Bias In Media

[AZ_]

you just checked thousands of videos and they're all out of context?

Anyways. You mean like you've mentioned anyone that isn't "your opponent"?

Its hysterical we got that far without a single mention of cnn. You know that, right?

Are you requiring me to post something stupid about Foxnews to participate in your thread?

I'm sure there are some scorching hot, CNN level takes on those videos, so I don't want to discount them entirely.

But you've been sourcing Breitbart articles to make your point here while seemingly being anti CNN.

One has to wonder how genuine your thoughts on this actually are, or if you're just here to be argumentative.

 

[AZ_]

I would respectfully submit that handing out disagrees to one person, multiple times in the same thread, without engaging in actual discussion, has been construed as trolling a number of times in the past.

No one wants to see a thread get shut down or a user put on vacation.

Look at his posting history.

Handing out disagrees is at best second to his actual takes with regards to whether or not he's trolling.

 

[Phills14]

Boobie is one of the most prolific drive-by disagree artists on this forum.

He made a bad thread and I disagreed with his opinions after he posted a video from a leftist like John Oliver who makes it no secret that he is not fond of Republicans. He's admittedly biased talking about bias.

It's time to move on.

The great thing about the forum and our country for that matter is that @AZ_ can post something like this and you can choose to participate or not participate. It may be time for you to move on if you don't want to participate but if others want to continue the conversation, well that's perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[David.]

I'm sure there are some scorching hot, CNN level takes on those videos, so I don't want to discount them entirely.

But you've been sourcing Breitbart articles to make your point here while seemingly being anti CNN.

One has to wonder how genuine your thoughts on this actually are, or if you're just here to be argumentative.

I sourced one article.

Impressive attempt to poison two wells in one post.

Are you done with Ad hominem and the litany of other fallacies you insist on committing?

Three pages. You throw a hissy fit the first time someone critizes the MSm and demand something about the right, as if that's within your power and not hysterically hypocritical.

cnn is garbage bro. Funny thread though.

 

[gourimoko]

What if the point of the recent anti-intellectualism going around today is the actual devaluation of truth and rationality? The promotion of "alternative media" that is subject to no level of scrutiny over the so-called "mainstream media" which is at least held to some modicum of standards? The accusation that what we'd normally call real news or network news as being "fake news" while "alternative" sources that were initially labeled "fake" are now considered "equally as bad."

I mean, isn't that the point? To establish a reality where "they're all just as bad," so that you can't blame someone for choosing to go with "alternative facts," and "alternative media?" That's the whole point of the "alternative right," right? The devaluation of factual, objective reality since such a reality puts too much weight on cockamamie ideas that are as naive as they are baseless in fact?

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

The great thing about the forum and our country for that matter is that @AZ_ can post something like this and you can choose to participate or not participate. It may be time for you to move on if you don't want to participate but if others want to continue the conversation, well that's perfectly reasonable to me.

I was referring to Stannis somehow not being able to grasp me disagreeing with Boobie's opinions, not the thread itself.

I disagreed with 3 of his posts. Maybe 5 all-time.

It's not that big of a deal, especially for a guy who is known to throw around disagrees without any reference for as to why, hence, "time to move on".

 

[Whittaker]

I would respectfully submit that handing out disagrees to one person, multiple times in the same thread, without engaging in actual discussion, has been construed as trolling a number of times in the past.

No one wants to see a thread get shut down or a user put on vacation.

I get your point, kinda.
A disagree doesn't add much to the conversation but it also doesn't derail it or take up my time. I don't even look at them unless someone brings them up.
And I don't think a thread will get shut down over disagrees.
If the bosses didn't want people pushing the button they wouldn't have it on here.
And my limited but direct experience on here makes me disagree with your last sentence. There are most certainly people on here who want particular posters put on vacation. I can personal testify to that under oath.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

Look at his posting history.

Handing out disagrees is at best second to his actual takes with regards to whether or not he's trolling.

Speaking of alternative facts and reality...

You have 444 disagrees given. I literally cannot find anyone with as many disagrees given as you.

 

[Whittaker]

The great thing about the forum and our country for that matter is that @AZ_ can post something like this and you can choose to participate or not participate. It may be time for you to move on if you don't want to participate but if others want to continue the conversation, well that's perfectly reasonable to me.

I see you are a moderator.
Do you view all the buttons as non-participation or just the disagree button?
I keep seeing people mark posts as funny but they never explain why they think its funny. Is that non-participation? Trolling?
Should those people move on?

 

[AZ_]

I sourced one article.

Impressive attempt to poison two wells in one post.

Are you done with Ad hominem and the litany of other fallacies you insist on committing?

Three pages. You throw a hissy fit the first time someone critizes the MSm and demand something about the right, as if that's within your power and not hysterically hypocritical.

cnn is garbage bro. Funny thread though.

You also sourced a misleading Project Veritas video and a debunked study parroted by conservative outlets as well.

But your beef with CNN seems to rise above this, and I'm curious as to your argument why.


As gour pointed out, simply saying they're all bad is kind of the point of what he alt right is doing with their war on the media. I have yet to hear an objective case for why CNN is equally as bad as the outlets you've sourced here recently.

 

[Wrathe]

They offered people the ability to make up their own truth, because those people don't like the reality they live in.

Right? Any any bathroom they want to use too! Shit, wrong conversation, my bad!

 

[AZ_]

Speaking of alternative facts and reality...

You have 444 disagrees given. I literally cannot find anyone with as many disagrees given as you.

I've given 7500 likes to 444 disagrees.

Pretty good compared to your ratio.

But don't let me distract you from trolling the Browns forum or BLM threads.

 

[David.]

You also sourced a misleading Project Veritas video and a debunked study parroted by conservative outlets as well.

But your beef with CNN seems to rise above this, and I'm curious as to your argument why.


As gour pointed out, simply saying they're all bad is kind of the point of what he alt right is doing with their war on the media. I have yet to hear an objective case for why CNN is equally as bad as the outlets you've sourced here recently.

No, you heard it, you just didn't like it.

I've given you access to 1000 videos. You claimed to have viewed them all and they were all out of context. Do you remember?

You're now doing a whatabout. Do you really fail to see that you aren't living up to your own standard by demanding I denounce right wing media when the only thing you do is go on about right wing sources and pray to the Holy grail of cnn? This is the third time I've asked. I'll just proceed as though you concede the point if you can't come up with a response.

Can I give you some honest criticism?

 

[David.]

What if the point of the recent anti-intellectualism going around today is the actual devaluation of truth and rationality? The promotion of "alternative media" that is subject to no level of scrutiny over the so-called "mainstream media" which is at least held to some modicum of standards? The accusation that what we'd normally call real news or network news as being "fake news" while "alternative" sources that were initially labeled "fake" are now considered "equally as bad."

I mean, isn't that the point? To establish a reality where "they're all just as bad," so that you can't blame someone for choosing to go with "alternative facts," and "alternative media?" That's the whole point of the "alternative right," right? The devaluation of factual, objective reality since such a reality puts too much weight on cockamamie ideas that are as naive as they are baseless in fact?

Gour, the alternative right is a white identitarian political movement to counter the one that's been developing on the left. What gives you the impression it has anything to do with media and alternative facts?

 

[gourimoko]

Gour, the alternative right is a white identitarian political movement to counter the one that's been developing on the left.

Dave, just to point this out for the purpose of the thread; this kind of false equivalence is exactly the problem I'm talking about:

Yes, the alt-right is a White "identitarian" movement, that part of what you said is true. However, it is not a counter or a response to any analogous movement on the left - that's false. That is to say, moral equivalence does not exist between these two positions, and in fact, the ideologies themselves may not even be appropriately comparative.

What gives you the impression it has anything to do with media and alternative facts?

Because the alt-right has literally risen out of alternative media and stems from the use of "alternative facts." How many times have we seen folks holding up signs that say "CNN is Fake News" with text under that saying "Infowars.com?"

If we were to all agree on mainstream sourcing and objective, rational analysis using something akin to academic study, the concepts presented by much of the "alternative media," or "alternative outlets" that are used by the alt-right would fall apart as many, if not all, are simply untenable.

This is where the reliance on the devaluation of truth and value stem from; and this is why you see this new appearance of pseudo-rationality by would-be pundits on YouTube/Twitter, etc; individuals who cannot actually have two-way conversations, or debates, with people who are prepared to level any amount of real scrutiny against their ideas.

So this is why it's important for alt-right and even now simply right-wing outlets to delegitimize the press; because if there is no objective reality, then there's no objective truth. Thus, your opinion and your perception becomes equally valid as anyone else's, debate becomes pointless, and narrative trumps all (no pun intended).