Imperialism and illicit drugs commonly go together. However, with Taliban opium eradication efforts in full effect, heroin is in short supply, and experts fear that a new fentanyl crisis could be brewing in the US.
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.
Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”
Analysis / Bias
Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
Of course it’s not the exact same article.
so you even admit that they lied
The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
Others are arguing with facts, you aren’t paying attention, you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus. We’re not in debate club, you’re not a teacher, I don’t respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn’t make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that’s what you. And you’ll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun ing
borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also “I’m not arguing with you.” “Wow, your arguments are shit.” what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.
I don’t think so. That whole website is premised on an elementary logical fallacy. Just because a news source is left- or right-leaning doesn’t make it inherently less trustworthy than a “centrist” one, in fact all you’ve done is introduce your own untrustworthy ideological bias into the judgement criteria by proactively dismissing anyone who doesn’t align with your definition of centrism.
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn’t virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?
from MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com
time ran the exact same article, what is your point?
shame on Time?
also, it’s not the exact same article. it’s a different article by a different author. you can tell if you bother to read it instead of just googling around until you found another article with a similar click-bait headline…
do you often lie to make your point, or is this a new experience for you?
sorry, i thought native english speakers would be more familiar with the concept of hyperbole. i will take the time to write a brief summary of relevant semantic techniques used in subsequent posts to help out the more rhetorically challenged members of our community.
oh, so when you get caught in a lie, you just hurl insults rather than admit to it. hardly a surprise…
notice how i didn’t prepend that post with a brief summary of rhetorical techniques like i said i would? that’s because i didn’t use any. ditto this post.
are you seriously expecting a pat on the back for not being a more toxic troll than you already are? is not lying and arguing in bad faith such a difficult impulse for you to control that you think you deserve treats when you don’t do either or both?
woooow
you expressed confusion with my use of the english language and so i have adjusted my communication style to suit your apparent needs. if you feel this somehow reflects poorly on your personal character it is no fault of mine.
the entire point of me linking the time article was to point out that it was cognitive laziness (and likely bad faith) on your part to invoke a third party ‘bias checker’ (that in all likelihood is itself biased) as some impartial mediator of reality. typically, the next logical step to take here would be to engage with the points of the articles in question and judge their merits through consensus based on verifiable fact, but it seems you got lost somewhere along the way and now you appear to be resisting attempts to shepherd you back on topic.
deleted by creator
no, you lied, and when caught in your lie, you lied again and called it “hyperbole” even though it was just obviously just a lie. now you’re piling lie upon lie thinking you’re fooling anyone but yourself.
this is just sad.
Do you know what hyperbole is, or exaggeration? Of course it’s not the exact same article. Come on. The point is that multiple sources collaborate the main point, that opium production has fallen under the Taliban.
Yes, and I know when someone is lying but just says it’s “hyperbole” when called out on a lie, which is obviously what’s happening here.
so you even admit that they lied
so what? there’s a famine right now, and there are obvious reason to shift production to a viable food source. twisting yourself into knots just to blame the US is absurd and not supported by the facts.
Before 9/11 they had banned poppy cultivation. After America leaves, they ban poppy cultivation. During the occupation, lots of poppies are cultivated and processed into opium.
America consumes 80% of the world opium supply on average.
What conclusion do these facts support?
that you will draw biased conclusions and assert them free of any factual evidence to back them up.
You said American blame for poppy production during the occupation isn’t supported by the facts.
I restated those facts and asked what conclusion they do support.
So did the occupation increase opium production on purpose or just turn a blind eye to it?
I didn’t claim that. but I’d like to see what I did say that you somehow twisted into that.
you stated something and jumped to a conclusion you wanted, with zero facts to back it up.
here’s the staw man and association fallacies again— The US did not go there for this reason, which is the original assertion— so none of this is relevant. You’re trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the argument of WHY the US was eve there which had nothing to do with opium. It was just one of many things the US concerned itself with once it was there. Like building schools. We didn’t go there to do that, either, but we happened to do it while we were there.
are you capable of speaking in anything other than 100% logical fallacy?
sorry for your troubles. I recommend you seek medical or psychiatric help.
this should help
Lol what is this even supposed to mean
I suspect it’s just a typo and should say:
Thank you whiskeypickle, that’s really helpful!
huh?
Again; we know what you are doing, adroidBalloon.
I think you replied to the wrong comment
Sure you do lol
Removed by mod
fucking liberal
can’t argue based on facts, so you just hurl insults. typical
Others are arguing with facts, you aren’t paying attention, you’re showing clip art of the scarecrow’s phallus. We’re not in debate club, you’re not a teacher, I don’t respect you. The fact that you keep trying to turn your nose up doesn’t make you look like a genius, it makes you look more like a fucking liberal. cause you are, that’s what you. And you’ll achieve jack shit because of it. have fun
ing
😠
borrowed form another comment: “nuh-uh!” isn’t a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
wow, if “scarecrow phallus” is what you see, that speaks volumes about the contents of your psyche. yikes
that said, if you can’t debate your way around “clip art” and the best you have is the argument of a 5-year-old, that’s just an admission that you have no valid argument at all. that explains the whining and childish insults.
rage on, sad kid.
holy shit, this is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. also “I’m not arguing with you.” “Wow, your arguments are shit.” what a brilliant dialogue. like leonardo da vinki wrote it.
I think subtly the voros twins’ best bit was calling Timon from the lion king “time-on”
I knew your standards were low, but wow
I have higher standards and I think you’re more pathetic than funny
Is that better?
Removed by mod
We need a bot for this. Synopsis should be added to the tldr-bot or something.
I don’t think so. That whole website is premised on an elementary logical fallacy. Just because a news source is left- or right-leaning doesn’t make it inherently less trustworthy than a “centrist” one, in fact all you’ve done is introduce your own untrustworthy ideological bias into the judgement criteria by proactively dismissing anyone who doesn’t align with your definition of centrism.
it’s just a test of how much the position agrees with the people running the website haha
there’s no such thing as “bias-free” propaganda, and propaganda isn’t inherently subversive
why? read the article, and if you can’t tell the bias that’s on you.
ya know, I’ve looked into it. one of the biggest problems with bots is that they have to be hosted from somewhere. that’s my first hiccup.
I’d LOVE to make this a bot, but I don’t know where I’d host it from.
You can get a cheap VPS with a couple cores and some RAM for less than $5.
can I run it from inside a docker container?
The project has a dockerfile to create the Docker image with the required LAMP stack and python dependencies.
Oracle Free Tier - 4 CPU, 24 GB RAM.
I’ve heard it’s very unreliable and people have had their VPS deleted without warning.
Have backups. :)
Seriously? That’s awesome
Learn to read. If you can’t be assed to actually read the article you’re commenting on then go back to le 100 wholesome keanu reddit.
Holy shit is this a bit? Do people on here really still believe in a neutral or unbiased press? Shouldn’t virtually every event from the Iraq war onward have already disillusioned you of that?
Removed by mod
Appeal to Authority. Genetic Fallacy.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Damn, this website really gets your goat doesn’t it?