FOS LIES is Making You Dumber

[robosmith]

Pay attention to the cited EVIDENCE

From the transcript

Quote

Quote

Here's what's actually happening. Fox News does not inform you. It takes a space in your brain where real information should live and fills it

1:50

1 minute, 50 seconds

with lies, fear, and outrage. Every hour spent watching Fox News is an hour spent getting dumber. Maybe that's why Fox

1:58

1 minute, 58 seconds

News is so addictive to them. Fox News found the uneducated people in America and told them they were actually smart.

2:05

2 minutes, 5 seconds

For the first time in their lives, someone told them they were just as smart as doctors, scientists, professors, and experts who spent

2:12

2 minutes, 12 seconds

decades earning that knowledge. They didn't need to earn a degree. They didn't need to study. They didn't need to do any work at all. They just need to

2:20

2 minutes, 20 seconds

watch and believe. And Fox News told them they were smarter than the experts.

 

 

[Fluffypants]

Watching any of your AI links makes you dumber.

[Legato]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Pay attention to the cited EVIDENCE

From the transcript

 

 

Only the lonely, a transcript by Luc Hasbean. A breakdown of Noddy in Toyland.

Edited yesterday at 01:36 AM by Legato
so robo will understand

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Pay attention to the cited EVIDENCE

From the transcript

 

 

Amazing...

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Watching any of your AI links makes you dumber.

You're so stupid you cannot formulate a coherent argument disputing anything he says.

2 hours ago, Legato said:

Only the lonely, a transcript by Luc Hasbean. A breakdown of Noddy in Toyland.

And neither can you. LMAO

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Amazing...

Yes, it is amazing that you keep responding with BUPKIS. LMAO

[Legato]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're so stupid you cannot formulate a coherent argument disputing anything he says.

And neither can you. LMAO

Yes, it is amazing that you keep responding with BUPKIS. LMAO

Well Noddy, my argument was extremely coherent when compared with Luc Hasbeen.

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, robosmith said:

Pay attention to the cited EVIDENCE

From the transcript

 

 

He says FAUX, you say FOS but you're both equally stupid and wrong; it's FOX News.  

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

He says FAUX, you say FOS but you're both equally stupid and wrong; it's FOX News.  

And they are the purveyors of truth and intelligence. 😂

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Legato said:

Well Noddy, my argument was extremely coherent when compared with Luc Hasbeen.

Your "argument" is DRIVEL. AKA nonsense.

[Fluffypants]

Man if watching Fox news makes you dumber, than watching CNN or MSNow must make you brain dead tards.

That definitely explains why you keep electing Nazis and Communists under the Democrat banner.

[robosmith]

41 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Man if watching Fox news makes you dumber, than watching CNN or MSNow must make you brain dead tards.

That definitely explains why you keep electing Nazis and Communists under the Democrat banner.

NOTHING "explains" YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION which is easily refuted by my opinion that you're wrong.

[gatomontes99]

40 minutes ago, robosmith said:

NOTHING "explains" YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION which is easily refuted by my opinion that you're wrong.

You helped his point more than yours. 

[gatomontes99]

The AI bot on YouTube has it all wrong. Viewers actively engage in selective exposure. They choose outlets that align with their pre-existing worldview to avoid cognitive dissonance. The media outlet is a symptom of a highly polarized electorate, not the sole root cause.

Media consumer behavior remains consistent whether watching conservative or liberal programming. Viewers across the board consume content that reinforces their biases, meaning the psychological effect is a trait of partisan media consumption as a whole, rather than one specific channel.

For many, watching opinion-based programming serves social and community functions, such as reinforcing a sense of cultural identity, shared values, and belonging. Labeling the audience as less intelligent overlooks the social utility that community-affirming media provides to its base.

Modern audience research supports the limited effects theory. Viewers frequently decode messages through their own personal experiences, skepticism, and localized discussions, rather than swallowing network narratives whole.

The Research he quotes, presumes that the liberal narrative is the accurate narrative. This is a flaw that permeates the entire left side of the political spectrum. They skew reality towards their perception and judge others for not accepting their skewed sense of reality. 

A great example would be the belief, by the entire left, that there is an epidemic of white police officers killing unarmed black men. The reality is that white men are far more likely, as a percentage of encounters, to be shot by police. They believe there is a systematic, racial bias against blacks by police when the reality is that blacks are treated less harshly. 

The fact that a FoxNews viewer would not hold the same opinion leads these biased studies to conclude that audiences are less informed if they dispute the left leaning bias. 

[robosmith]

32 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

You helped his point more than yours. 

You're wrong. LMAO

[robosmith]

18 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The AI bot on YouTube has it all wrong. Viewers actively engage in selective exposure. They choose outlets that align with their pre-existing worldview to avoid cognitive dissonance. The media outlet is a symptom of a highly polarized electorate, not the sole root cause.

Media consumer behavior remains consistent whether watching conservative or liberal programming. Viewers across the board consume content that reinforces their biases, meaning the psychological effect is a trait of partisan media consumption as a whole, rather than one specific channel.

For many, watching opinion-based programming serves social and community functions, such as reinforcing a sense of cultural identity, shared values, and belonging. Labeling the audience as less intelligent overlooks the social utility that community-affirming media provides to its base.

Modern audience research supports the limited effects theory. Viewers frequently decode messages through their own personal experiences, skepticism, and localized discussions, rather than swallowing network narratives whole.

The Research he quotes, presumes that the liberal narrative is the accurate narrative. This is a flaw that permeates the entire left side of the political spectrum. They skew reality towards their perception and judge others for not accepting their skewed sense of reality. 

A great example would be the belief, by the entire left, that there is an epidemic of white police officers killing unarmed black men. The reality is that white men are far more likely, as a percentage of encounters, to be shot by police. They believe there is a systematic, racial bias against blacks by police when the reality is that blacks are treated less harshly. 

The fact that a FoxNews viewer would not hold the same opinion leads these biased studies to conclude that audiences are less informed if they dispute the left leaning bias. 

We know you didn't type ^this out and you just plagiarized it from an AI chat bot without attribution. AKA completely DISHONEST.

Meanwhile it's clear that Lucas Bean is a real person who uses an AI generated video to present HIS IDEAS.

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

We know you didn't type ^this out and you just plagiarized it from an AI chat bot without attribution. AKA completely DISHONEST.

Meanwhile it's clear that Lucas Bean is a real person who uses an AI generated video to present HIS IDEAS.

Lmao ... Ok Skippy.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lmao ... Ok Skippy.

Thanks for admitting your post is fake.

[gatomontes99]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Thanks for admitting your post is fake.

Projecting much? Care to respond to the content? 

I will answer that for you. No. You won't respond to it because you never respond to substance.