“If”? When 😮‍💨

…tasting? 🤔

Nope, but the bottom text is a paraphrasing from Mean Girls, which IS a movie, and there doesn’t seem to be any good dedicated TV communities here 🤷

Between any typographical characters, but yeah, basically 🙂

Relevant xkcd

I like your take, but I still prefer this iteration:

“Mommy, why is my smoothie all red and pointy?”

they used a traffic cone to administer anesthesia to a seal

But enough about my bachelor party!

making tiny masks and putting them on small animals would be incredibly difficult.

But also extremely cute. #WorthIt

There is also the occasional accurate article on breitbart or foxnews

Not really, no. They DEFINITELY don’t have a whole topic area where they’re generally reliable, like Mint has with Palestine.

I’m not saying that Mint don’t publish misinformation and other bullshit as well, but on Palestine specifically, they seem to be ok from what little I’ve seen.

If your author is reliable, surley a more reliable source will publish his article.

That would be the case if it was a general interest news story, sure, but not an article about solidarity amongst football fans.

While rage bait tends to get circulated widely, only certain outlets will publish a POSITIVE story, even if it DOES relate to a controversial subject.

If a source has repeatedly demonstratate to be unreliable, that is a good reason to completely avoid that source

Unless its reliability varies from subject to subject. Like in this case where a site that might be susceptible to Kremlin propaganda might also publish good stories that other outlets wouldn’t.

But that does in no way imply that a source that has demonstrated to be reliable should always be trusted. Not even sure how you got there.

I got there by applying logic to demonstrate how illogical and prejudiced your absolutist stance is.

If unreliable = always unreliable, it logically follows that reliable = always reliable. Claiming otherwise is textbook hypocrisy and intellectually dishonest or at least a sign of poor self-awareness.

It’s not an opinion piece and the author himself is a reliable source.

By the logic of you and jordanlund, everything Malala Yousafzai ever said in should have been dismissed as unreliable for happening in a Taliban-controlled area.

Or, for a less hyperbolic example of the opposite, automatically trusting every source with a good reputation to the point where you trust the New York Times on stories regarding Palestine or cops.

No, because if we allow one source that’s questionable, then the next time this comes up it will be “But, but, you allowed this other bullshit source, why not miiiiiiiine??!???” We aren’t opening that door.

Holy slippery slope fallacy, Batman! 🙄

Read what other people are telling you in this very thread, YDI.

I have, and most either agree with me or disagree based on the irrelevant point you keep harping on.

Rigidly dogmatic mods such as yourself is the reason why most people from other instances avoid .world when possible.

Shitty sources get removed, full stop.

The author doesn’t enter into it.

The quality of the article doesn’t enter into it.

That’s a bullshit policy and if you didn’t have your “this is how I do it because this is the way I do it” blinders on, you might understand that.

We aren’t giving traffic to them

You ARE aware that a lot of publishers, ESPECIALLY ones that don’t worry enough about quality and reliability, look at number of impressions when deciding what kind of things to post more of, right?

By keeping people away from something GOOD they post, you’re giving Mint a perverse incentive to post less quality journalism about Gaza and more of the kinds that IS bullshit but gets more clicks.

If you don’t like that, feel free to post elsewhere,

I will.

we I have higher arbitrary and counterproductive standards.

Fixed it for you.

You’re putting a lot of effort into defending a shitty source.

Nope. I’m defending the ARTICLE, which has nothing to do with the more reasonable reasons to distrust Mintpress

To be clear, I DON’T CARE who wrote the article.

You REALLY should. Sometimes great journalists don’t have the luxury of being picky about who publishes their work.

The post is about the article and, other than not fawning over Israel, the article doesn’t exemplify any of the “offenses” MBFC accuses it of.

Shitty sources don’t deserve the traffic.

Great articles do. If anything, limiting access to the good things an otherwise questionable publisher posts reduces their incentive to publish more of that kind and less clickbaity mis/disinformation.

It could be a nobel prize winner, if it’s on a questionable source, it’s getting removed

That’s 100% grade A horseshit and against the REASON to have the rule in the first place. It would behoove you to reconsider such an arbitrarily rigid approach.

Put on your big boy pants and find a better source.

Take off your scolding cap and stop censoring good articles for arbitrary reasons.

Edit If you CAN’T find a better source on the same story, it’s an opportunity to step back ask ask why…

If it had been an opinion piece or breaking news making questionable claims, sure. This is neither of that and well-sourced, though, so would be more akin to dismissing a movie for being an exclusive of a streaming service you don’t like.

Personally I haven’t seen it for ages because I blocked it, but if I was to guess, the mods finally relented to the overwhelming majority? 🤷

Pictured: “excellence”

The universal Tesla quality control policy is “don’t”.

The audacity lmao

I think you’ll find that it’s spelled “audible” 😉

the distance is 384400km

That’s almost the distance between my bed and the kitchen before my first cup of coffee!

Maybe to make it better tolerate colder climates?

As if Denmark isn’t flat enough already without introducing a bunch of fluffy pachyderms…

Is that what 1/8 of a byte is called when getting a donut in Canada?

Alternative interpretations of “Cryptonaturalist”:

Dude who’s naked around scam coins

Dude who’s trying to hide that he’s a scientist

Dude who’s trying to hide that he prefers to be naked