Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I'm fairly sure I'll regret asking, but...Follow

#52 Dec 09 2016 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,173 posts
Completely unsubstantiated allegation linking Clinton to crimes against children.

From. General. Flynn.

Oh, and ***** you.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#53 Dec 09 2016 at 8:13 PM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
gbaji wrote:
But just as the Enquirer is 90% BS, it does occasionally get a scoop that no one else in the media is picking up on, right?
The Enquirer being BS 90% of the time means that you shouldn't go to the Enquirer to get your news.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#54 Dec 09 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts


Did you read the article he linked to in his tweet? Or just repeat the allegation that Flynn passed along unsubstantiated allegations linking Clinton to crimes against children. Cause... wait for it... that's not in the article he linked to. I'm sure it was repeated over and over on all the "real news" source you used to form your opinion though.

See what I'm talking about? Here, let me quote one of the relevant portions:

Quote:
But new revelations on the contents of that laptop, according to law enforcement sources, implicate the Democratic presidential candidate, her subordinates, and even select elected officials in far more alleged serious crimes than mishandling classified and top secret emails, sources said. NYPD sources said these new emails include evidence linking Clinton herself and associates to:

Money laundering
Child exploitation
*** crimes with minors (children)
Perjury
Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
Obstruction of justice
Other felony crimes


Notice the same "expansion/contraction" technique I've spoken of (and that you used yourself earlier in this thread)? See how by lumping a list including "Clinton" and "associates", "subordinates", and "selected elected officials", to a list of "bad things", they muddy the waters in terms of which things (if any) Clinton did, and which things are evidence of actions taken by others? OMG! This is terrible journalism, which totally makes people come to the wrong conclusions and we should put a stop to... wait! this is the same freaking BS writing tactic that I've spoken out about, on this very forum, for years now. Quite possibly for over a decade now, in fact (not going to go looking to find past instances of me complaining about it in the past).

Want to know who else uses this same technique to associate things that maybe aren't actually directly connected? Every freaking major news organization. That's who. This is not about "fake" versus "real" news. The "real" news sources do the same thing. That's why my initial statement in this thread was that people fall for the fake news because it looks just like the real news. If the real news sources would stop using those same BS techniques as a means of implying rather than stating things, it might just be a lot easier for people to figure out if/when something is more or less completely (or even just partially) BS.

You want to blame someone for why people fall for "fake" news, blame the NYT, the WP, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and every other new station, magazine, and online news source. They all do this. They have all been doing this for decades. If you haven't noticed it until just now, you've really not been paying attention. This is not shocking. It's not surprising. It's not even new. The only difference is that most of the media most people have been reading/watching for the last few decades have been strongly aligned to the left, so you may notice it more when the same methods of using false association to lie to the public are *gasp* used to attack a Democrat.


BTW. I want to make this perfectly clear. I'm not defending this news style. Quite the opposite. I despise it. But I despise hypocrisy about this type of reporting even more. It's ridiculous for people who have ignored and even defended this style of reporting for years and years when it's done by the main stream media against Republicans and Conservatives to suddenly become outraged when someone out there on the interwebs, not even running a "legitimate news site" does the same thing in the other direction. Wow people. Wake up.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Dec 09 2016 at 9:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But just as the Enquirer is 90% BS, it does occasionally get a scoop that no one else in the media is picking up on, right?
The Enquirer being BS 90% of the time means that you shouldn't go to the Enquirer to get your news.


The problem is when the legitimate news sources refuse to report on the 10% that is true (or even just the 1% out of that 10% that they don't want people to hear about because it's politically inconvenient for their "side"). Setting aside the Enquirer, the reality is that the rise of the internet means that we have access to a ridiculous amount of information. An guess what? Large portions of that information is going to be biased opinion, unfair implication, and even just out and out falsehood. There's no way around that in a world where anyone can "publish" information for next to zero cost and at great volume and accessible to pretty much everyone all the time. Not without draconian restrictions on free speech.

Given that, it's kinda up to the reader to figure out what to believe and what to ignore. But what that does not mean is that we roundly condemn or block content just because we don't like it, or think it's false, or whatever. Because, just like with something like the Enquirer, occasionally those mostly BS sources stumble upon something that is true, and that others aren't reporting for some reason. Or maybe just occasionally, someone's biased opinion makes a lot of sense to you.

What's the alternative? We have a "department of truth" that determines what is "true" for us? I can't imagine how that could possibly go wrong...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Dec 09 2016 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. I have an issue with the selectivity of the crying about this.

Yes, exactly what I said. You can call it "crying" if you want but the reason you're mad at this situation where the news media was "crying" about Flynn lying is because of the "crying" part and not the lying part. You can chastise them for not choosing to also report on some other pet issue of yours all you want, but that doesn't negate that Flynn is pandering conspiracy theories.

You're mad Flynn was caught, not about what he did.
Gbaji wrote:
That's a great idea. Now apply it to the language regarding General Flynn up above. Now do you see what I was getting at? Samira failed to address what Flynn actually did but instead lumped him into a larger group, made a vague statement about the behavior of that group, and condemned that.

It's the very double standard you just used that I'm talking about. Can you see it?

Do I have breasts? A red rubber nose? A cutting wit? No. Do I look like Samira to you? I'm not responsible for what she says or does. Do you not see the irony here?

Edited, Dec 9th 2016 9:11pm by Allegory
#57 Dec 09 2016 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because, just like with something like the Enquirer, occasionally those mostly BS sources stumble upon something that is true, and that others aren't reporting for some reason. Or maybe just occasionally, someone's biased opinion makes a lot of sense to you.
"I'll eat a bucket of shit in the hopes that there's an M&M at the bottom."
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#58 Dec 09 2016 at 11:20 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,777 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Because, just like with something like the Enquirer, occasionally those mostly BS sources stumble upon something that is true, and that others aren't reporting for some reason. Or maybe just occasionally, someone's biased opinion makes a lot of sense to you.
"I'll eat a bucket of shit in the hopes that there's an M&M at the bottom."

But how else would you know that Castro said he killed JFK while on his death bed?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#59 Dec 12 2016 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem is when the legitimate news sources refuse to report on the 10% that is true .
The real problem is insisting that that the legitimate news sources don't report on the 10% because it doesn't align with your political bias. The fact is that the legitimate news sources do report on that 10%, they just might report on it a few hours later.
gbaji wrote:
Given that, it's kinda up to the reader to figure out what to believe and what to ignore.
Believing a conspiracy theory doesn't make it a fact.
gbaji wrote:
Or maybe just occasionally, someone's biased opinion makes a lot of sense to you.
No matter how much you believe it doesn't make it a fact.

Edited, Dec 12th 2016 11:54am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Dec 12 2016 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
The fact is that the legitimate news sources do report on that 10%, they just might report on it a few hours later.

Or they report but Gbaji just refuses to believe it or says they didn't report on it enough or in the right way or whatever.

I think it was the IRS scandal where CBS broke the story and Gbaji kept insisting that the media was ignoring it. Then I pointed out hundreds of online stories about it and it was "Well, the TV news didn't have it!" then "Well, these select shows didn't have it..." so on and so forth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Dec 12 2016 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,330 posts
Watching Brian "Helicopter Hero" Williams talk about fake news is the most 2016 thing I've seen this year. The clip itself is boring(and I think you guys have been discussing the story itself already). It's just that they'd have him of all people report this story that amuses me.
#62 Dec 13 2016 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. I have an issue with the selectivity of the crying about this.

Yes, exactly what I said. You can call it "crying" if you want but the reason you're mad at this situation where the news media was "crying" about Flynn lying is because of the "crying" part and not the lying part. You can chastise them for not choosing to also report on some other pet issue of yours all you want, but that doesn't negate that Flynn is pandering conspiracy theories.

You're mad Flynn was caught, not about what he did.


No. I'm upset about exactly what I just said I was upset about. The selectivity of the crying. What Flynn did (repeat false rumors he heard about on the internet) is no different than what supporters of candidates do in election cycles (and some times just whenever they feel like it), all the time. Back in October, Malcolm Nance claimed that some of the Podesta emails leaked by Wikileaks were forgeries ("and not even good ones"), yet despite no one having once confirmed this, nor having found a single example anyone can point to and say "this one is a fake" (which, you know, you'd think Podesta could easily do if any of them were clearly faked, much less poorly faked as Nance claimed), that claim was repeated, over and over, by pretty much the entire media establishment.

What's really funny about that is that the actual "fake" that Nance was taken in by was created (intentionally) by another pro-Clinton fan by the name of Marco Chacon (AKA "Omnivore"). He specializes in creating obviously false "facts" about Clinton, and spreading them via social media, with the intent that when an anti-Clinton person takes the bait and passes on the false claim, they can be outed for repeating false information (yes, people actually do this, there's a whole cottage industry that does this). Unbeknownst to Omnivore, there happened to actually be emails containing transcripts of things Clinton said to Wall Street execs leaked by Wikileaks, and the person who took the bait was Nance, thinking that the obviously fake stuff Omnivore had written was from the real emails leaked by Wikileaks. So he got caught in a double troll action there (confusing? yes).

The lesson from that is when you look at "fake news", you can't assume that the folks on one side or the other initially created it. In many cases, it's created specifically to try to troll people into repeating it as though it's real, just to make them look bad (you know, like what's going on right now). Both "sides" do this. And both "sides" get caught repeating said false information. The difference is that when someone on the Left does it, the media downplays it and blames it on the "fake news" source. But when someone on the Right does it, they blame it on the person who fell for the fake news and repeated it.

Hence, my point about selectivity. I'd love if our media personalities would take the time to check their facts before repeating them. And it annoys me when they don't. But I'm equally annoyed by all who do this, not just those who do it on one side. The sad fact about this issue is that spreading false information is a time honored means to influence public opinion. It works. That's why people do it. Which, well, also puts some of the fact checking burden on the public as a whole as well. You kinda can't really blame the pundits for jumping on a juicy rumor without fact checking first, if they know that the number of people they'll influence in a direction they want by passing on the falsehood is greater than the number who'll discover that the rumor is false and be upset enough about it to change their opinion. As long as that is true, we'll continue to be plagued by this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Dec 14 2016 at 12:19 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The fact is that the legitimate news sources do report on that 10%, they just might report on it a few hours later.


And by "a few hours", you really mean a few months, or maybe never. I've already mentioned two stories about prominent Democratic candidates for president that would never have been told at all in the mainstream media if not for "fringe" news groups pushing the story. Edwards' mistress and love child, and Obama's pastor. In both cases, the mainstream media did everything it could to avoid the stories. In the case of Edwards, they finally covered it, but only after the Enquirer literally took photos of him with his mistress and Edwards had already fallen well behind. In the case of Wright, it took months after a youtube video was made available before they finally covered the story, and in that case it was blink and you missed it. It literally hit on a Friday afternoon, got covered all weekend (and bitterly complained about as unfair and "on a loop"). Monday the story was about Obama giving a speech, then Tuesday they covered the speech, and then, like magic, it was all better.

Massive whitewash for a story that pointed directly as the nature of a candidate and his views on race. Which you could dismiss as unimportant, or not really his nature, except for a number of actions Obama took in office where he clearly made decisions and took sides based solely on the race of the person involved. It's not the media's job to shape the story, but they really should cover it. And the double standard on this one was massive. Trump got bashed multiple times in this election for merely failing to reject some random racist's endorsement quickly enough. Could you imagine if a white candidate was discovered to have been attending a church where the pastor regularly blamed black people for the nations problems, rejected everything "black", and called for white people to stand up and fight against "blackness" in the country? I think that would get a bit more than one weekend of coverage, don't you?

So yeah. There's a reason why a lot of people put very little stock in the accuracy and fairness of our media. Because it's not just the fringe blog sites that are pushing BS.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Dec 14 2016 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The media was looking into Edwards but they didn't have any reliable evidence yet and were, unsurprisingly, unwilling to accuse a candidate of infidelity without being able to back it up.

Wright was a non-story even when it happened. Out of 20+ years, all anyone could turn up was a single video (despite the church recording and selling copies of all his sermons) with a couple 'scary' pull quotes which were a lot less scary when in context of his entire sermon. The reason why it quickly faded and had no impact wasn't because CNN was suppressing the story, it's because there was barely a story there. I liked the crying about "What if it was a WHITE pastor...?!" though.
Quote:
Trump got bashed multiple times in this election for merely failing to reject some random racist's endorsement quickly enough.

Not a single story of which had traction for longer than a day. Same reason: there really wasn't any story there of longer than 24hr interest.
Quote:
So yeah. There's a reason why a lot of people put very little stock in the accuracy and fairness of our media

There is. Because you go into it with a preconceived notion that (in this case) Obama must be a bad guy and when the media isn't reinforcing what you already believe, you convince yourself that it must be because the media is lying rather than admit that your notion was wrong. Then you go online and post long masturbatory screeds about how you NEVER have a preconceived idea and ALWAYS analyze all the evidence, not like all the OTHER people yadda yadda without even realizing the irony.

That your two big examples are from nine years ago is pretty telling though.

Edited, Dec 14th 2016 9:08am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Dec 14 2016 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The media was looking into Edwards but they didn't have any reliable evidence yet and were, unsurprisingly, unwilling to accuse a candidate of infidelity without being able to back it up.
The word "unsurprisingly" feels so out of place in that sentence. That's not the modern 24hr news media circus I've grown accustomed to. Those were simpler times... Smiley: frown

Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Trump got bashed multiple times in this election for merely failing to reject some random racist's endorsement quickly enough.

Not a single story of which had traction for longer than a day. Same reason: there really wasn't any story there of longer than 24hr interest.
Really any delays only worked for him in the end. They gave the media a chance to really hype something stupid up into a story which he was able to spin to his benefit, pointing out how biased, and delusional the media really were. Before the whole thing repeated the next day with another random sound byte about how awful he was yet again.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#66 Dec 14 2016 at 8:59 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm upset about exactly what I just said I was upset about.

Yes, which is what I've said three times now. We both agree you are upset a media outlet chose to report on Flynn spreading lies. We both agree you are not upset by Flynn lying. I understand that framing is not flattering for you, but that's not my problem.
#67 Dec 14 2016 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The media was looking into Edwards but they didn't have any reliable evidence yet and were, unsurprisingly, unwilling to accuse a candidate of infidelity without being able to back it up.


They went well beyond merely avoiding covering the story. They actively derided the Enquirer for running it. They did everything in their power to make people not believe the story, and to get the Enquirer to stop investigating it. They spent far far more time telling people the story was blatantly false (ok, interviewing people who said it was false, which is more or less the same thing) than they did checking to see if it was true. Willful ignorance at best, outright covering for a politician on their "side" at worst. It was pretty darn disgraceful in any case. I get not going to press until you have the facts, but when you chose not to investigate to find any facts? That's a whole different thing. And, again, many media outlets didn't just stop there.

Quote:
Wright was a non-story even when it happened. Out of 20+ years, all anyone could turn up was a single video (despite the church recording and selling copies of all his sermons) with a couple 'scary' pull quotes which were a lot less scary when in context of his entire sermon. The reason why it quickly faded and had no impact wasn't because CNN was suppressing the story, it's because there was barely a story there. I liked the crying about "What if it was a WHITE pastor...?!" though.


Shouldn't that be a relevant contrast to make though? In a society where we're supposed to treat people equally regardless of skin color, this would seem to be a pretty remarkable double standard. And the fact (which I mentioned) that Obama's behavior while in office in this area reflected the negative connotations of Wright's teachings should be the hint that this was a big issue, and should have been more thoroughly examined, but was not. I get that people are uncomfortable with the idea of black racism, but isn't that what public discourse should be about?

Quote:
Quote:
Trump got bashed multiple times in this election for merely failing to reject some random racist's endorsement quickly enough.

Not a single story of which had traction for longer than a day. Same reason: there really wasn't any story there of longer than 24hr interest.


Uh huh. But the message was repeated over and over through the campaign. It's hard to read any liberal blog talking about Trump that wont toss the label "racist" in there. Where do you suppose this idea came from? Certainly not from his actual actions in his life. It was constructed out of whole cloth by the media picking up and repeating unfounded allegations. Again, on the one hand we have a candidate who spent 20 years in a church that openly endorsed "blackness" and rejection of the white man's world, and it's a one weekend story, while on the other we have a candidate who... um... once 40 years ago settled a more or less nuisance lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in hotel he happened to own, but almost certainly had no influence over its day to day operation (certainly, he wasn't working the front desk and falsely telling black folks that they didn't have any vacancies or whatever).

There's literally zero equivalence between those, but Trump is the one called a racist over and over, while Obama (ironically) wins a Nobel Peace Prize for winning an election while black. Seriously? You don't think there's something strange going on here? I think Trump's a silly, self interested, self important, and self entitled man. I don't think he's a racist. I don't think he's a bigot. I see zero evidence that he actually treats people differently professionally based on their skin color or gender. In fact, he has a track record showing the exact opposite is true. On the flip side, Obama on several occasions did take actions that were directly racially biased. And did so unapologetically because he knows that in our social environment, he could get away with it.

And IMO, that's the real problem. And yes, at least part of this has to do with how our media covers stories, and how it frames narratives.

Quote:
Quote:
So yeah. There's a reason why a lot of people put very little stock in the accuracy and fairness of our media

There is. Because you go into it with a preconceived notion that (in this case) Obama must be a bad guy and when the media isn't reinforcing what you already believe, you convince yourself that it must be because the media is lying rather than admit that your notion was wrong.


No. I look at actions taken and assess them, and then note that the media very consistently makes radically different assessments, even of the same or very similar actions, based almost entirely on the identity or political alignment of the people involved. It's not like this is even a hard pattern to spot Joph. It's not just about Obama. He's one example of many.

Quote:
That your two big examples are from nine years ago is pretty telling though.


Two examples that over time have been examined sufficiently for there (in theory at least) to be little argument that they represent media bias. I could literally write pages of examples just about Hillary Clinton and how the media has whitewashed her actions, behavior, and words in this election cycle alone. We could talk about how the media right now is still running full tilt with the whole "Russians ate my election" story. See. How you cover a story goes a long way towards how people interpret the story, and which "side" they agree with after reading about it. We've got tons of Democratic politicians and pundits screaming about Russian hacking. Does the media downplay this, call them sore losers, make it clear to the reader that there's no evidence to support the claims, etc, etc, etc (you know, like they're doing with the opposite bit about illegals voting). Nope. It's "reported" with a straight face, as though they're reporting on how the police caught a criminal.

If it were Republicans calling foul, do you honestly think the media would report it the same way? Again, we have that very response already. Let's just compare these two articles, both in CNNs politics section. Notice how one of them just reports what's happening, what's being claimed, etc, while taking no position on it? Notice how the other kinda takes a position right in the freaking headline?

That's not objective reporting. It's not remotely close to objective reporting.

Edited, Dec 14th 2016 7:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Dec 14 2016 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. I'm upset about exactly what I just said I was upset about.

Yes, which is what I've said three times now.


No. It's not. You keep getting it wrong, despite me correcting you multiple times.

Quote:
We both agree you are upset a media outlet chose to report on Flynn spreading lies.


No. We don't both agree. This is not what I'm upset about. I'm upset about the selective reporting on this sort of thing in general. My point has absolutely nothing to do with Flynn, except that he's one data point in a large picture. My point is that multiple people have repeated "false facts" during the election cycle, coming from both sides of the campaigns, and yet if the media coverage were to be believed, it was only being done by conservatives. Flynn's just an example of this. Get it?

Quote:
We both agree you are not upset by Flynn lying.


Again, whether I'm upset about that, and the degree of upset is not remotely the point I'm making. I *am* upset that he tweeted out a link to a questionable source. But I'm equally upset when everyone else does it as well. And I'm even more upset when the supposedly mainstream legitimate news sources engage in the same exact sort of innuendo and false implication that the questionable sources do. Which is what I was talking about.

Making his only and entirely about Flynn creates the perception that he's somehow unique in retweeting without fact checking. Which is really about you wanting to frame this in the context of "conservatives lie and deceive to win", when the reality is that both sides do this. In fact, I'd argue that the Left does this more often and has been doing it much more for much longer. They're really upset because Trump came along and uses tactics similar to how they've been running their campaigns for 15-20 years now.


Quote:
I understand that framing is not flattering for you, but that's not my problem.


Yeah, it kinda is, since you're the one insisting on framing things that way, while steadfastly ignoring the bigger picture here. Liberals have been using false information sites as a means to influence opinion and elections since they lost the 2000 election. Moveon.org. Huffington Post, DailyKos. Any of those ring a bell. All became massive misinformation sites in response to the 2000 loss and the desperate need to turn around the fortunes of the Democratic party when they found themselves without either house of congress of the white house for the first time in like... ever. For folks on the Left to just now decide to be outraged when a decade and a half later, someone on the Right decides to use the same tactics in reverse is just hysterical. To fail to notice the outright hypocrisy is even more so.

Conservatives were very late to the whole "use blog sites to spread BS that helps you win" thing. You do realize that right? And no. I don't approve of it. The difference is that I didn't approve of it for the entirety of the last 12-15 years that it's been being done and have stated so on this forum (many many times). Where were you complaining about the use of fake news sources to help push political agendas for all this time? I'll note the suspicious lack of outrage over this by most of the members of this forum then.

You might want to look at that and ask why it didn't matter to you then, but does now.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Dec 14 2016 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
I get that people are uncomfortable with the idea of black racism, but isn't that what public discourse should be about?
I think the point that Jopiel was making is that THOUSANDS of white preacers do this every Sunday, yet that story is somehow a non-starter. Just a guess though as I can't read Jophiel's mind. (YET)

gbaji wrote:
It's hard to read any liberal blog talking about Trump that wont toss the label "racist" in there. Where do you suppose this idea came from?
The fact that he's a know racist? Was that a trick question?

gbaji wrote:
I don't think he's a racist.
Of course you don't, being as you can't come to terms that you are a racist.
gabji wrote:
How you cover a story goes a long way towards how people interpret the story, and which "side" they agree with after reading about it.
It does; but only for the party you don't like, amirite?


gbaji wrote:
That's not objective reporting. It's not remotely close to objective reporting.
Right. For objective reporting, go to FOX, who would never sue a newscaster for refusing to report a blatant lie or obfuscate that many of their shows on "FOX NEWS" are in point of fact listed as "entertainment" shows.





...or point out in the lawsuit (mentioned above) that "news" shows of any sort are in no way legally bound to tell the truth.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#70 Dec 14 2016 at 10:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They went well beyond merely avoiding covering the story. They actively derided the Enquirer for running it. They did everything in their power to make people not believe the story, and to get the Enquirer to stop investigating it.

Eh, no.
Quote:
Shouldn't that be a relevant contrast to make though?

If you're all pissy and mad that everyone else brushed off your "OMG Wright!" story, I guess.
Quote:
Uh huh. But the message was repeated over and over through the campaign. It's hard to read any liberal blog talking about Trump that wont toss the label "racist" in there. Where do you suppose this idea came from?

And nine years later you're still hooting about Wright so, uh, nice point I guess Smiley: laugh
Quote:
No. I look at actions taken and assess them

Sure ya do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Dec 14 2016 at 10:59 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
No. We don't both agree. This is not what I'm upset about. I'm upset about the selective reporting on this sort of thing in general. My point has absolutely nothing to do with Flynn, except that he's one data point in a large picture. My point is that multiple people have repeated "false facts" during the election cycle, coming from both sides of the campaigns, and yet if the media coverage were to be believed, it was only being done by conservatives. Flynn's just an example of this. Get it?

How is this not what I'm saying? You're upset a media outlet chose to report on this. You feel they should be reporting on all these other false facts, the ones that are spread by Dems/liberals instead of the ones spread by GOP/conservatives. You're upset by what they chose to report on or not report on.
Gbaji wrote:
Again, whether I'm upset about that, and the degree of upset is not remotely the point I'm making. I *am* upset that he tweeted out a link to a questionable source. But I'm equally upset when everyone else does it as well. And I'm even more upset when the supposedly mainstream legitimate news sources engage in the same exact sort of innuendo and false implication that the questionable sources do. Which is what I was talking about.

Right, to you Flynn spreading false facts is just an insignificant piece of the bigger pie. We should ignore it entirely. Any time a news outlet airs a story that reflects negatively on Republicans, then there are more important issues that need to be addressed. Any time they air a story that reflects negatively on Democrats then it is, without bias, the most important issue that needs to be addressed and should be covered as widely and constantly as possible. We needn't be upset by this Flynn story.

We aren't disagreeing on your perspective.
#72 Dec 15 2016 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
***
3,037 posts
Gabji you keep trying to say Democrats are worst then the Republicans, but then we didn't do this When you have one side trying to deal with actual issues and the other is pushing lies, you get this polarize view of the world. A world where one side can't accept facts, because they come from the very sources they demonize for years.

Sorry Trump and the monster of cabinet he is going to appoint, is the fault of a party that kept telling their members that the news media is bias and can't be trusted.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#73 Dec 15 2016 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that people are uncomfortable with the idea of black racism, but isn't that what public discourse should be about?
I think the point that Jopiel was making is that THOUSANDS of white preacers do this every Sunday, yet that story is somehow a non-starter.


What? You're saying that thousands of white preachers say things like "we need to reject black America and black values and stand up for white people and white values"? Publicly? At the pulpit? During a sermon? Seriously? That's... not happening. And on the rare occasion where it does happen like even once anywhere in this country, it will be reported, generate mass protest, and the church leader and members will more or less have to go into hiding.

Are you freaking kidding me?

Quote:
Just a guess though as I can't read Jophiel's mind. (YET)


Joph is not nearly far enough out into the liberal loony bin to think this. I'm frankly baffled how you could come up with it. The Wright story didn't disappear because there are so many examples of the same thing being done by white preachers and no one cares about it. That's absurd. It disappeared because the idea of black racial bias is not something most in the mainstream media are comfortable talking about. it exists. It's much more overt and widespread than any racial bias among white people, but it does not fit into the traditional racial narrative. So it gets ignored. And it gets forgotten.

And this leads to a double standard. If a white guy had been running for president and it had been discovered, for example, that he had attended this guys church for 20 freaking years, what do you think would have happened? No amount of speeches on race in America would have salvaged his political career. Period. You can't seriously actually think there's no double standard here. I mean, this guy is pretty darn racist. He's preaching against interracial marriages, right? He's preaching about racial purity. He's preaching the dangers of undue influence of other races on one's own. Want to know who else preached against all of those same things? Reverend Wright.

Oh. And we can toss anti-semitism in there as well. But hey. It's not really a story because... um... why?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It's hard to read any liberal blog talking about Trump that wont toss the label "racist" in there. Where do you suppose this idea came from?
The fact that he's a know racist? Was that a trick question?


No. But you got it wrong anyway. Known how? By whom? How do you "know" Trump is a racist? Did he attend a church with a pastor who spouted racist rhetoric? Did he himself have a record of making decisions based on people's race? It's not a trick question. You obviously seem to think that Trump's racism is a fact and proven and "known", but how did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you just hear enough people make the claim that you assumed it must be true? Cause that's not proof. That's just repetition.

Seriously. Why do you think this?

Quote:
Right. For objective reporting, go to FOX, who would never sue a newscaster for refusing to report a blatant lie or obfuscate that many of their shows on "FOX NEWS" are in point of fact listed as "entertainment" shows.


So are many of the shows on CNN, and on MSNBC. What exactly is your point? You're once again employing a double standard. I don't think that Maddow's show is any more "news" than Hannity's. Do you?

And again, I'm not sure how spinning off on a screed against FOX in any way excuses the blatant double standard I'm talking about. All networks that have news shows also have entertainment shows and opinion based shows (and comedies, and drama, etc, etc). The fact that such non-news shows exist does not excuse actual news shows and actual journalists when they selectively downplay or play up stories based on the political alignment of those involved. And this happens all the time.

Just look at the two articles I linked. CNN has an "opinion" tab, in which we would assume that opinion based stuff would appear, leading us to assume that everything else should be "real" journalism. Yes, there's such a massive difference in treatment of the "side" here that it's hard to not see the blatant bias. I'm sure you'll work really hard though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Dec 15 2016 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
It disappeared because the idea of black racial bias is not something most in the mainstream media are comfortable talking about.

It disappeared because "omg twenty years!" turned up a couple quotes that were only interesting out of context. But a conspiracy theory about how oppressed whites are works too.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Dec 16 2016 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
gbaji wrote:
What? You're saying that thousands of white preachers say things like "we need to reject black America and black values and stand up for white people and white values"? Publicly? At the pulpit? During a sermon? Seriously? That's... not happening..
Proving for all time that you don't have a ****ing clue what goes on in your own country. San Diego is highly unlike most of America, the rural south especially being your diametrically opposed fellow countrymen. For someone who claims to gather "a lot of information" before formalizing what your response on any subject is going to be it's glaringly clear that your personal database of "information" has a lot of empty storage capacity.




____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#76 Dec 19 2016 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What? You're saying that thousands of white preachers say things like "we need to reject black America and black values and stand up for white people and white values"? Publicly? At the pulpit? During a sermon? Seriously? That's... not happening..
Proving for all time that you don't have a ****ing clue what goes on in your own country. San Diego is highly unlike most of America, the rural south especially being your diametrically opposed fellow countrymen. For someone who claims to gather "a lot of information" before formalizing what your response on any subject is going to be it's glaringly clear that your personal database of "information" has a lot of empty storage capacity.


Great. Support with evidence. Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results. What I find so troubling is that you are so certain that this is ubiquitous among white preachers and (presumably GOP) politicians, but you can't seem to find a single specific actual instance of what you claim. More troublesome is that this certainty is what's used to excuse Obama's attendance at Wright's church.

A. It is at best only a poor excuse if you can find examples to use to excuse it in the first place (which you nor Joph have actually done).

B. That should not be an excuse in any case.


You claim I have no clue what's going on? Then educate me. Give me actual real examples. Can you do that? I'm not saying there are no white racists, nor even that there are no white racist preachers. I'm saying that if a white politician were discovered attending such a church, his political career would be over. If you disagree, then you need to find an example where it wasn't a career ending condition for said white politician. I've already found one in the other direction in the form of Obama. Now it's your turn.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Dec 19 2016 at 10:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Eat my balls. I was only addressing what I clearly quoted. It's up to you to disprove it.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#78 Dec 20 2016 at 2:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Eat my balls. I was only addressing what I clearly quoted. It's up to you to disprove it.


You were saying that I don't understand "the rest of the country", in direct response to my post about the much lower rate of racist white preachers than Joph claimed. Of course, you also ignored the actual point of my post which was that, even when such racist preachers to exist, they're soundly rejected, and if a white politician were to be attending such a church, it would end his political career.

Let's not forget that Joph's argument was in defense of Obama attending Wright's church. So it's fair for me to demand an apples to apples comparison here IMO.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Dec 20 2016 at 3:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You were saying that I don't understand "the rest of the country", in direct response to my post about the much lower rate of racist white preachers than Joph claimed.

Did I claim a rate of racist white preachers? I must be posting in my sleep.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Dec 20 2016 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
***
1,048 posts
Join the club.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#81 Dec 20 2016 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results.

Bishop Dan Johnson. Are you going to argue a few scathing articles on liberal blog sites constitute mass protest?

In general though, it's only going to be the ones that receive a large negative reaction that get reported on. "Man says racist thing and people let it pass" is so common it's not news, it's just my facebook feed.

Edited, Dec 20th 2016 9:26pm by Allegory
#82 Dec 21 2016 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You were saying that I don't understand "the rest of the country", in direct response to my post about the much lower rate of racist white preachers than Joph claimed.

Did I claim a rate of racist white preachers? I must be posting in my sleep.


According to Bijou, you did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 Dec 21 2016 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results.

Bishop Dan Johnson. Are you going to argue a few scathing articles on liberal blog sites constitute mass protest?


You forgot to mention complete disavowal of him and his actions by the state Republican Party and its leaders. Oddly enough, it looks like he won anyway, so I'm not sure if that means that the voters in that state district are just that racist as well, or the tales of his racism are overblown (honestly never heard of him until you just mentioned him, so there's that).

To be fair, presenting a president in the form of a monkey in political satire is something that multiple past presidents have suffered (including Bush). So is it racist to present Obama in that way, or racist to *not* do so (ie: treating a black politician differently than you would a white one). Yeah yeah, I get the whole "OMG! Our history is different and special", but after nearly 8 years of being told that any disagreement with Obama means you're a racist, I'm almost willing to give the guy a pass on this one.

And the confederate flag? Really? That bit again?

Quote:
In general though, it's only going to be the ones that receive a large negative reaction that get reported on. "Man says racist thing and people let it pass" is so common it's not news, it's just my facebook feed.


Again though, It's not like Wright's teachings were even subtle on the issue of race. Comparing that to taking offense at a picture equating someone with a monkey (I thought Liberals were totally down with the whole theory of evolution, right?), isn't terribly valid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 Dec 21 2016 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
According to Bijou, you did.

So you're both illiterate Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Dec 22 2016 at 11:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
According to Bijou, you did.

So you're both illiterate Smiley: disappointed
It's hard to read and type at the same time. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Dec 22 2016 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
According to Bijou, you did.

So you're both illiterate Smiley: disappointed


In my case, it's more a matter of accepting Bijou's assumption and arguing against it. You were free to challenge Bijou's interpretation of your words at any point prior to this if you had wished. Odd that you waited to do so until *I* made direct reference to it. Well, not really odd, but worth noting, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Dec 22 2016 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
(A) I've barely been paying attention to the thread but at least you got something to cry about. I only noticed your post because it was short and mentioned me several times.
(B) So much for reading the sources and making your own conclusions, etc instead of relying on what others tell you, eh? Smiley: laugh

Edited, Dec 22nd 2016 6:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Dec 22 2016 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
(A) I've barely been paying attention to the thread but at least you got something to cry about. I only noticed your post because it was short and mentioned me several times.


Uh huh. Sure.

Quote:
(B) So much for reading the sources and making your own conclusions, etc instead of relying on what others tell you, eh? Smiley: laugh


Huh? I was responding to Bijou's statement. Forgive me for taking him at his word and assuming that was what he actually thought you meant. What would you propose I do instead? Insist that he doesn't actually think that and argue against something else entirely? Cause that would make a ton of sense, right?

If you disagreed with Bijou's assessment of your statement, then freaking tell him he got it wrong. Waiting until I respond to him, and then attacking my response rather than his incorrect interpretation of your own statement just seems bizarre.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Dec 22 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Cry more Smiley: laugh

I already called you both illiterate. I don't need to tell Bijou a second time just because you're butthurt.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Dec 22 2016 at 6:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Forums agreed so much, they posted it twice!

Edited, Dec 22nd 2016 6:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Dec 22 2016 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Poorly written thought creates forum anger?

Though it looks like it, I never intended to say that what I was saying was previously said or believed by Jophiel. What I meant to say was that there are plenty of racist white ministers and that Jophiel was aware of that phenomenon.

____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#92 Dec 22 2016 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Cry more Smiley: laugh

I already called you both illiterate. I don't need to tell Bijou a second time just because you're butthurt.


I can usually tell when you know you're wrong because you start projecting emotion into the issue. The other guy is suddenly "crying" or "butthurt", or frankly any label that avoids any sort of rational thought. I get it. I do. It's an effective debating technique. I'm still going to point out the behavior when I see it though.

Also, the whole "distract the issue with a ridiculous minor semantic point when it's heading in a direction I don't like" is right there as well. I'll note, again, that you were perfectly content to let Bijou's interpretation of your statement stand, right up until I tore it to pieces with my counter argument. Then, suddenly, it's all "That's not what I meant at all!!!". Uh huh. Yeah. Seen that tactic many times as well. Heck. It's practically the cornerstone of the Democratic party political methodology, so it's not surprising that you'd mimic it in your own.

Eh. Whatever. Got other things to do. Have a great Christmas Holiday you silly liberal you! Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Dec 22 2016 at 9:10 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
You forgot to mention complete disavowal of him and his actions by the state Republican Party and its leaders.

I did, maybe you couldn't hear me over the sound of those goalposts moving?
Gbaji wrote:
Oddly enough, it looks like he won anyway

Oddly, heh.
Gbaji wrote:
To be fair, presenting a president in the form of a monkey in political satire is something that multiple past presidents have suffered (including Bush). So is it racist to present Obama in that way, or racist to *not* do so (ie: treating a black politician differently than you would a white one). Yeah yeah, I get the whole "OMG! Our history is different and special", but after nearly 8 years of being told that any disagreement with Obama means you're a racist, I'm almost willing to give the guy a pass on this one.

Bishop Dan Johnson wrote:
March is national Stop Blaming White People Month! Accept responsibility for your own bad choices. Hug a white person!

Not race, but still:
Bishop Dan Johnson wrote:
Allah sucks. Mohammed sucks. Islam sucks. Any of you Hadji’s have an issue with me saying this, PM me and I’ll gladly give you my address. You can come visit me, where I promise I will KILL YOU in my front yard!!

Gbaji wrote:
Again though, It's not like Wright's teachings were even subtle on the issue of race.

I'm not defending Wright. I'm giving you what you asked for.
Gbaji wrote:
(I thought Liberals were totally down with the whole theory of evolution, right?)

I know you know we didn't come from monkeys, but having grown up in a conservative state and being raised on creationist biology, I feel a need to point it out for anyone who's reading just in case.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2016 9:11pm by Allegory
#94 Dec 22 2016 at 10:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I can usually tell when you know you're wrong

Yeah, I'm totally wrong about you claiming I said things I never said and then getting all hyper-defensive and martyr complex about it.

Oh, wait. That's exactly what happened. Well, aside from that I must be wrong for pointing out that you were crying about it!

No, that happened too.

Well, chance are I'm wrong about something...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Dec 23 2016 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Poorly written thought creates forum anger?
Thus removing any lingering incentive to post coherently ever again.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#96 Jan 02 2017 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Allegory wrote:
I'm giving you what you asked for.
It doesn't count because an answer actually exists.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#97 Jan 03 2017 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
You forgot to mention complete disavowal of him and his actions by the state Republican Party and its leaders.

I did, maybe you couldn't hear me over the sound of those goalposts moving?


The only person moving the goalposts is you. Here are the two statements I originally made:

gbaji wrote:
Could you imagine if a white candidate was discovered to have been attending a church where the pastor regularly blamed black people for the nations problems, rejected everything "black", and called for white people to stand up and fight against "blackness" in the country? I think that would get a bit more than one weekend of coverage, don't you?


and

gbaji wrote:
If a white guy had been running for president and it had been discovered, for example, that he had attended this guys church for 20 freaking years, what do you think would have happened? No amount of speeches on race in America would have salvaged his political career. Period.


The case you presented doesn't rise remotely to the same level, nor is there a presidential candidate involved in said case. To be fair, I think I mentioned something later about someone at state legislature or higher, so you get some points for that, I suppose. I'm still not sure if the guy you're talking about is really a racist or is just making intentionally sarcastic comments that are being taken out of context in order to fill a narrative. You'd have to ask people who live in his district and voted for him (thought I already said this).

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
To be fair, presenting a president in the form of a monkey in political satire is something that multiple past presidents have suffered (including Bush). So is it racist to present Obama in that way, or racist to *not* do so (ie: treating a black politician differently than you would a white one). Yeah yeah, I get the whole "OMG! Our history is different and special", but after nearly 8 years of being told that any disagreement with Obama means you're a racist, I'm almost willing to give the guy a pass on this one.


Was there a reason for posting this? Did you have a comment?

Bishop Dan Johnson wrote:
March is national Stop Blaming White People Month! Accept responsibility for your own bad choices. Hug a white person!


Yeah. Sounds more to me like he's cashing in on people being tired of being called racists for holding a political position while white. Seems reasonable to me. Again, I already asked the question as to what his motivation is. You're the one who brought him up, so maybe you have some additional information to share with the class?

Quote:
Not race, but still:
Bishop Dan Johnson wrote:
Allah sucks. Mohammed sucks. Islam sucks. Any of you Hadji’s have an issue with me saying this, PM me and I’ll gladly give you my address. You can come visit me, where I promise I will KILL YOU in my front yard!!


And? I'm far less concerned with some hick playing off the very hick version of "this property protected by Smith and Wesson", than I am with someone who attends a church where racial bias is taught and preached and then goes on to use that same racial bias when making decisions once in office. This was kinda the whole point I was making here.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Again though, It's not like Wright's teachings were even subtle on the issue of race.

I'm not defending Wright. I'm giving you what you asked for.


An equivalent on the Right? Which kinda requires some recognition of what Wright did and why it was wrong. Wright actively taught an ideology that believes that white people are to blame for all the problems in the country and that only by rejecting "whiteness" and all things associated with it, can black people prosper. There is nothing remotely close to that in the example you provided.

As I stated earlier, we could even have dismissed Wrights teachings as outliers and assume that Obama himself didn't subscribe to the racial bias nor would he apply such bias in his political life. Except, that he did exactly that. On several occasions, he made public statements supporting one side or another in a social issue, prior to the facts. And in each case, he picked the black "side" to support over the white, or police, or whatever else was involved. Every. Single. Time. This is precisely the kind of thing someone who's been indoctrinated into and accepted the idea that white people are to blame would do. So when there's a conflict between a black professor and a white cop? It's the white cops fault. He "acted stupidly". And if a black kid is shot by a white (latino) person, it's not the black kid's fault. Cause if he'd had a son he'd have looked like that black kid, right? And if a black man is shot by a cop, the cop must have been in the wrong. Because "hands up don't shoot".

See the pattern?

It's not just what Wright said. It's not just that Obama attended Wright's church. And, while bad, It's not even that Obama acted in a racially biased manner himself. It's the degree to which the media steadfastly avoided even mentioning it, while never hesitating to repeat even the most vague and questionable allegations of racial bias against anyone on the Right. I was pointing out the media bias on this. It's blatant. And it's not even surprising. How can we expect the media to condemn Obama for leaping to a racially biased assumption, when it's the same one those in the media are inclined to leap to themselves?

And frankly, many average people on the Left do the same thing. So it's hard for them to condemn the media (or liberal politicians) when they do it, because they do it themselves. Most liberals also immediately assumed that the white cop must have been in the wrong. Heck. We had ridiculously long threads about the Martin shooting, and I can say that one thing that stood out was just how strongly most posters just plain wanted Zimmerman to be in the wrong, and for Martin to have done nothing strange or violent at all. And even as the facts of the case came out, they stuck to trying to find some way to continue to support that narrative.

That's what I'm talking about. There are several layers of this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Jan 03 2017 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The only person moving the goalposts is you.

Gbaji wrote:
Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results.

Have you just given up and decided to say "I know you are, but what am I?" I can't move goal posts because I never made a request of you. I gave you exactly what you asked for. A Republican state legislator candidate who was a racist head of a church. He literally said he wants to kills Muslims. The political fallout was that he won the election.

I'm also annoyed that you couched your post as a response to me, and yet spent the majority of it continuing a rant about Wright, who I never defended. I get that you would prefer to talk about that rather than a GOP legislator threatening to murder people, but you made a specific request and it was met. It's not my problem you didn't think it through when you decided to imagine a hypothetical where liberals were hypocritical specifically to suit your point.
#99 Jan 04 2017 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Allegory wrote:
It's not my problem you didn't think it through when you decided to imagine a hypothetical where liberals were hypocritical specifically to suit your point.
Well, it kind of is if you expected any other reaction.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Jan 04 2017 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Allegory wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
The only person moving the goalposts is you.

Gbaji wrote:
Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results.

Have you just given up and decided to say "I know you are, but what am I?" I can't move goal posts because I never made a request of you. I gave you exactly what you asked for. A Republican state legislator candidate who was a racist head of a church. He literally said he wants to kills Muslims. The political fallout was that he won the election.


He said that black people were to blame for all the nation's problems? He said that white people need to avoid and reject all things "black"? I've yet to see you post anything said or done by this guy that rises to that same level. You're moving the goalposts in terms of what you label "racist". You can't just apply the label because it's convenient. It has to have some objective meaning.

Quote:
I'm also annoyed that you couched your post as a response to me, and yet spent the majority of it continuing a rant about Wright, who I never defended.


I never said you defended Wright. I did say (repeatedly) that in order to meet the criteria I set, you have to find someone who has said similar/equivalent things to what Wright said. I listed off what Wright said as an example and reminder of the kinds of things you'd have to find on the other "side" to meet that criteria. That you continue to point to some guy who said some mean things, but not racist (at least not the examples you've provided), suggests that you don't understand what an actual racist statement or position is.

There is no equivalence between one preacher saying "white people are to blame" and another saying "it's not fair for people to blame things on white people". One is actual racial bias. The other is a reaction to that racial bias. Surely you can see the difference?

BTW. I'm more than happy to adjust my position on whatshisname. It's not like I care about him, or had ever heard of him prior to this. But you kinda have to provide stronger evidence than you have before I'm willing to make that concession. Um... And it also bears pointing out that this would only be an admission that this terrible person, whom I'm assuming you think is an racist bigot who should never hold public office, is only just as bad as Obama. Did you vote for Obama? Twice maybe? I didn't vote for this guy. So I'll gladly take the high ground on that one as well.


Quote:
I get that you would prefer to talk about that rather than a GOP legislator threatening to murder people, but you made a specific request and it was met. It's not my problem you didn't think it through when you decided to imagine a hypothetical where liberals were hypocritical specifically to suit your point.


It is hypocritical for you to condemn this guy but not Obama. See how that works? Are you admitting that Obama has engaged in racially biased actions during his presidency? Look. If you can show me that this guy has actually taken action (or even made statements) that show direct racial bias, I'll happily condemn him. Will you do the same with regard to Obama? I'm betting not.

And there's your hypocrisy. And it's not just you. It's you. It's the mainstream media. And that's the larger point I was making.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Jan 04 2017 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
gbaji wrote:
He said that black people were to blame for all the nation's problems? He said that white people need to avoid and reject all things "black"? I've yet to see you post anything said or done by this guy that rises to that same level.

gbaji wrote:
Give me the name of a GOP politician running for any major office (let's say state legislator/governor or higher), who attended such a racist church, was found out to have attended such, and then lets examine the media fallout and political results.

You didn't ask for that, and I never pretended to provide it. You're ignoring what your real request is, because again, you're moving goalposts.
gbaji wrote:
You're moving the goalposts in terms of what you label "racist". You can't just apply the label because it's convenient. It has to have some objective meaning.

He has posted "I [heart] being white", multiple photos of Obama being an ape, "Black turds matter", that Beyonce's superbowl dance in support of the black panthers should be replaced by a half time show by the KKK, wants to ban Islam, and, again, threatens to murder Muslims.

It's really easy to admit when someone is being racist. Al Sharpton has been racist. Joe Biden has been racist. It's really that easy.
gbaji wrote:
It is hypocritical for you to condemn this guy but not Obama. See how that works?

No, I don't think anyone does. I'm not condemning this guy. You asked for an example and I gave it to you. Do not ask questions you do not want answered.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Anonymous Guests (66)