do is to judge the info in the story on a case by case basis. It's also the one that encourages critical thinking which is solely lacking.

This isn't a new or recent thing. I recently watched a movie called Kill The Messenger which was about the journalist who broke the story the CIA shipped in drugs to sell to here to fund the side we wanted to win in the Nicaraguan civil war. At the time the journo worked for a small news paper, nationally speaking, in San Jose. Now what did the rest of the news organizations do with this bombshell of a story? They attacked the journo and tore into the story. They lied about what he said did their best to bury the information. Why? Who knows. But since that time more info has come out corroborating and confirming what he reported on. The media of the time lied and pushed out non factual stories to bury a real story which probably led to the journo's suicide in 2004. The media is and has always been full of shit to some degree and the only fair and balanced thing to do is allow each individual to sift through all of the shit to find whatever kernels of truth exist in whatever shit pile it's in.
 
With how much Null hates A&H and blames it for the site's decline, I'm honestly surprised that he still hasn't yeeted it for good.
 
make it cost 5$ in bitcoin to use A&H. then make it cost 50 cents for every sticker in A&H. but we wont call them cents they will be called kiwi coins which you buy with IRL money. the other way to get kiwi coins is to engage in wacky social experiments for null and the mods entertainment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom