Respectfully, how about you post a decent link the first time?
Well, that's easy to explain: I was sent the link to the SVT-article yesterday, that's the first, and before I made that post, only source that I had read.
In the past, people told me that linking non-English articles is useless, because apparently, people still don't know how to google-translate websites.
So I put a few keywords into google, looked for the first source that represents the information the way I had read them and went with it.
Having looked up the Daily Wire now, I do understand your reaction better, but I still don't find it particularly useful for the context of my post.
Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't I guess.
Ryika, actually, complaints about links are fair. Depending on the type of link someone provides, we can actually very easily make conclusions about the slant of the spin and the reading habits of the person providing them. So, the complaint is a very useful feedback for you. You know now to not use that source when trying to sway an opinion. The person complaining about the link is merely the person to step forward and tell you what others are going to implicitly do.
I mean yeah, in a general sense I agree with that. If you're using Breitbart while trying to prove a point, then sure, comments about the source are totally valid.
That wasn't what I was doing though, my post was about the disconnect between "No-Go Zones" as they're portrayed by the worst of the right-wing media, and "No-Go Zones" as they actually exist, crime-heavy immigrant zones that you probably don't want to go to. The article I linkes was not a "See, it's real!"-article, it was merely a piece of news that I had heard of recently.
And yet, a comment about a weak source I posted is all that a person has to say about that post? What? If a person wants to focus on the story, then at least he or she should add something useful, not just "I don't like that source." But yeeaaaah, okay, I admit I overreacted a bit.
When RomanKing dumped his list-o-links, I only scanned through and clicked links that I knew didn't come from a place of bias. All of his typing and copy/pasting was mostly useless, because an incredible number of people did the same thing.
I really don't know what this has to do with me. Carpet-bombing links is a terrible strategy in general.
Although, looking at the rest of his posts, maybe just posting tons of links is a better way to get people on his side than posting his actual thoughts.
Some news sources are worse than others. It's just better to know that other people think this, and work around it. You need to otherwise bank on your personal reputation in order to get people to read a low-reputation link.
See, I agree with this, but again... that story was not the focus of my post.