In other news: lava is hot! I get where you're coming from Korey, but that is part of the reason why I didn't stick with Star Wars that often.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
To be fair, the media had (has) its head so far up its own ass, had Trump told people not to drink bleach Maddow would have been smug-mugging for the camera live between giant gulps of Clorox that night. Then gone to her grave claiming Putin poisoned her.
And would probably have posthumously won a prime-time Emmy for it.
And would probably have posthumously won a prime-time Emmy for it.
You can't simultaneously hold the opinion that people lazily wouldn't bother looking a graph before publishing an article AND it takes coordinated teams planning together to write it. Now you're trying to tell me that lots of staff were all collectively too lazy to look slightly right from the data that was vague enough to not contradict their argument. I don't think you believe any of that for a second.
I should start a counter for how many times I've said something to the effect of "what they said is not any worse than the actual truth". Other people here have said injecting disinfectant is probably worse than drinking bleach. You're pretty much the only person who hasn't figured out my argument doesn't defend Trump.
It is important, because people have much more of an intuitive reaction to "bleach" than something more vague like "disinfectant", which is why despite it being inaccurate, it became the narrative. Which is my entire point, that they misinformed people to get more attention.
But they weren't given incorrect information. You are insisting that they "perfectly remembered" something they weren't told, based on your opinion that it was insinuated. That's not the same thing, is it?
Listen. If you can tell me that if someone misreads the line as "in the hole in the wall there lived an Elf", that person can be described as having "perfectly remembered the line", I'll drop it. No swapping it for your own more convenient analogies without addressing that question. If you genuinely believe someone can be described as "perfectly remembering" something they literally didn't read/hear, because that was impression they got, then you should have zero problem saying that.
...and attributed It to your hypothetical Trump, transforming the scenario into one in which Trump says something innocuous and true, the opposite of what he did.
France banning Islamic abaya robes in schools, calling them an attempt to convert others to Islam
A government spokesman said the long, flowing garment was "obviously" religious, "a political attack," and an act of "proselytizing."
www.cbsnews.com
I mean this in all sincerely. I am perfectly okay with the US or any other country banning French in our public schools.
Also, this is how you know I don't want to run for public office or start a social media channel for le clout.
There's so much wrong with that it's either not written in good faith or too confused to bother answering. Maybe try again.
This has already been addressed. You are effectively defending Trump, whether you realise it or not.
Stretch harder, why don't you?
Yes. It is a complete remembering of the message that was communicated to them. You're just stuck on the idea of the initial headlines not being verbatim the message that was communicated to people.
No.
What the hell is this supposed to say about you? You're taking the position that if I defend Trump, even unintentionally, that justifies you in defending the honor things you know to be untrue. Why does Trump have so much power over you?
France does things differently than most of the West. They ban all religious items like crosses and kippahs, for the exact same reason.France banning Islamic abaya robes in schools, calling them an attempt to convert others to Islam
A government spokesman said the long, flowing garment was "obviously" religious, "a political attack," and an act of "proselytizing."
I mean this in all sincerely. I am perfectly okay with the US or any other country banning French in our public schools.
Also, this is how you know I don't want to run for public office or start a social media channel for le clout.
Now, I dont know if robes are converting people. That seems a step too far
Fanboys ruin everything. "Fan" is short for "fanatic", and the best definition of "fanatic" I've ever read is "someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".
There we have it! Someone can 'perfectly remember' something while simultaneously getting it factually wrong! Up is down, left is right etc, just so long as ya never have to say you made a mistake.There is an argument that Schools have uniforms, and uniforms can take into account religious and cultural preferences without necessarily permitting everything. For instance, there was a case in the UK where a schoolgirl was denied garb she demanded for religious reasons. But to put this in context, the School had already engaged with the local religious community and agreed a uniform that was deemed appropriate and respectful to their preferences.
I agree that "converting" is perhaps a strong word. But I think there can be an issue of childhood competition and peer pressure, and they can compete over who's the most pious. So they start trying to one-up each other, shame and bully, etc. It may be reasonable to restrict this, and imposing certain standards on (for instance) uniform is not unreasonable.
Yeah, remember when Bond teamed up with the a Chinese ministry of state security agent to kill Rupert Murdoch..
The terribleness of a progressive Bond
The latest Bond villain is Nigel Farage. Not literally, of course. But he was clearly a major inspiration for the chief antagonist in the most recent James Bond book, On His Majesty’s Secret Service. This master of international skulduggery is known as Athelstan; a former City trader with a...www.spectator.co.uk
It's always funny watching the most basic, vacuous, cookie-cutter Conservatives who have never had a single original thought in their sad, mediocre lives find ways to pretend that they're somehow outside of 'the establishment'. Like, *****, you literally write for the Spectator. How the fuck do you think you got that job?
Last edited:
Or Robert Maxwell, if you want six the other way.
It's about the Republican Party, because if there's one thing I've noticed from years of discussion, you will always defend the party. You will throw Trump under the bus for the GOP - for instance when you pulled the stunt of saying he was a Democrat, it spoke volumes about what's really going on in your mind. Or your refusal to really engage with the GOP not being the sober, responsible party of Eisenhower anymore, and having descended into its more modern Tea Party / Trump form that I perceive you don't much like or respect, but that you won't really call out either because of that party loyalty. Thus Trump occupies an uneasy space for you, because for all his sins he is still the main representative of your party, and at points he needs to be defended over those heavy sins for the sake of the Republican Party.
You're also neck-deep in the US right-wing ideological ecosystem. The "lamestream media" meme popular in US right wing circles in part an attempt to justify their own parallel information system, which - from the record of Fox and so on - seems manifestly of lower quality than most of the organisations that they criticise. I suspect you are aware of its lower quality to some extent, but you're also still heavily influenced by this right-wing political and media-propagated attack line because it's a major theme in your political circles. This doesn't necessarily even mean actively defending right-wing media: if it is of lower quality, levelling the playing field by nuking all the media is therefore advancing the cause. The cause is the interests of right-wing opinions, policies, and politicians... thus including Trump.
So, yes, you are defending Trump - by association, through deflection, and indirectly through attack lines designed to generically benefit the right. You're not necessarily always thinking "I need to defend Trump", but even when not, doing so is an outcome of other things you are trying to achieve.
They lie and gaslight themselves thinking they're special and unique, when they are not. Don't even get me started on the "outside of the establishment" conservatives and their warped views on The Matrix. They miss the point so hard, it is not even funny.
Yes. You can perfectly remember information that is factually wrong. We've all been taught things in our lives that are incorrect. It is not a statement on our memories if we remember the falsehoods later on.
That didn't in any way answer the question about you. Sure, we can shift from Trump to Republicans, that doesn't make it better that your standards for honesty in media change depending on who they are lying about.
I don't want the media destroyed, I want them to stop lying. I listen to NPR. I'll check the mainstream news websites if I want to know about an event (at least the ones without pay walls). The only times I touch Fox News is when they host a debate or report on something nobody else is willing to touch. The only right-wing media I consume habitually is the Andrew Klavan Show, which I highly recommend, but he's not really news, he talks almost entirely about culture. I don't get my news from the right. I get my news from NPR, or from whatever headlines get to the front of Reddit. I get my news from the left, but then I fact-check them because there's almost always a lie. I'm not here as someone who dismisses the news media because Fox told me to. I'm here correcting the news that I read.
I want the same thing you expressed a couple pages ago: responsible media consumption. I want you all to see the ways the news lies to you. And I certainly have my own blind spots, but so do you, so maybe appreciate when someone uses their different perspective to tell you when you've been misinformed, rather than deciding that different perspective justifies defending the lies.
Something a little funny then. Today, one year ago, Liz Truss became the British PM
More importantly, how is the lettuce doing?
More importantly, how is the lettuce doing?
Still you're trying to shift it and rewrite the question, I see.
The reader was not taught something that was wrong. The book said A. They (mis)read it as B. And you then said that repeating B is not just a perfect recollection of what they thought, but a perfect recollection of A.
What an absolute laugh this is. You opined earlier that the media should avoid warning people about genuine dangers, if doing so could make the President look bad. You want the media to act in a staggeringly unethical and dishonest way.
Last edited:
Yep...going back a little:
Didn't pick up on it at the time with the...everything else, but she claims that everyone was amazed at how well informed she was. Just like Trump does. And it's not even that hard to be more well-informed than most people on a niche subject, there's lots of information around and nobody can know everything. Sure it's even easier to just pretend you are special and clever, but learning isn't actually hard.
I've mentioned it before, but to drive it home, the previous record holder for shortest serving British PM (lasted more than twice as long as she did) left office due to unexpectedly getting sick and dying. He's now number 2. And the previous number 2 was his replacement, but the government had serious trouble due to the PM unexpectedly dying after what (at the time) was a record short term and was replaced by the Duke of Wellington (yes, that Duke of Wellington). The next shortest latest more than 4 times as long as her and retired due to getting terminal cancer which made him unable to speak in parliament and killed him a few months later.
That is, she isn't just the shortest serving UK PM, she beat the record by quite a bit, and the next few shortest serving ones had good reasons for brief stays in power.