We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is all anyone needs to know about who you are as a person. The fact that only people who are diverse can be scared about Trump's words, policy, and action as it relates to diverse people is absolutely disgusting. It is clear that you do not view these issues as white people's issues.

I know I have been recommending you read White Fragility, but at this point, I'm going to retract the request. It's not for you and based on this and everything you've posted recently, you'll get absolutely nothing out of it.

TM

I mean, the dude argued against empathy, so...

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You don't know what was in his head. You're making an assumption. You're free to assume in opeds. Do it there.

The word "inflated," which signals bias to you and no one else, appears in a short clause at the end of the story we've been discussing. At the top of the page, the second paragraph of that same story is:

The White House has been struggling to square a widespread sense that the crown prince directed the killing with a desire for Saudi support for its foreign policy priorities and the need to manage close relationships between bin Salman, the Trump administration and members of Trump's family.

Here are those same CNN reporters you seem as irredeemably biased against Trump stating as fact what the White House is thinking. As you point out, they don't know what the White House is thinking. But for some reason, your media-bias-sensing tool only works one way. When CNN tells you what the White House is thinking, and it repeats the White House line, you don't see media bias. But when CNN uses the word inflated to describe the fact that the President has been using false numbers, that's bias. You want a media that parrots the White House line, even when they're lying.

Why do you think it's biased to assume Trump is lying, but not biased to assume that he is recklessly ignorant and too stupid to know better?

eta: At other times on this board, Cynical Sebby has said, more or less, that politicians all lie. Is Cynical Sebby biased, or are reporters under some special obligation to assume good faith that mere mortals like Cynical Sebby are not?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The word "inflated," which signals bias to you and no one else, appears in a short clause at the end of the story we've been discussing. At the top of the page, the second paragraph of that same story is:

The White House has been struggling to square a widespread sense that the crown prince directed the killing with a desire for Saudi support for its foreign policy priorities and the need to manage close relationships between bin Salman, the Trump administration and members of Trump's family.

Here are those same CNN reporters you seem as irredeemably biased against Trump stating as fact what the White House is thinking. As you point out, they don't know what the White House is thinking. But for some reason, your media-bias-sensing tool only works one way. When CNN tells you what the White House is thinking, and it repeats the White House line, you don't see media bias. But when CNN uses the word inflated to describe the fact that the President has been using false numbers, that's bias. You want a media that parrots the White House line, even when they're lying.

Why do you think it's biased to assume Trump is lying, but not biased to assume that he is recklessly ignorant and too stupid to know better?

eta: At other times on this board, Cynical Sebby has said, more or less, that politicians all lie. Is Cynical Sebby biased, or are reporters under some special obligation to assume good faith that mere mortals like Cynical Sebby are not?

Your post is well-reasoned and your logic is compelling. That will probably be enough to convince Sebastian.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your post is well-reasoned and your logic is compelling. That will probably be enough to convince Sebastian.

You have always been my favorite, especially when you bring the funk.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

This is a plot twist I did not see coming. The writers of this season have really done well. Consider the juxtaposition of young Assange in a stylish prison of his own making, and stylish Manafort, whom we all know will put himself in a similar predicament.

eta: Or, maybe not.

eta: Or, maybe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your post is well-reasoned and your logic is compelling. That will probably be enough to convince Sebastian.

I was once a nuisance sock, so I think I can elaborate/explain some things- when Sebby/Ty have their weekly argument I typically read Seb's first salvo, then Ty's response makes me sleepy so i stop reading. Then, about 50 posts later, I go to read another exchange, and I swear, it usually seems to me that Sebby has completely switched what he was saying from before. Ty seems confused and brings up quotes from sebby, but of course if you post in a sine wave like manner, there are points on both sides of the base line. so ty's quotes don't really move the needle or prove much.

I think what you have here is that sebby is bored AND looking to argue and without any real mooring in what you or ty might call "beliefs," so he can flash about. The problem really is someone who "believes" in something and has real convictions (like our dear sweet ty) can't seem to fathom that sebster is working from a different space. As I say, as a nuisance sock (I still have been called a troll by Ty more than he ever called all other socks a troll, combined!!!), I know of what I speak, so you might want to listen to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I was once a nuisance sock, so I think I can elaborate/explain some things- when Sebby/Ty have their weekly argument I typically read Seb's first salvo, then Ty's response makes me sleepy so i stop reading. Then, about 50 posts later, I go to read another exchange, and I swear, it usually seems to me that Sebby has completely switched what he was saying from before. Ty seems confused and brings up quotes from sebby, but of course if you post in a sine way like manner, there are points on both sides of the base line. so ty's quotes don't really move the needle or prove much.

I think what you have here is that sebby is bored AND looking to argue and without any real mooring in what you or ty might call "beliefs," so he can flash about. The problem really is someone who "believes" in something and has real convictions (like our dear sweet ty) can't seem to fathom that sebster is working from a different space. As I say, as a nuisance sock (I still have been called a troll by Ty more than he ever called all other socks a troll, combined!!!), I know of what I speak, so you might want to listen to me.

Trump doesn't have beliefs either. Just needs and urges.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump doesn't have beliefs either. Just needs and urges.

That's not what I said. You have the reading comprehension of a flea.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That's not what I said. You have the reading comprehension of a flea.

Interesting that the Guardian article on Manafort and Assange was reported from Quito, no?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Interesting that the Guardian article on Manafort and Assange was reported from Quito, no?

I'm not sure you know what that word means.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm not sure you know what that word means.

Hmm, excellent point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wisdom from Atrios:

They Know Exactly Who They Are
I'm not dumb enough to think that all members of the "liberal media" are actually liberal. I mean some are, and some certainly are not, but what they all have in common is pretending to not know exactly what most members of the Republican party want. Too lazy to look it up, but not that long ago a Dem polling/focus group outfit discovered that the problem with telling voters the perfectly truthful agenda of the Republican party, without hyperbole, is that voters think it's so outlandish that they are being lied to. But most voters are blissfully dumb as they have better things to do than pay attention to politics all the time. However, there are people who are paid - sometimes a lot! - to pay attention to politics all the time and explain it to voters. And they don't do it honestly. Republicans aren't exactly very secretive about their agenda. Especially this generation, which has been simmering in their own bullshit for so long they don't get that normies don't actually think neo-feudalism is appealing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wisdom from Atrios:

Are you suggesting the media accurately states what the Democratic party wants?

It's early, and already you've got me laughing and coughing coffee into my keyboard.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The word "inflated," which signals bias to you and no one else, appears in a short clause at the end of the story we've been discussing. At the top of the page, the second paragraph of that same story is:

The White House has been struggling to square a widespread sense that the crown prince directed the killing with a desire for Saudi support for its foreign policy priorities and the need to manage close relationships between bin Salman, the Trump administration and members of Trump's family.

Here are those same CNN reporters you seem as irredeemably biased against Trump stating as fact what the White House is thinking. As you point out, they don't know what the White House is thinking. But for some reason, your media-bias-sensing tool only works one way.

We didn't address that part of the text. The commentary there is unquestionably neutral, so I can't say it's biased.

When CNN tells you what the White House is thinking, and it repeats the White House line, you don't see media bias. But when CNN uses the word inflated to describe the fact that the President has been using false numbers, that's bias. You want a media that parrots the White House line, even when they're lying.

I don't want any type of media. I don't care what the media does. I was only noting that the media is biased against Trump. And that your argument that the effect of giving Trump so much attention, which works in Trump's favor, nullifies or undoes the media bias against Trump. (I don't really know your argument in total because you "flash around" quite a bit. One day, you assert the media is not biased against Trump. When that's contested, you shift to, "Well, the media may have some bias, but in terms of effect, it aids Trump.")

Why do you think it's biased to assume Trump is lying, but not biased to assume that he is recklessly ignorant and too stupid to know better?

I addressed this already, many post ago. It's nastier to brand a person as having bad intent than as merely hapless.

eta: At other times on this board, Cynical Sebby has said, more or less, that politicians all lie. Is Cynical Sebby biased, or are reporters under some special obligation to assume good faith that mere mortals like Cynical Sebby are not?

As I've now noted numerous times in describing the difference between OpEds and reporting, Cynical Sebby is unquestionably opinion, reporting on news is not. When you report, you have a higher duty than when you offer opinion. (Did I just have to write this? Is this not obvious?)

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

We didn't address that part of the text. The commentary there is unquestionably neutral, so I can't say it's biased.



I don't want any type of media. I don't care what the media does. I was only noting that the media is biased against Trump. And that your argument that the effect of giving Trump so much attention, which works in Trump's favor, nullifies or undoes the media bias against Trump. (I don't really know your argument in total because you "flash around" quite a bit. One day, you assert the media is not biased against Trump. When that's contested, you shift to, "Well, the media may have some bias, but in terms of effect, it aids Trump.")



I addressed this already, many post ago. It's nastier to brand a person as having bad intent than as merely hapless.



As I've now noted numerous times in describing the difference between OpEds and reporting, Cynical Sebby is unquestionably opinion, reporting on news is not. When you report, you have a higher duty than when you offer opinion. (Did I just have to write this? Is this not obvious?)

Whoa, I totally called this one wrong!