The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
How to get the left to applaud and praise a *****: Tell them he hates Trump
Facebook Post
Joy Behar, some of the other hosts of the View and audience members, applaud and praise known racist and anti-semite Richard Spencer.
We have leftists like Behar and the audience supporting white nationalists in order to "own" Trump.
.
.
.
If you're at a loss for words, as am I.
Tell me Behar (as well as the live audience), WHY would Spencer denounce and regret voting for Trump?
Behar attempts to say that it's because Trump is making war in the Middle East (which isn't true).
But could it be because Spencer bought into the media BS and has recently realized Trump isn't a racist and white supremacist like Behar and the mainstream media been peddling for 3+ years?
I mean, did no one think to themselves "wait, why are we praising Spencer for denouncing Trump? This doesn't make sense..."?
Does this mean these people think Trump is now worse than Richard Spencer?
I like to think McCain wanted to say something along those lines, considering the look of confusion on her face.
Thank you The View, you never disappoint in showing everyone how idiotic you people are.
- JW
(The View - Left Wing)
We have leftists like Behar and the audience supporting white nationalists in order to "own" Trump.
.
.
.
If you're at a loss for words, as am I.
Tell me Behar (as well as the live audience), WHY would Spencer denounce and regret voting for Trump?
Behar attempts to say that it's because Trump is making war in the Middle East (which isn't true).
But could it be because Spencer bought into the media BS and has recently realized Trump isn't a racist and white supremacist like Behar and the mainstream media been peddling for 3+ years?
I mean, did no one think to themselves "wait, why are we praising Spencer for denouncing Trump? This doesn't make sense..."?
Does this mean these people think Trump is now worse than Richard Spencer?
I like to think McCain wanted to say something along those lines, considering the look of confusion on her face.
Thank you The View, you never disappoint in showing everyone how idiotic you people are.
- JW
(The View - Left Wing)
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
It's hard to see unless you're wearing a red hat, but what Braineack hopes we will infer is that because the New York Times treated these topics objectively and neutrally, rather than making judgments which explicitly tell the reader what to think / how to feel, such as "Meo Zedong, who did nothing other than murder his own citizens and should be villified and hated at a level on par with Adolf Hitler, is dead," that this means the Times is actually a mouthpiece for the liberal deep-state cabal which he images to exist.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I understand it's really hard for you people with blinders, but you missed [and selective removed when quoting] this:
very objective. very Neutral. 10 out of 10.
Joe you have such a tongue with your "Flowery jihadi rhetoric" about the glories of modern journalism.
very objective. very Neutral. 10 out of 10.
Joe you have such a tongue with your "Flowery jihadi rhetoric" about the glories of modern journalism.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
z31maniac, observe Brainey's last post, in its completely unedited form:
Braineack truly believes that the Times article which clearly and unambiguously states that San Wych was:
A: A football coach, who
B: Led the Cincinnati Bengals to the Super Bowl, and
C: Also barred a female reporter from the team’s locker room, and was fined by the league for this,
is somehow biased (or otherwise non-objective), and further, that I am comparable to Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (former Iraqi propaganda minister during the Hussein era) for calling him out on this.
Of course, he won't say WHY he believes this, because in his mind, anyone who is "red-pill woke" should inherently understand this, and anyone who does not inherently understand this is a soyboi who is incapable of understanding it, and therefore it's not worth his time to attempt to explain it.
I understand it's really hard for you people with blinders, but you missed [and selective removed when quoting] this:
https://twitter.com/NYTObits/status/1213901236854018049
very objective. very Neutral. 10 out of 10.
Joe you have such a tongue with your "Flowery jihadi rhetoric" about the glories of modern journalism.
https://twitter.com/NYTObits/status/1213901236854018049
very objective. very Neutral. 10 out of 10.
Joe you have such a tongue with your "Flowery jihadi rhetoric" about the glories of modern journalism.
Braineack truly believes that the Times article which clearly and unambiguously states that San Wych was:
A: A football coach, who
B: Led the Cincinnati Bengals to the Super Bowl, and
C: Also barred a female reporter from the team’s locker room, and was fined by the league for this,
Of course, he won't say WHY he believes this, because in his mind, anyone who is "red-pill woke" should inherently understand this, and anyone who does not inherently understand this is a soyboi who is incapable of understanding it, and therefore it's not worth his time to attempt to explain it.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
The two tweets were six hours of each other.
It's biased. And here's why Braineack believes it is biased [oh look, you're fake news]:
A: An American man that had to pay a fine once is written about negatively.
B: A foreign terrorist that killed hundreds of Americans is written about positively.
pretty simple. I could further go down the rabbit hole about the treatment of women in the 1980s America vs. Today's Iran. Or about how misleading the headline is considering he banned her from the locker room because he didn’t want his players to be naked in front of female reporters and had arranged for players to come out of the locker room and do interviews with female reporters.
Or it's probably because I'm a :insert whatever ad hominem argument Joe is using today:
Jesus Christ this text editor is ******* bullshit.
It's biased. And here's why Braineack believes it is biased [oh look, you're fake news]:
A: An American man that had to pay a fine once is written about negatively.
B: A foreign terrorist that killed hundreds of Americans is written about positively.
pretty simple. I could further go down the rabbit hole about the treatment of women in the 1980s America vs. Today's Iran. Or about how misleading the headline is considering he banned her from the locker room because he didn’t want his players to be naked in front of female reporters and had arranged for players to come out of the locker room and do interviews with female reporters.
Or it's probably because I'm a :insert whatever ad hominem argument Joe is using today:
Jesus Christ this text editor is ******* bullshit.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
What about the reporting did you find unfair?
Edit: I don't really follow football, so I know nothing about Sam Wych aside from what I've read today.
Would you characterize this reporting as having been a Wych hunt?
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
I explained why it was unfair.
It purposefully and unfairly paints this austere religious scholar as a sexist, or he did something so wrong it merited highlighting, without telling the full story. It was completely unnecessary to add into the headline. It doesn't matter if it was factual or not. It was just playing up to the "cancel culture."
I guess sometimes the sins of the recently departed are worth highlighting. sometimes they aren’t.
ad hominem warning: I realize you're on the spectrum so i understand how it would be hard for you to see the negative.
It purposefully and unfairly paints this austere religious scholar as a sexist, or he did something so wrong it merited highlighting, without telling the full story. It was completely unnecessary to add into the headline. It doesn't matter if it was factual or not. It was just playing up to the "cancel culture."
I guess sometimes the sins of the recently departed are worth highlighting. sometimes they aren’t.
ad hominem warning: I realize you're on the spectrum so i understand how it would be hard for you to see the negative.
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,049
Total Cats: 6,608
Based on a very cursory survey, I see that Wych had a his Bachelor of Arts degree from Furman University and MBA from the University of South Carolina. Nothing indicates that he was ever enrolled in the seminary, a member of the clergy or priestood, etc.
I'm sure he was a nice guy, but Qasem Soleimani was closer to being an "austere religious scholar."
Also, seriously, not even a snide remark about the "Wych hunt" thing?
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
https://bdsmovement.net/
What is BDS?
The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement works to end international support for Israel's oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.https://forward.com/opinion/433643/i...ntries-so-why/
Sanctions for Israel but no one else seems to be the standard for the Minnesota congresswoman. (She does allow that in the past, sanctions against another country were useful: Apartheid South Africa.)
Indeed, in her op-ed and her reversal on BDS, Omar has dispelled two of the myths about BDS that its proponents love to push: that it’s about ending the conflict, and that it doesn’t single out Israel in a double-standard that’s uniquely focused on Jewish wrongdoing.
BDS supporters chafe at the accusation that their movement concerns itself purely with demonizing Israel. Instead, they claim, their movement works to better the lives of Palestinians and to ensure freedom and justice for all. In this framing, they present their activism not as anti-Israel, and certainly not as anti-Semitic, but rather as simply pro-Palestinian.
And yet Omar, a supporter of the movement, acknowledged that BDS may not actually be an effective tool, or at least, that’s what she told her constituents during her primary. When she was asked at a debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution.”
Indeed, in her op-ed and her reversal on BDS, Omar has dispelled two of the myths about BDS that its proponents love to push: that it’s about ending the conflict, and that it doesn’t single out Israel in a double-standard that’s uniquely focused on Jewish wrongdoing.
Critics of the BDS movement often point out that it singles Israel out for condemnation. They argue that it employs a double standard, blaming Israel for the realities of a decades-long conflict while ignoring true injustice in countries around the world.
In supporting the BDS movement but issuing a general call to action against sanctions, Omar has embodied that double standard, once again proving that she is no friend to the Jews. Having already tweeted that she believes “Israel has hypnotized the world,” and having already engaged in classic anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money for which she apologized, I can’t help but think of Maya Angelou’s timeless warning: When people show you who they are, believe them.BDS supporters chafe at the accusation that their movement concerns itself purely with demonizing Israel. Instead, they claim, their movement works to better the lives of Palestinians and to ensure freedom and justice for all. In this framing, they present their activism not as anti-Israel, and certainly not as anti-Semitic, but rather as simply pro-Palestinian.
And yet Omar, a supporter of the movement, acknowledged that BDS may not actually be an effective tool, or at least, that’s what she told her constituents during her primary. When she was asked at a debate held in a synagogue to specify “exactly where you stand” on BDS, Omar said that BDS was “not helpful in getting that two-state solution.”
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
So if you truly want to achieve your vision of an ethnically-pure America, free of annoying poor people, then massively expanding access to abortion is a great step in the right* direction.
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,501
Total Cats: 4,080
Since Joe thinks I was actually trolling with this one, I'll analyze it a bit more methodically, since only one side of the comparison to show bias was presented -- a very Mythbusters way of presenting a case*.
Lets start by defining bias:
bi·as
noun
we have two tweets made on the same day, by the same account, describing the death of two different people.
Person A:
[bold added by Braineack]
Person B:
A -- Person
B -- Why Person Notable
C -- Negative Anecdote
D -- What happened to Person
Person B is missing B and C. Like Person A, many people might not be aware of who Person B was.
What does "master of intrigue and force" even mean?
What who exactly is Iran's "master of intrigue and force?"
What is something Iran's "master of intrigue and force" did that was notable -- maybe something in recent history, like a few days ago?
very curious.
now consider:
My position still stands that when comparing these two tweets made on the same day, by the same account, describing the death of two different people is that it was purposefully written with bias with the intention to #cancel Person A, by insinuating Person A was a sexist, and deliberately biased to mask the atrocities of Person B.
It's also possible to further fathom/extract/conclude/support that the NYT Obits are "the enemy of the People" but I digress...
*this is a dig against the scientific method busters.
Lets start by defining bias:
bi·as
noun
- 1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.[/QUOTE]
we have two tweets made on the same day, by the same account, describing the death of two different people.
Person A:
Braineack truly believes that the Times article which clearly and unambiguously states that San Wych was:
A: A football coach, who
B: Led the Cincinnati Bengals to the Super Bowl, and
C: Also barred a female reporter from the team’s locker room, and was fined by the league for this,
D: died.
A: A football coach, who
B: Led the Cincinnati Bengals to the Super Bowl, and
C: Also barred a female reporter from the team’s locker room, and was fined by the league for this,
D: died.
Person B:
A: Iran's "master of intrigue and force", who
B: and
C: ,
D: Died at 62.
So now let's break down A,B,C,and D.B: and
C: ,
D: Died at 62.
A -- Person
B -- Why Person Notable
C -- Negative Anecdote
D -- What happened to Person
Person B is missing B and C. Like Person A, many people might not be aware of who Person B was.
What does "master of intrigue and force" even mean?
What who exactly is Iran's "master of intrigue and force?"
What is something Iran's "master of intrigue and force" did that was notable -- maybe something in recent history, like a few days ago?
very curious.
now consider:
Call-out culture (also known as outrage culture) is a form of public shaming that aims to hold individuals and groups accountable for their actions by calling attention to behavior that is perceived to be problematic, usually on social media. A variant of the term, cancel culture, describes a form of boycott in which someone (usually a celebrity) who has shared a questionable or unpopular opinion, or has had behavior in their past that is perceived to be either offensive or problematic called out on social media is "canceled"; they are completely boycotted by many of their followers or supporters, often leading to massive declines in celebrities' (almost always social media personalities) careers and fanbase.[4][5]
The Me Too movement (or #MeToo movement), with a large variety of local and international related names, is a movement against sexual harassment and sexual assault.[1][2][3] The phrase "Me Too" was initially used in this context on social media in 2006, on Myspace, by sexual harassment survivor and activist Tarana Burke.[4]Similar to other social justice and empowerment movements based upon breaking silence, the purpose of "Me Too", as initially voiced by Burke as well as those who later adopted the tactic, is to empower women through empathy and strength in numbers, especially young and vulnerable women, by visibly demonstrating how many women have survived sexual assault and harassment, especially in the workplace.[4][5][6]
It's also possible to further fathom/extract/conclude/support that the NYT Obits are "the enemy of the People" but I digress...
*this is a dig against the scientific method busters.