Russia's Secret Intelligence Agency Hacked: 'Largest Data Breach In Its History'

I also follow Sargon, Kraut (still does now that he's producing content counter to, say, Sargon), AiU as well as more leftist profiles like ContraPoints, Tim Pool (more center), David Pakman, Kyle Kylenski etc. (And possibly soon Three Arrows, thanks)

They do make valid points from their own unique perspectives, they highlight things you won't see highlighted from the opposite aisle of the political spectrum and vice-versa. I can't see how you can get a healthy, neutral, balanced news/opinion diet without seeing both sides, seeing as they'll both distort each other and leave things out. I hate Sargon's silence and tacit defense of Russia and other eastern European nations (highlighting the good, sometimes in a "joking" manner which I take to be a fall back "haha just joking" if called out), I hate the far left's insistence on that everything is a dog whistle and nobody is ever telling the truth about their position (you couldn't possibly want reduced/controlled immigration, RACIST!).

I don't agree entirely with any of them, I try to have well-grounded positions based on reasons that boil down to the things I fundamentally value, and when not, I'm willing to change them. I.e. I can't see myself ever being convinced to be pro-life given that the thing I value is sentience and well-being, of which a fetus has none. Same thing goes for my drug stance where I value freedom, personal choice and not harming others over state control against self-harm. My stance on immigration where I value the state/quality of my nation (in terms of metrics like crime, education etc) over what I consider ineffective humanitarian efforts of helping a few select amount of people by letting them in (over, say, using the money in ways advocated by the "effective altruism" movement or other more cost-efficient alternatives). Canada's point system is what I'd ultimately want (doesn't discriminate based on race, only skill and aptitude). Honestly, if you can look at someone's stance on, say, abortion and then instantly figure out all their other stances based on party allegiance, then that's indicative of an echo chamber. As soon as the arguments stop and some conversation-ending slur like "racist" or "libtard" appear, you KNOW the person hasn't really reasoned their way into their position and are just parroting talking points or believing what the "right thing" for their side to believe is (look at the republican favorability of Russia/Putin before as opposed to after the election, for example. Or the democrat opinion of the intelligence agencies before as opposed to after the election etc). Such swings in opinion shouldn't really be possible if your position is well-reasoned. What your tribe thinks shouldn't matter.

I can only see more perspectives as a good thing. Ultimately I'd want to see way more conversations between the two sides, that usually tends to expose weak points in either side's stances.

/r/worldnews Thread Parent Link - forbes.com