• Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      An unreliable source usually mixes facts with deception or manipulation. Showcasing a fact from an unreliable source does not make that source reliable or fact-based. The people here are not fooled. Please stop. It’s just weird at this point.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Only when quoted by an unreliable source with questionable intentions such as the Chinese propaganda machine you plucked it from. Context is important.

          • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Are you questioning the validity of the facts themselves? The basic math used to drive the conclusion?

    • spacecowboy@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      You know exactly what everyone here is saying and you’re not discussing in good faith.

      Your source is biased and lies all the time. What makes this time any different? Use multiple sources stating those same facts and then come back and present your findings.

      Don’t get mad when you use a biased source and nobody believes you.

      • naturalgasbad@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Their source is literally public information. Is an SEC report somehow unreliable, too?