Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When you have nothing to say, you swear more to fill the void.

We were having a conversation about the media. There is no left-wing counterpart to Fox News. Nor is there a left-wing counterpart to Breitbart, for that matter. Everyone shares the internet, and everyone can find crazy stuff on Facebook, but conservative media spreads misinformation in a way that has no left-wing parallel. Indeed, there is no left-wing counterpart to most conservative media, which is a key part of the story. (Not all right-wing media is like this. The FT and the Economist are both right of center and very solid.) When you change the subject to tell me that there are deluded idiots on both the right and the left, you are no longer talking about what is wrong with the media.

I swear when I think the person I’m talking to is stupid or inadequately informed. You’re not stupid. But you’re fucking clueless. If you believe the right is the only deluded group, this conversation is pointless. You’re an idiot regarding the subject, and there’s no point in talking to you about it.

ETA: Fox has an analogue: MSNBC. I don’t know about Brietbart as I've never paid any attention to it. But whatever idiocy it spreads, a number of left leaning sites do the same, if not more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I swear when I think the person I’m talking to is stupid or inadequately informed. You’re not stupid. But you’re fucking clueless. If you believe the right is the only deluded group, this conversation is pointless. You’re an idiot regarding the subject, and there’s no point in talking to you about it.

Find someone who speaks English who can explain to you what I meant by my last post. Or try re-reading it or something.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: Fox has an analogue: MSNBC.

Ha. Good one.

I don’t know about Brietbart as I've never paid any attention to it. But whatever idiocy it spreads, a number of left leaning sites do the same, if not more.

I pretty much suspected that your both-sidesism is an ideological commitment, something you believe whether or not you know of any facts to support it, but thank you for just saying it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: Fox has an analogue: MSNBC.

I know they tell you this on Fox, but are you really slow enough to believe it?

Hint: one has an excellent record on factual accuracy, runs corrections when they make a mistake, and has actually done investigative journalism.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I know they tell you this on Fox, but are you really slow enough to believe it?

Hint: one has an excellent record on factual accuracy, runs corrections when they make a mistake, and has actually done investigative journalism.

Makes a mistake? They outright make shit up and spread conspiracy theories on Fox. Hell, they're a wing of the Republican Party and set policy by talking directly to our idiot President, not just privately, but through the teevee.

There is absolutely nothing comparable to Fox on the left in this country. And Breitbart shouldn't even be in the conversation if we're talking about news sources.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

'"Today, the American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,” Barr reportedly said.

He added that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”'
__________
This is the most disgusting, racist, irresponsible shit I've heard in a very long time. And I don't want to hear, "I don't think Barr is racist, I think [he's pandering to police] [he didn't even mention which communities he was referring to] [whatever else]." The idea that police don't have to protect citizens of this country unless they are shown what they have deemed to be proper respect is a major problem and results in policing that is more about the police's feelings than about the fucking law. The fact that the head of justice is preaching this bullshit should be enough for any asshole who "votes their wallet" (or whatever other pretextual bullshit those people use to ignore institutional racism) to wake up. Holy shit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/47...gQwEwR-eE0KRVk

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

'"Today, the American people have to focus on something else, which is the sacrifice and the service that is given by our law enforcement officers. And they have to start showing, more than they do, the respect and support that law enforcement deserves,” Barr reportedly said.

He added that “if communities don’t give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.”'
__________
This is the most disgusting, racist, irresponsible shit I've heard in a very long time. And I don't want to hear, "I don't think Barr is racist, I think [he's pandering to police] [he didn't even mention which communities he was referring to] [whatever else]." The idea that police don't have to protect citizens of this country unless they are shown what they have deemed to be proper respect is a major problem and results in policing that is more about the police's feelings than about the fucking law. The fact that the head of justice is preaching this bullshit should be enough for any asshole who "votes their wallet" (or whatever other pretextual bullshit those people use to ignore institutional racism) to wake up. Holy shit.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/47...gQwEwR-eE0KRVk

TM

You wonder what he means when he says that communities might find themselves without the police protection that they need. It has the apocalyptic whiff of the NRA types who arm themselves to prepare for the coming anarchy.

I don't mind a political figure suggesting that the police deserve respect, so long as they also saying that the police need to earn that respect. Obviously, that's not what Barr is up to.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You wonder what he means when he says that communities might find themselves without the police protection that they need. It has the apocalyptic whiff of the NRA types who arm themselves to prepare for the coming anarchy.

I don't mind a political figure suggesting that the police deserve respect, so long as they also saying that the police need to earn that respect. Obviously, that's not what Barr is up to.

I think what Barr is saying is that major cities need to reduce the numbers on their police forces, which strikes me as a fine idea.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Makes a mistake? They outright make shit up and spread conspiracy theories on Fox. Hell, they're a wing of the Republican Party and set policy by talking directly to our idiot President, not just privately, but through the teevee.

There is absolutely nothing comparable to Fox on the left in this country. And Breitbart shouldn't even be in the conversation if we're talking about news sources.

TM

Yup. And if there is a way to say this even more strongly, I'd endorse it.

I have an old friend who regularly shows up as a Democratic voice on Fox, and for a while I regularly tuned in when he was on, but I can't even bear that now and mostly just see the "worst of" clips that show up daily on Twitter.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I know they tell you this on Fox, but are you really slow enough to believe it?

Hint: one has an excellent record on factual accuracy, runs corrections when they make a mistake, and has actually done investigative journalism.

Do you think if you keep repeating that I watch Fox people will believe it? You keep doing that and it's dumb. I'm happy to debate an issue with you, but that bitchy sort of stuff is tedious. You don't need to do it. So don't.

Now as to substance: Both Fox and MSNBC are news slanting machines. Maddow is a ridiculous cheerleader against anything and everything GOP. She was also a close friend of Roger Ailes (oh yes she was... look it up). He schooled her on how to be a media personality the same way he schooled the pundits at Fox. Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC is a completely biased bullshit artist. Strangely, Al Sharpton is probably one of then most honest pundits at MSNBC.

News is a product. It is aimed at siloed audiences. MSNBC slants for its audience, Fox slants for its audience. You'll never read it, but Taibbi actually challenges your flawed assertion that Fox is materially more full of shit than MSNBC in Hate, Inc.. He actually devotes a whole chapter to why Maddow is on the cover of the book next to Hannity, and he explains the methods by which MSNBC manipulates readers while appearing (largely to the credulous) to be a reputable news outlet.

The difference? MSNBC does indeed have more reverence for facts. They're much better at subtle spinning than Fox. Where Fox will misrepresent a fact flagrantly, MSNBC will carefully package facts that prove X as facts that prove Y.

Slanting the news is like pregnancy. Once you start doing it, you're in the liars' bucket. That one source does it more than another is worth noting. That one source does it better than another is worth noting. But if you believe MSNBC and Fox are further apart than they are aligned in their models and methods, you're in the sucker bucket. You're buying exactly what MSNBC is selling.

But don't take my word for it. Read Taibbi, or Greenwald, or Chomsky. I've been lucky, or perhaps unlucky, to have been exposed to the inside of cable news a lot over the past 15 years. What those authors, and many more like them, say about media manipulation of the masses rings true.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Do you think if you keep repeating that I watch Fox people will believe it? You keep doing that and it's dumb. I'm happy to debate an issue with you, but that bitchy sort of stuff is tedious. You don't need to do it. So don't.

Now as to substance: Both Fox and MSNBC are news slanting machines. Maddow is a ridiculous cheerleader against anything and everything GOP. She was also a close friend of Roger Ailes (oh yes she was... look it up). He schooled her on how to be a media personality the same way he schooled the pundits at Fox. Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC is a completely biased bullshit artist. Strangely, Al Sharpton is probably one of then most honest pundits at MSNBC.

News is a product. It is aimed at siloed audiences. MSNBC slants for its audience, Fox slants for its audience. You'll never read it, but Taibbi actually challenges your flawed assertion that Fox is materially more full of shit than MSNBC in Hate, Inc.. He actually devotes a whole chapter to why Maddow is on the cover of the book next to Hannity, and he explains the methods by which MSNBC manipulates readers while appearing (largely to the credulous) to be a reputable news outlet.

The difference? MSNBC does indeed have more reverence for facts. They're much better at subtle spinning than Fox. Where Fox will misrepresent a fact flagrantly, MSNBC will carefully package facts that prove X as facts that prove Y.

Slanting the news is like pregnancy. Once you start doing it, you're in the liars' bucket. That one source does it more than another is worth noting. That one source does it better than another is worth noting. But if you believe MSNBC and Fox are further apart than they are aligned in their models and methods, you're in the sucker bucket. You're buying exactly what MSNBC is selling.

But don't take my word for it. Read Taibbi, or Greenwald, or Chomsky. I've been lucky, or perhaps unlucky, to have been exposed to the inside of cable news a lot over the past 15 years. What those authors, and many more like them, say about media manipulation of the masses rings true.

Your mind-numbingly repetitive criticism of the dishonest media would have more credibility if you were not an open and ardent defender of lying as, among other things, an important form of advocacy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your mind-numbingly repetitive criticism of the dishonest media would have more credibility if you were not an open and ardent defender of lying as, among other things, an important form of advocacy.

No it wouldn't. But I see what you're trying to do.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your mind-numbingly repetitive criticism of the dishonest media would have more credibility if you were not an open and ardent defender of lying as, among other things, an important form of advocacy.

Are "journalist" and "advocate" synonyms in your Thesaurus?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are "journalist" and "advocate" synonyms in your Thesaurus?

One of the many reasons I don't engage substantively with you is that you are dishonest, and one of the more obvious and tedious ways that you are dishonest is that you constantly change the argument of the person you are arguing with, and then provide a counter-argument to your made up version of what you pretend to be arguing about. You have gone so far in the past as to "quote" (as in, with actual quotation marks) something that I never said, and then provide a strenuous argument against the "quoted" argument that I never made. This is why your debates with Ty consist primarily of: "When you said x, you're a fool." "But I never said x." "Well here is something you said that is kind of x-ish." "No it's not, we were talking about something completely different." Etc., etc., etc., etc. Arguing with liars is pointless.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

One of the many reasons I don't engage substantively with you is that you are dishonest, and one of the more obvious and tedious ways that you are dishonest is that you constantly change the argument of the person you are arguing with, and then provide a counter-argument to your made up version of what you pretend to be arguing about. You have gone so far in the past as to "quote" (as in, with actual quotation marks) something that I never said, and then provide a strenuous argument against the "quoted" argument that I never made. This is why your debates with Ty consist primarily of: "When you said x, you're a fool." "But I never said x." "Well here is something you said that is kind of x-ish." "No it's not, we were talking about something completely different." Etc., etc., etc., etc. Arguing with liars is pointless.

I do wish you'd finish the argument and fill in those etc.s, because you have the basics down cold. Or are those etc.s really more like a repeat sign in music, where we just go back and repeat the same song and dance all over again?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

One of the many reasons I don't engage substantively with you is that you are dishonest, and one of the more obvious and tedious ways that you are dishonest is that you constantly change the argument of the person you are arguing with, and then provide a counter-argument to your made up version of what you pretend to be arguing about. You have gone so far in the past as to "quote" (as in, with actual quotation marks) something that I never said, and then provide a strenuous argument against the "quoted" argument that I never made. This is why your debates with Ty consist primarily of: "When you said x, you're a fool." "But I never said x." "Well here is something you said that is kind of x-ish." "No it's not, we were talking about something completely different." Etc., etc., etc., etc. Arguing with liars is pointless.

I told you I didn't want you to engage me. Why do you think I'd care why you don't? I only responded as I did here because I was able to do it in a pithy way.

Do as you say, and do it more comprehensively.