Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 27

we are hoping it's only gonna be 4.

If you are going to trust one youtube video creator with 3 videos total (one where he seemingly makes a complaint about the political correctness in some 'australia day lamb commercial) interviewing one guy, with 0 other corroborations of this story, over every single media outlet (look, here's the breitbart article http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/...ck-driver-charged-five-counts-murder/ ) that commented on it, then you are too far down the rabbit hole already. Breitbart is not part of the liberal pro-muslim agenda whichever way to slice it.

Seriously, you've been duped. You've bought into a whole lot of false stories which have shaped your world view in a way that makes you immediately accept bullshit stories that fit into this narrative. If you extended even an ounce of the skepticism you have towards 'mainstream media' towards 'random guy with a youtube video', you would not have bought this. And even if there are many instances of 'mainstream media' having a clear bias, they have far more journalistic integrity than what you will find from the average youtube video.

And it's just like, you don't need to fabricate false news to talk about muslim terrorism. Muslim terrorism is a very real thing and it's acknowledged as a real thing and a real problem by people from all political walks of life, even if some people insist on calling it jihadist rather than islamic or whatever, that doesn't really matter to me. I'll grant you that there have been examples of media trying to hide sexual assault perpetuated by immigrants (at least once in sweden in addition to cologne)- but you know what happened? When it was exposed that this (not the sexual assaults, but the cover up) had actually taken place, other mainstream media outlets, as well as leftist politicians, all the people who are accused of being part of this insidious agenda, blasted these media outlets!

There are lots of different mainstream media outlets. They are not controlled by some powerful entity on top of society - they are in competition to get as many viewers as possible. This means that if there's a persuasive case to be made for a different narrative, it will be covered because being the first to bring a breaking story is a great way of getting a) traffic b) a good reputation. And unlike youtube video creators, reporting actual falsehoods (not bias) can have very negative consequences.

Finally, just please follow this argument. There is no way every single mainstream media outlet would just come together in an attempt to silence the 30th example of a muslim conducting a terrorist attack in a western country in the past year ; the narrative that muslims are going to terrorize is already established, and just because this one time it happened to be a regular crazy guy who wasn't motivated by religion, that does not actually change anything.

Now, on the other hand, actors whose agenda is to ruin your faith in mainstream media, they will have a very good reason to try to insert this type of bullshit storyline; because they are in the process of establishing a new narrative. And disproving it takes a lot more effort than inserting it - I've already spent more than an hour writing these past posts, watching several youtube videos and finding different articles, while you just had to get that youtube video linked through one of your 'alternative' media outlets, and then you shared it, and to people who share your disdain for muslim immigrants and skepticism towards mainstream media, it seems entirely plausible that norwegian and western media just ignored reporting on it. But that's not what you're actually saying here. You're saying that the australian police attempted to cover up that the guy was muslim and that all the various australian media outlets decided to go 'yeah, let's just run with the story that he's an insane guy who stabbed his brother in his face before going on a rampage, otherwise they won't let us import more muslim leftist voters'. It's nonsense.

solid point, if Breitbart doesnt call it a terrorist attack it definitely isnt one.

The thing about mainstream media is that it becomes mainstream depending in culture and who is in power, for example CNN leans pretty hard to the left yet is considered centrist, its stock is going down the drain while Breitbart is skyrocketing, as you said, they are selling the narrative that sells, sometimes you selll to the niche opposition but most will sell mainstream and since the right is gaining momentum so is right-media.

On the fake story about Trump goldenshowers CNN said that they just had to get the information out, and it was the publics job to decide... lol wat, I mean if that doesnt make you lose faith in "mainstream" media I dont know what will.

Milo's trolling has shown whats wrong with University Campuses, it first started with protests, then they literally destroyed property, assaulted atendees and forced events with violence, and on the last event someone actually shot a Trump supporter.


I want to bring up a topic to discuss with Eri (Drone) because I remember you were a supporter of some mild forms of political correctness, what is your stance on hate speech?

Personally I think ALL hate speech laws are horrible, of course I dont want neo nazis denying the holocaust, but I think the government having the control to ban speech and thought is such a dangerous precedent that ironically they are way more likely to repeat what they are trying to stop (a thing like the holocaust).

I dont think there is such thing as partial freedom of speech, because someone has to decide what is hate speech and what isnt, and maybe one day you wont agree with this, and maybe this is a power nobody should have.

In Canada its already showing the dangers, now its hate speech to not use the queer genders, and maybe its not enforced strongly today, but one day it might.


(Please dont say shit like yelling BOMB in an airport would be free speech because thats a stupid argument, it isnt)

it's a long way to go but i'm currently more confident that Trump will win re-election than I was he would win the original election in the first place, and i bet pretty heavy on that one.

a lot of these Womens Marchers seem more interested in signalling to their in-group on instagram than coming up with real proposals or being politically active in the productive sense.

On January 24 2017 00:13 Santafairy wrote: but yes, in general laws punish people who do illegal things

Not sure if thats what you meant, but this made me believe you imply people should abide by laws that are ridiculous as well, for example if they'd ban abortions. Just cause something s a law doesn't mean people should blindly follow

bomb in airport of fire in a crowded theater are examples of 'stuff that should be illegal even though it's just words coming out of your mouth', but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with hate speech or your question in hand so I'm not bringing those up. ;p

Obviously not using queer genders should not constitute hate speech. That is ridiculous. I think where it becomes difficult is when people are using speech to literally and deliberately advocate violence or other criminal acts in a way that makes it more likely that people will become violent or conduct those criminal acts. Like, I could see that it should be illegal to go to a group of criminals and give them detailed information on when a rich family is going to be out of town so burglarizing them will be easier, even if you don't actually take part in the burglarizing. Likewise I think standing in front of a group of hooligany skinheads and giving them a braveheart speech about how homosexuals are eroding the social fabric of society ending with 'there's a bunch of faggots 1 km south of here, let's all go there and fucking kill them', if that results in the group of hooligany skinheads actually going over there to murder homosexuals, then I can see how the person should bear some legal responsibility even if he didn't himself take part of the actual violence.

Advocating genocide towards black people or jews can possibly fit into this same criteria, although I kinda think it depends on the platform. Not a fan of banning that over the internet, but like, the Edward Norton from american history X before they go to the store to beat up illegals, it's so clear that his speech and his directions are what pushes the group towards their actions. So there, even if he himself had just been standing outside the store watching, I still think he could bear some responsibility.

I'm very much opposed to policing 'I hate fags and niggers' - but encouraging violence towards a group where you can logically assume that your encouragement is very likely to trigger violence against said group is a different beast. And then it becomes a somewhat difficult slippery slope, where do you draw the line - but I personally think mostly all lawmaking is like this. The pure, principled positions mostly exist in philosophy.

Then there's germany's (and like 13 other european countries) law against holocaust denial. In principle I'm opposed to that, but pragmatically, everyone who denies the holocaust does it as part of a greater (and violent) agenda, so it's not something I care a lot about.

On January 24 2017 01:09 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On January 24 2017 00:59 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 24 2017 00:54 Santafairy wrote: not a conservative if you say so! i'm not a big oil shill (but now that you mention it i enjoy having access to modern civilization, the internal combustion engine and so forth), you somehow leaped to that because i think a guy with a resume can run the state department? it's 8 more years of this or will people eventually get hobbies again?

The defining characteristic of Tillerson is that he represents big oil. The defining characteristic of Sessions is that he's an oldschool conservative. These aren't random factoids. I'm sorry if being labeled makes you feel bad.

On January 24 2017 18:45 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On January 24 2017 01:09 Santafairy wrote:   On January 24 2017 00:59 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 24 2017 00:54 Santafairy wrote: not a conservative if you say so! i'm not a big oil shill (but now that you mention it i enjoy having access to modern civilization, the internal combustion engine and so forth), you somehow leaped to that because i think a guy with a resume can run the state department? it's 8 more years of this or will people eventually get hobbies again? The defining characteristic of Tillerson is that he represents big oil. The defining characteristic of Sessions is that he's an oldschool conservative. These aren't random factoids.

i'm not either one of those people, so you're committing an enormous category error

On January 24 2017 18:45 NMcNasty wrote: I'm sorry if being labeled makes you feel bad.

how old are you that you still talk like this?

On January 24 2017 18:59 Santafairy wrote: i'm not either one of those people, so you're committing an enormous category error

If you scroll up you'll see that you were actively supportive of these people not just neutral. Maybe you have some alternative reason for supporting them besides their entire history?

Well he's not conservative per say since he seems to fully support Gov micro managing economic enteties.

On January 24 2017 19:17 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On January 24 2017 18:59 Santafairy wrote: i'm not either one of those people, so you're committing an enormous category error If you scroll up you'll see that you were actively supportive of these people not just neutral. Maybe you have some alternative reason for supporting them besides their entire history?

because i'm not a revolutionary infant that thinks no rich person or political conservative should ever be allowed to hold any government position?

can you drop the us vs. them walls for a second and see this? i didn't vote for sessions in a senate race to represent me (even if i had it would only mean i thought he was better than the alternative, not that i literally became everything sessions is), i'm saying he was a good pick for the justice department and should do well in this administration

i'm simply not a conservative, i can prove it with any facebook level political quiz you want, i supported obama, it's not because it's an insult as you seem to think, it's just false

I think the outrage over Tillerson is overblown. His reluctance to condemn Russian and Putin is troubling, but he seems supportive of sanctions and is an otherwise fine nominee for SoS. Marco Rubio has received a lot of flak for at first taking him to task in the senate hearings but then supported his nomination, which I think is pretty unfair. People need to pick their battles, and Tillerson is not worth him going against his party. Wouldn't have been my choice cause the anti environmental pro oil people are exactly the kind of people I hate, but for someone dealing mainly with foreign policy it's less important.

Sessions is much more worrying. His stances on immigration, climate change, and history of racism are downright scary for an AG. But he's still a better nominee than clowns like Pruitt, Price, Perry, and DeVos.

On January 24 2017 19:47 Santafairy wrote: i'm simply not a conservative, i can prove it with any facebook level political quiz you want, i supported obama, it's not because it's an insult as you seem to think, it's just false

Like I said before "if you say so!", I mean I really don't care how you label yourself. No one's going to walk through a facebook quiz with you and no amount of shouting down, or comments like "I think he was a good pick" are going to change minds.

"everyone who disagrees with me is a conservative"