TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 497

Thread: The Decline of the Debate and the Rise of the Far Left and Right

  1. #251
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Well as he was quoting the bible, that was him posting his religious views. We may view those posted as bigotry, but in all technicality it's religious speech.
    All right, I guess that means I can start a religion where its holy text declares that all left handed people should be turkey basted and roasted for consumption if they don't change their ways, and not expect any blowback because it's religious speech, durrr.

    And he has every right to say them, under free speech, As soon as we say "you can't say that, because it's bigotry" and therefore silence a person, then that is not free speech. That's censorship.
    No one's taken his tongue away or thrown him in a locked cell, so I don't know what you're on about. He's very free to say what he wants on platforms that agree with him.

  2. #252
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    He was fired from job and his GoFundMe campaign to take them to court over the matter was cancelled after pressure was applied from the left. That sure sounds like an attempt to silence him.

  3. #253
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    1) He signed a contract that stipulated terms on his social media presence. If he didn't agree with them, he could have chosen not to sign.

    2) His GoFundMe was not only drawing bad publicity, it was against the terms of service that were linked a page ago. Don't make us rehash the entire last page about what free speech actually is.

  4. #254
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Sorry don't agree at all. As soon as you say that x can't be said, then that's not free speech.

  5. #255
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Well, we can't really have a conversation if one party's going to stick their thumbs in their ears and sing 'la la la la la' instead of a cogent response. And so reasonable discourse fades.

  6. #256
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    For a detailed response on the topic, I'd invite you to read heywood's post, as he summed it all up very well.

  7. #257
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I didn't see anything in the news that spelled out what specific code of conduct rule (if any) that he violated. If there was something in his contract that could be reasonably interpreted as preventing him from publicly airing his religious views, then fine. It wouldn't surprise me, because for some strange reason I've never understood, society wants to hold up athletes as role models more than any other profession.
    There likely was nothing that prevented him from publicly airing his religious views, and if that was all he did there would have been no problem. But he did more than that, didn't he? He took a nasty politically motivated swipe at a marginal and heavily discriminated group of people. Bigotry coated in religious language is still bigotry.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    The one that concerns me more is the GoFundMe takedown. That to me is blatant discrimination against someone because of their religious views.
    Again, they didn't ban him because he had religious views, they stopped his campaign because he breached their TOS. Gofundme is a site set up for people to help other people, not a site to help people discriminate against others.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Of course not. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe that sinners will go to hell. Everybody knows that and nobody feels threatened by that except the believers, who are afraid of God's judgment, not some rugby player. If he actually threatened to do something in the name of his religion, that would be a threat.
    That's like saying that calling Jews Christ killers isn't a threat to anyone, because nobody actually threatens to do anything. That's like saying that white supremacists calling black people subhuman isn't a threat to anyone, etc. Calling gay people sinners and saying that they are evil is a threat to gay people, because this viewpoint is grounds for larger systematic discrimination. And instilling fear in people of going to hell for what they can't help is a related, but not any less fucked up issue that can lead to a host of problems up to and including suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Whataboutism
    As far as I can tell, he didn't discriminate against anybody or subject anybody to conversion therapy.
    This is not whataboutism. Gay people have demonstrably suffered under religiously motivated discrimination. While he personally hasn't subjected anybody to conversion therapy, as far as we know, christians have and still do, based on the exact views that he is propagating.

    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Essentially, you guys are asking Christians to stay in the closet. They can have their religious views, but only express them in private. If they air them publicly, then it's fair game to ostracize them, attempt to censor them, and discriminate against them, including denying them employment opportunities and access to services that are available to everyone else. It's ironic that ~40 years ago, society did the same thing to gay people. Now it's flipped around. It wasn't right then and it isn't now.
    Nobody is asking christians to stay in the closet. They have the right to say anything they want. But religion cannot be a shield for bigotry and discrimination. What, should we suddenly embrace Westboro Baptists, because they are religious?

    And once again, he is not facing backlash because he is a christian. If he was an atheist, the reaction would have been the same.
    Last edited by Starker; 28th Jun 2019 at 14:32.

  8. #258
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Freedom of speech for me.
    To enshrine the freedom of speech as an absolute, we have to lay aside the right to choose to associate with on a business or personal level. The position your taking is less a "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" situation, more a "I don't agree with what you say, and I have no choice but to tolerate it, even if it's actively damaging me."

    For example, say you're running a big business, and you hire some guy to act as your social media presence. He is a public face of Icemann Inc., and whatever he says is directly associated with you. He does a pretty good job, but then one day, entirely out of the blue, he responds to some guy with "...Biderman? That's a kike name, isn't it? I can't stand you fuckers!" It's right there, for all the world to see. Your reputation is now on the line due to his actions. What can you do?

    Currently, you have the right to choose who you associate with. He's your employee using your name to further your business. You have every right to fire him to avoid the drama. Disassociate yourself from him.

    But what if we consider freedom of speech paramount, overriding our freedom of association? Can you fire him? Well, maybe. Thing is, he has the right to voice his opinion. It's sacred. Firing him for potentially harming your brand would be tantamount to punishing him for his speech, wouldn't it? That's not something you want to do, is it? I mean, he could turn around and sue you for oppressing his right to openly speak his mind.

    ...guess that means you have to tolerate his occasional antisemitic outbursts using your name. Rumors spread. People start turning around, and rant against him on Twitter whenever he does. Your business social media account has become a free speech free for all, tarring you with controversy, and distracting from the whole reason you started the goddamn thing in the first place. You end up losing customers.

    ...but hey, that's the price you pay for freedom, right?

    Or what if you run a coffee shop? It's open to the public. It's a popular place. People come and go all the time. One day, some local ultra-hardline feminists decide to use it as THE place to hand out pamphlets, and perform loud soapbox speeches right there next to the counter. They like the vibe. It's very wymminist.

    Thing is, they're a distraction. They're annoying. They ruin the atmosphere. No one particularly likes them.

    But what can you do? Though it's your property, it's a venue open to the public. They have the absolute right to free speech. Who are you to suppress their fervently held beliefs? Next thing you know, a bunch of MGTOW people start showing up to counter them. Your place ends up becoming a hotbed of discourse for extremist gender politics. You don't want to have anything to do with any of that. All you wanted to do was sell some goddamn coffee. No drama. When all is said and done, you end up losing all your usual customers, and these new people are a tightfisted, miserly bunch, they're there primarily to make a scene a few times a week. To put all those fuckers they don't agree with in their place.

    ...but hey, that's the price you pay for freedom, right? The right for them to speak their mind wherever, whenever trumps your right to choose who you associate with.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 28th Jun 2019 at 15:01.

  9. #259
    “Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble – and his conscience devoured him. Yes, even Iago was a little lamb, too. The imagination and spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Ideology—that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. That was how the agents of the Inquisition fortified their wills: by invoking Christianity; the conquerors of foreign lands, by extolling the grandeur of their Motherland; the colonizers, by civilization; the Nazis, by race; and the Jacobins (early and late), by equality, brotherhood, and the happiness of future generations.... Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago.”
    ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1918–1956

  10. #260
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    A quote snazzy enough to post on a forum, vague enough to apply to every side of the debate.

  11. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    A quote snazzy enough to post on a forum, vague enough to apply to every side of the debate.
    That's kind of the point.

    I recommend reading the whole book though.

  12. #262
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Renzatic: And it's one I'm very torn on. Hence why I thought this was a good one for debate. On one hand I think that if one under the employ of a company, breaks their rules / code of ethics then that is justifiable reasons for dismissal. That's the very reason you create such rules in place. Otherwise be complete chaos.

    On the other, I feel that one has the right to defend themselves on free speech grounds. It's a very slippery slope, and I initially on doing the first post on this topic, was concerned more of Folou's attempts to defend himself were being silenced by the left.

    It's since gone to court. Be interesting how it turns out.

    I was just watching an episode of Q and A, which went heavily into the topic covering all sides of the argument. On one hand, you had people from the christian side, who were very much for him being allowed to speak his mind, and on the other those that felt he had no right to say what he did, due to the offense it caused.

    Link to that:
    https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2019-24-06/11216892

    From an employment manager standpoint, it's quite clear cut when you have a set of rules for a workplace environment that your employees must follow said rules. But what of what they do outside of that environment, as was the case here. And I can see both sides of the argument. I don't agree at all with what he posted, but then I believe that one has the right to speak their religious beliefs. Though technically he was only sharing someone elses's post, but still.

    If you take the side that one cannot post offensive content on Facebook if their in a position like he was, then that again is a slippery slope, as offense is in the eye of the beholder, and anything could be offensive to someone given their own views/context of a subject. People nowadays seem to be super sensitive and easy to offend as well (eg the recent Cyberpunk poster debacle is a good example).

    Lastly I should note that I'm not against him being fired. It makes sense why from a logical standpoint. I just believe that he was the right to defend himself. People say that he shouldn't have said what he said, but he has that right under free speech is all I'm saying. I don't think he should have shared what he did on FB, but then I'm not a very religious person. I'm more quasi-atheist. I say quasi as I hope that when death comes for me, that it's not nothingness. That there is something afterward.

    Tony: I've always loved the story of Macbeth. Well the Shakespeare version. The historical version of the real Macbeth is quite interesting as well. Very few seem to know that there was an actual Macbeth.
    Last edited by icemann; 28th Jun 2019 at 15:54.

  13. #263
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    That's kind of the point.

    I recommend reading the whole book though.
    I dunno. I'm on a pretty big ghost story kick right now.

  14. #264
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Or watch the cartoon Gargoyles, as that had a semi-more accurate version of him than the Shakespear one. Well until he became immortal and alive right up to and beyond present day. An interesting "other" version of him nonetheless.

  15. #265
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    On the other, I feel that one has the right to defend themselves on free speech grounds. It's a very slippery slope, and I initially on doing the first post on this topic, was concerned more of Folou's attempts to defend himself were being silenced by the left.
    It's a situation with no truly easy answer, and any legal conclusion represents a potential minefield, where enshrining one right could have a chilling effect on any number of other rights. Folou had every right to say what he said, Rugby Australia had every right to say "we don't want to deal with none of that, and fire him, and Folou now has every right to sue them for what he sees as wrongful termination. It's a bunch of individual rights clashing against other individual rights, and the question is who's individual right is more a right than the others?

    I look at it kinda like this: Folou is fairly famous, apparently. Has lots of followers on social media, goes to lots of public events, gets recognized out on the street regularly. Everyone knows who he is, what he does, and who he plays for. You could say that even in his personal life, posting things on his own personal account, he's always acting as a representative of Rugby Australia, whether he means to or not. Anything he says says or does will eventually be reflected upon that organization. In a way, they're as liable for his actions off the field as he is.

    So if he says some controversial thing that ends up getting a bunch of people riled up, they'll probably go to Rugby Australia, screaming "WHY IS HE STILL PLAYING! HE'S A BIGOT, AND A TERRIBLE PERSON!" There will be a media storm. Things will be said. Reputations will be harmed. That's drama no one wants to deal with. They're ultimately left with two choices in the matter: to ignore it, and hope it all boils over, or deal with it directly. Either way, they're going to get some backlash, but they've been put into this situation by their employee. They decided to take the more direct approach.

    Now is this entirely fair to Folou? Not completely, no. He's been put into a situation where his fame means he can't openly express his beliefs. He's always in the public eye, and must always be mindful of what he says. Thing is, he's put himself into this position. He wanted to play Rugby. Knew he was good enough to become famous for it. He should be expected to know the price and the pitfalls of his fame. As long as he plays rugby, he's acting more as an institution than a private citizen. Nothing he does harms only himself.

    So, when Folou went on his little religiously inspired anti-gay rant on Twitter, it wasn't just his reputation he was harming, but Rugby Australia's by proxy. Both parties knew the consequences. Rugby Australia didn't want the drama, warned Folou they didn't want the drama. Folou decided not to heed this warning, apparently thinking that voicing his opinions in public took higher priority over his rugby career. He exercised his freedom of speech, and Rugby Australia exercised their freedom of association.

    It was, quite simply, "Fuck you! You can't tell me what I can say or do" vs. "I don't want to have to deal with your screwball shit!" Both sides had a choice. Both sides made a choice. All freedoms were maintained.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 28th Jun 2019 at 16:35.

  16. #266
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Or watch the cartoon Gargoyles, as that had a semi-more accurate version of him than the Shakespear one. Well until he became immortal and alive right up to and beyond present day. An interesting "other" version of him nonetheless.
    Gargoyle's was one of those shows I always wanted to watch when I was a kid. Problem was, it came on at a weird time, usually when I wasn't watching TV, and on one of those weird channels way up the dial I rarely ever watched. I only got to catch it occasionally.

  17. #267
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Icemann, I think it's disingenuous to blame 'the far left' when, for the most part, the cases you're bringing up are about corporations trying to cover their butts. It isn't the left or the right that's ultimately silencing people - it's largely employers, social media, etc. 'Free speech' is a term that only applies to avoiding government persecution, but it isn't the government running all of these public platforms. Therefore, people who are primarily concerned with their bottom lines and have no obligation to uphold free speech on their own platforms remain the arbiters. I don't think it's fair to say these things are entirely incontestable, either - just look what happened to James Gunn. He got his job back.

  18. #268
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    If it was merely about religious freedom, I would be on the other side of the debate, but this is not just about sharing religious views. Religion here is used both as a weapon and as a shield. As a weapon to demonise gay people and as a shield to try to protect the demonisers from consequences that they would face for their actions even if they were not religious. That guy in QandA characterising this as an attempt to help gay people is a bit rich, considering that said "help" consists of telling people they are evil and immoral for something they can't help, equating them with thieves and adulterers. Religious freedom cannot be a licence to discriminate against others. That's the paradox of tolerance I've mentioned here before.

  19. #269
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Essentially, you guys are asking Christians to stay in the closet. They can have their religious views, but only express them in private. If they air them publicly, then it's fair game to ostracize them, attempt to censor them, and discriminate against them, including denying them employment opportunities and access to services that are available to everyone else. It's ironic that ~40 years ago, society did the same thing to gay people. Now it's flipped around. It wasn't right then and it isn't now.
    I appreciate that you're coming at this from a reasonable angle, but this smacks a bit of slippery slopeism. Folau isn't being made destitute by the world at large, not when his church just made 2 million in the bank for him. The issue is he broke the rules he'd agreed to abide by, and the institution he signed on with severed their ties in response - the same as most institutions would if he'd incited hate speech against a race or creed, because what he's saying boils down to being hateful. It's pretty much the same situation Mel Gibson put himself in: you can defend his right to say whatever he wanted about Jews and his ex-wife, however stomach-churning it might be, and I'd even say that you'd be right to do so; but that doesn't mean that you or me or the world at large has an obligation to a) look out for him or b) associate with him after he's said his piece and exposed how rotted-through his soul is.

    It's also a false equivalence to say that bible-thumping Christians like Folau are getting the same treatment that gay people did 40 years ago. For one thing, straight people weren't and aren't being marginalised or discriminated by gay people because they have the temerity to exist. For another thing, gay people don't really care what anyone does behind closed doors as long as no one's getting hurt -- yet somehow, the reverse isn't true. Folau's post kicked this mess off unprovoked, but he's hardly a minority or defenseless, so to say that he's being ostracised or censored for his views is a bit like saying you want to reward the schoolyard bully for abusive behaviour instead of suspending him.

    Actually, no. This is not, in fact, a bit like it - that's exactly what it is. It can't be live and let live if the other side refuses to let live or let be; and we have to acknowledge that unprovoked ire has almost always been the province of the fundamentalists.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 28th Jun 2019 at 18:00.

  20. #270
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Gargoyle's was one of those shows I always wanted to watch when I was a kid. Problem was, it came on at a weird time, usually when I wasn't watching TV, and on one of those weird channels way up the dial I rarely ever watched. I only got to catch it occasionally.
    That show is one of my favorite cartoons series's of all time. I was completely obsessed with it as a kid. Disney does not usually do serious cartoons, and it has an all star voice acting cast. I'd definitely recommend having a watch of it at some point.

  21. #271
    For another thing, gay people don't really care what anyone does behind closed doors as long as no one's getting hurt -- yet somehow, the reverse isn't true.
    That may be true at the individual level, but it sure as hell isn't true of the politicized movement as a whole. Here's one drop in the bucket studying that you're damaging Trans people unless you participate by dating Trans people, but there's a shitload of drops in the buckets these days. We live in an environment where even the slightest disapproval of the politicized LGBT movement will get you removed from whatever position you have and rendered permanently unemployable.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...e-world-dating


    *****

    To the free speech point, here's why it matters:

    https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/...war-on-terror/


    TLDR: Ex-New York Timers reporter admits he would submit stories to the government for approval before publishing. (disclaimer for the "but you're sources are unreliable!" crowd: The Intercept is a very far left publication).

    There's numerous other times information to that effect has come out, whether it's when the NYT was caught exchanging emails with CIA officials to publish the message, Chelsea Manning's leaks, the Hillary email leaks where it turned out they were working directly with the campaign, and so on.


    Unlike most of you I've been in areas and events that got some news coverage back home such as when they were having "riots" over a Quran burning.


    The reason I am extremely skeptical of the media is that almost every single sentence that I saw published about the war was either completely false or a truth that was so badly twisted as to be a pale caricature of reality, and this was largely a bipartisan phenomena from all corporate news outlets. At the time the only reporters who I recall accurately describe the futility of the war and the US leadership's complete incompetence in managing it were alt-reporters like Hastings, Greenwald, and Taibbi. Most of the rest just mindlessly and uncritically parroted the attitudes and talking points of the generals, who in turn formed their opinions from obtuse PowerPoint presentations that had been filtered through a countless layers of shameless ass-kissing sycophancy before ever hitting the general's desk.


    Since then for those paying attention I struggle to think of any major issue where "the adults in the room", "experts", "senior officials", and various other people who fall under the vague terminology we use to designate the purveyors of approved thought have been correct. They've largely failed to bring in a real economic recovery (aside from the incredibly boom I've witnessed when traveling to D.C. on client engagements), failed to predict the disastrous consequences of foreign policy decisions in Syria and other places, failed to identify any of the issues associated with settling a massive number of immigrants into Europe into racial ghettos (the surge being a direct consequences of the last thing mentioned), failed to notice the explosion in populist sentiment, failed to stimulate the European economy.....


    The list goes on and on...yet instead of being reviled as the war criminals and kleptomaniacs they are these people's failures have only propelled them to ever greater positions of esteem and revelry.

  22. #272
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Ultimately, each individual has the freedom to decide whom they date or are interested in dating, and thus this research does not attempt to make any statements concerning whom an individual should date or consider dating.
    OMG, those damn liberals, shoving freedom down people's throats.

    *****

    As for the rest, you're just as confused as ever and we've been over this. Nobody here is saying that journalists are perfect and nobody is trusting the government implicitly. Sure, journalists sometimes get things wrong. Sometimes sources lie. Sometimes publications worry about national security and buckle under government pressure. But you are also missing a larger point in the article: these stories did come out and in some cases merely the press having the information was enough for the government to back off or reverse course entirely. This only shows that a free and independent press is more important than ever. In the case of that NSA story, the editors did change their minds after they realised they had been misled by the government and they publicly disclosed that the story had been held for a year at the government's request. That's the very same press that you attempt to throw shade on and characterise as inherently untrustworthy. And yet you unquestioningly promote sources that are inherently untrustworthy and/or biased.

    And the conclusion of the story:
    But overall, I do believe that the fight inside the Times over the NSA story helped usher in a new era of more aggressive national security reporting at the paper. Since then, the Times has been much more willing to stand up to the government and refuse to go along with White House demands to hold or kill stories.

  23. #273
    And yet you unquestioningly promote sources that are inherently untrustworthy and/or biased.
    Says the person who holds up Rachel Maddow as the modern paragon of journalism.


    But overall, I do believe that the fight inside the Times over the NSA story helped usher in a new era of more aggressive national security reporting at the paper. Since then, the Times has been much more willing to stand up to the government and refuse to go along with White House demands to hold or kill stories.
    An alcoholic saying they've been drinking less does not mean they actually drink less.

    these stories did come out and in some cases merely the press having the information was enough for the government to back off or reverse course entirely.
    These stories came out in spite of major news outlets, not because of them. I challenge you to name one major scandal outside of Trump ones (which get covered because the journalists rabidly hate Trump) that was broken by a major media organization.

    In the case of the NSA story, we were warned multiple times by officials prior that the NSA was conduction mass surveillance. The major news outlets ignored the stories. In the case of Harvey Weinstein, The New York Times killed the story to protect Harvey.. Regarding Russia there have been Numerous false stories that all just "coincidentally" were mistakes in the direction of fearmongering. The NSA story, the truth about how the war in Iraq was going, and the weaponization of the IMF were all broken by Wikileaks.

    For the NSA story CNN lied and falsely told viewers it was illegal to view the Wikileaks cables..


    It's even been quantitatively proven that Government drives most news reporting in some major events.

    As the press scales back on original reporting and dissemination, reproducing other people’s work becomes a bigger part of the news media system. Government, at least in this study, initiates most of the news. In the detailed examination of six major storylines, 63% of the stories were initiated by government officials, led first of all by the police. Another 14% came from the press. Interest group figures made up most of the rest.


    Notice that what they describe about press coverage of Baltimore is almost a verbatim copy of what I witnessed in Afghanistan: American journalists in almost all cases I saw uncritically reported the Army's official PR narrative citing endless "progress" in Afghanistan with zero credulity or skepticism. This narrative was completely disconnected from the reality of a war where the American forces and the Karzai regime had no control outside of major cities and the Karzai regime was corrupt and incompetent to a level that is almost impossible for any Westerner to even comprehend.


    The most significant takeaway from that article: The press only initiated 14% of stories.In that instance that meant that the Press's own investigative reporting accounted for less than 1 out of 6 stories.
    *****

    Here's the question I have for you.

    You don't contest that these news agencies have been consistently caught lying about major issues and working to protect the rich and powerful. So why is it that the moment a reporter writes a "we will try to do better!" comment you are willing to take that at face value while placing zero burden of proof on them to back up that statement?




    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I dunno. I'm on a pretty big ghost story kick right now.
    Kudos to a very passive aggressive, yet ostensibly polite of saying "I'm not interested in learning facts".
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 30th Jun 2019 at 23:20.

  24. #274
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Says the person who holds up Rachel Maddow as the modern paragon of journalism.
    And when have I done that? Quote me. For the umpteenth time, Rachel Maddow is not a journalist. She's a news commentator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    An alcoholic saying they've been drinking less does not mean they actually drink less.
    When a Pulizer prize winning journalist says it, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt. Especially with all the government scandals that have come out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    I challenge you to name one major scandal outside of Trump ones (which get covered because the journalists rabidly hate Trump) that was broken by a major media organization.
    Here, take your pick:
    The Weinstein scandal reported by The New Yorker. And this is a story where even police investigations were successfully suppressed, let alone news stories. That means the press was more successful in uncovering it than the police was.

    The Panama Papers.

    The Washington Post uncovering Roy Moore's dirty past.

    The LA Times uncovering sexual abuse of hundreds of young women.

    Top Secret America, about the growth and mismanagement of secret organisations in the US.

    And there are loads and loads more. There have been journalists uncovering the forces behind the opioid epidemic in the face of intense pressure from a powerful opposition. Uncovering the abuse in mental hospitals. Uncovering lobbyists slanting justice. Uncovering corporate bribery on a massive scale. Uncovering rogue police squads. And so on and so forth.

    Do you not read newspapers or did you just let it all pass you by? Also, whether or not the press hates Lord Dampnut, there's no denying that he's blatantly corrupt and incompetent. He just offers up the scandals on a silver plate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    The most significant takeaway from that article: The press only initiated 14% of stories.In that instance that meant that the Press's own investigative reporting accounted for less than 1 out of 6 stories.
    And of the stories that did contain new information nearly all, 95%, came from traditional media—most of them newspapers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    You don't contest that these news agencies have been consistently caught lying about major issues and working to protect the rich and powerful. So why is it that the moment a reporter writes a "we will try to do better!" comment you are willing to take that at face value while placing zero burden of proof on them to back up that statement?
    I do contest that. You should work on your reading comprehension. When I said that journalists are not infallible that's what I meant. It happens in every field of life. Hospitals misdiagnose people. The police botch investigations. Courts sentence innocent people to jail or worse. No system is free from errors and in today's environment where stories have to be rushed out without delay, it's perfectly understandable that mistakes happen. And yes, sometimes newspapers buckle under pressure or are influenced by the powerful. But you still fail to acknowledge that in all those instances it was the very same media that uncovered and reported on these mistakes. When a newspaper botches a story or fails to pick it up, for whatever reason, there are competitors waiting on the sidelines ready to pounce.
    Last edited by Starker; 1st Jul 2019 at 01:11.

  25. #275
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    Kudos to a very passive aggressive, yet ostensibly polite of saying "I'm not interested in learning facts".
    You're kind of a high strung fuckwit, aren't you?

Page 11 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •