Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

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

#102 Jan 06 2017 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Allegory wrote:
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.


The first quote is me clarifying what the phrase "such a racist church" means. Specifically, a list of things Wright taught from his pulpit. You aren't meeting the criteria of my question if they don't match (or are similar at least) with Wrights' teachings. Is this really a difficult concept for you to grasp?

Quote:
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 (struck out for irrelevance to the issue of racism).


All of which look to me more like highlighting the hypocrisy of how race and racism is treated by our media and the Left by parroting them with "white" equivalents. That's the whole point he's (presumably) trying to make. If you see those things as racism or acceptance of racism, but *not* when it's "I [heart] being black", or when it's George Bush portrayed as an ape, or when a major performer supports a racist black organization, then you are being hypocritical.

Wow. You really don't get that? It's called satire. Look it up. He's practically shouting it at you, I've explained it to you in this context at least twice now, but you are *still* taking his statements at face (racist) value. I can't tell if you really are this blind, or are just pretending at this point.

Quote:
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.


And Obama?

Quote:
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.


Ok. Apparently, you don't condemn acts of racial bias or racism. Let me rephrase then.

It's hypocritical for you to identify his statements/actions as racial bias but not the statements/actions of Obama. Let's also not lose sight of the fact that *you* came up with this guy as an example of a politician who attended "such a racist church" as Wrights, yet suffered no mass media or political negatives for it. So the best you're saying is that Obama is just as racist as he is. Which, frankly, I'm perfectly fine with.

Are you ?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103 Jan 09 2017 at 5:29 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
gbaji wrote:
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.


What the **** did you write? You finally broke things.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#104 Jan 12 2017 at 6:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.


What the **** did you write? You finally broke things.


Huh. Never noticed that. Looks like the quote from the article listing a set of allegations against "Clinton and associates" contained enough bad words that the filter gods decreed it shall not be displayed at all. If it really matters to you to read a several weeks old post, I suppose I could edit it and trim out the list itself, but the thrust of my point was to illustrate how the article conflated a list of people and a list of "bad things", which can lead a reader to conclude anyone in the list of people may have done any of the things in the list of "bad things", despite never actually stating specifically that "this person did this thing". I followed this up with a point that this is really bad journalism, but it's the same form of bad journalism that mainstream "real news" sources have been using for decades (and which I've pointed out numerous times on this forum).

I then followed that up with a comment about how if the "real news" sites would refrain from doing this, then it would be much easier for readers to distinguish the "fake news". When they both use the same poor methods of innuendo, word association, speculation, and unsupported allegations in their content, then they are both guilty of perpetuating a condition where people will easily adopt false conclusions from said content. It's not really about "fake" versus "real" news. Everyone does this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105 Jan 12 2017 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They installed a new filter that's not working as intended and is counting instances of a banned word within a word (such as 'associates').

Edit: Heh, if you bold a 'bad' part of an otherwise innocent word, it gets filtered.

Edited, Jan 12th 2017 7:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Jan 12 2017 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,821 posts
The Google Filter didn't kill the forums as quickly as they had hoped. There are still a handful of posts per day. So I guess they felt they needed to step it up a notch.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#107 Jan 13 2017 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
gbaji wrote:
If it really matters
Nope.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#108 Jan 13 2017 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,244 posts
gbaji wrote:
When they both use the same poor methods of innuendo, word association, speculation, and unsupported allegations in their content, then they are both guilty of perpetuating a condition where people will easily adopt false conclusions from said content. It's not really about "fake" versus "real" news. Everyone does this.
People will also adopt true conclusions from the same material, much to the chagrin of the subject(s) of the article.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#109 Jan 13 2017 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When they both use the same poor methods of innuendo, word association, speculation, and unsupported allegations in their content, then they are both guilty of perpetuating a condition where people will easily adopt false conclusions from said content. It's not really about "fake" versus "real" news. Everyone does this.
People will also adopt true conclusions from the same material...


Or they think they are true conclusions. Which is kinda the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 78 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (78)