Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WestCanMan

Snopes is Utter Crap/Kamala Harris is Likely Descended from Slave Owners.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Greg said:

 .

A great book on this topic is: Amusing Ourselves to Death - Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, by Neil Postman. I can't recommend this book enough to those that want to learn about how the media (and medium to which we consume news/information) can affect the meaning of the messages we convey and consume.

Basically, it's a great history lesson and explanation of Marshall Mcluhan, "the medium is the message"

Yes I know it well, saw Prof Postman speak and asked him questions afterwards.  Not sure if I agree that things have ebbed and flowed since 1776.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not sure if I agree that things have ebbed and flowed since 1776

I guess much depends on the definition of “ebbs and flows” ;)

One example is the fall and rise the partisan press in the United States between the 19th century and today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Greg said:

I guess much depends on the definition of “ebbs and flows” ;)

One example is the fall and rise the partisan press in the United States between the 19th century and today.

Yes, that's the one ebbflow I was thinking of.  But it looks more like a sine wave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Great defense.

Defense of what, exactly?  Are you imagining things that just aren't there?

Or are you suggesting that no-one is entitled to an opinion that doesn't jibe with yours? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Boges said:

Well that's the thing right. No one is forced to debate on the internet. Often it's a brain exercise to be able to form informed opinions. A 21st Century version of the Debate Team. 

If people here think spewing their propaganda is changing hearts and minds, they're as ignorant as the opinions they spew. 

I go to the "other board" to argue about JT. It's no fun to debate Trump there. 

I think that's exactly it.  No-one is forced to be here.  If someone's opinions are upsetting a poster, and said poster has no argument, then they can leave.  Or ignore.

If they do have an argument, then they can argue.  Isn't that what the place is for?

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

1. Defense of what, exactly?  

2. Or are you suggesting that no-one is entitled to an opinion that doesn't jibe with yours? 

1. Defense of unsubstantiated opinions driving conversation.  Are you being purposefully pedantic that I have to feed every post back to you with an eye dropped?

2. Unbelievable that you would post that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boges said:

And even on Messageboards like this one, you're often completely discredited if you don't probably have a citation for your opinion. 

You're just as likely to be discredited if you do provide substantiation and even more so if you have the temerity to ask for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Defense of unsubstantiated opinions driving conversation.  Are you being purposefully pedantic that I have to feed every post back to you with an eye dropped?

2. Unbelievable that you would post that.

Not pedantic.  Your posts seem deliberately obscure.  Maybe that's how you avoid dissent.

You do seem to be of the opinion that your opinions are the only ones that are worthy.  Truly.  Granted there are a few outliers on here, of either stripe, whose opinions are a little eye watering, but your opinion of the rights of guide dog owners fits that description with me. 

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1. Not pedantic.  Your posts seem deliberately obscure.  Maybe that's how you avoid dissent.

2. You do seem to be of the opinion that your opinions are the only ones that are worthy. 

3. your opinion of the rights of guide dog owners fits that description with me. 

1. I don't think so.  I posted that too many are posting opinions, and value them above facts.  That has been said before and should be clear.  Your response is to point out that without opinions we wouldn't have a discussion board.  Well, ok thanks for pointing that out but it's obvious and does nothing to move the discussion forward.  People just posting opinions at each other is THE problem here, so you really seem to have missed the point.  Then you try to say that I'm stating that no one is entitled to an opinion.

I'm wondering if you are more obtuse than I realized, and just are good at prose.

2. Not sure where you got that but it's untrue.  You yourself seem to have disliked something I posted about appreciating different opinions so... you're either hopelessly confused or yanking my chain.

3. Oh really ?  Please quote me back what I said about guide dog owners.  I said that there were worse problems in the world is all.  It's not that they don't deserve sympathy but a thread that's ostensibly about sanctioning Muslims in Canada needs to reach back to rude cab drivers in New York in 1997 ffs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I don't think so.  I posted that too many are posting opinions, and value them above facts.  That has been said before and should be clear.  Your response is to point out that without opinions we wouldn't have a discussion board.  Well, ok thanks for pointing that out but it's obvious and does nothing to move the discussion forward.  People just posting opinions at each other is THE problem here, so you really seem to have missed the point.  Then you try to say that I'm stating that no one is entitled to an opinion.

I'm wondering if you are more obtuse than I realized, and just are good at prose.

2. Not sure where you got that but it's untrue.  You yourself seem to have disliked something I posted about appreciating different opinions so... you're either hopelessly confused or yanking my chain.

3. Oh really ?  Please quote me back what I said about guide dog owners.  I said that there were worse problems in the world is all.  It's not that they don't deserve sympathy but a thread that's ostensibly about sanctioning Muslims in Canada needs to reach back to rude cab drivers in New York in 1997 ffs...

1) Facts and opinions are two completely different things.  Facts:  Canada has no abortion law, while Alabama has one.  I'm sure you can imagine the varying opinions that would come forth on a thread about those facts.  Why would any be a problem?  They are just opinions and don't change the facts.  If you want to get upset with someone who says there is no climate change, be my guest.

2) I told you, grade 9.  That applies to language as well as maths.

3) It's my opinion.  It's recent.  It could well be wrong.  It's an opinion. 

I can state with absolute assurance that I would never yank anyone's chain.  I've had mine yanked and I don't like it.  I do sometimes use sarcasm to get a point across, as in my last reply to you on the guide dog discussion, but I would not think of that as yanking a chain.

4) When I tried to compare a business not baking a cake with a business not taking a dog, and said in both cases there might be room for just a little accommodation, you took great umbrage over the issue of the cake.  You then expressed some satisfaction over the death of a person who had sued a business for not taking her guide dog.  From all that, I formed an opinion.  An eye watering one.

Edited by bcsapper
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, bcsapper said:

1) Facts and opinions are two completely different things.  Facts:  Canada has no abortion law, while Alabama has one.  I'm sure you can imagine the varying opinions that would come forth on a thread about those facts.  Why would any be a problem?  They are just opinions and don't change the facts.  If you want to get upset with someone who says there is no climate change, be my guest.

2) I told you, grade 9.  That applies to language as well as maths.

3) It's my opinion.  It's recent.  It could well be wrong.  It's an opinion. 

I can state with absolute assurance that I would never yank anyone's chain.  I've had mine yanked and I don't like it.  I do sometimes use sarcasm to get a point across, as in my last reply to you on the guide dog discussion, but I would not think of that as yanking a chain.

4) When I tried to compare a business not baking a cake with a business not taking a dog, and said in both cases there might be room for just a little accommodation, you took great umbrage over the issue of the cake.  You then expressed some satisfaction over the death of a person who had sued a business for not taking her guide dog.  From all that, I formed an opinion.  An eye watering one.

1) A completely elementary response that adds nothing.

2) Flippant response leads me to believe that you are trolling me and I should add you to the ignore list.

3) You are yanking my chain, ie. trolling me.

4) I take no umbrage.  I respect religious rights but in both cases the business operator is being petty and stretching the definition of religious rights.

These posts amount to me re-explaining things, in response to your trolls.  That's my fault for wasting my time, but it stops now.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

......

3. Oh really ?  Please quote me back what I said about guide dog owners.  I said that there were worse problems in the world is all.  It's not that they don't deserve sympathy but a thread that's ostensibly about sanctioning Muslims in Canada needs to reach back to rude cab drivers in New York in 1997 ffs...

You more or less said 'let 'em eat cake'   you know, doesn't matter if they are refused a cab, they can wait for another one.     Again, you focus on one link that you say was 1997 while ignoring multiple incidents as recent as August 2019. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scribblet said:

You more or less said 'let 'em eat cake'   you know, doesn't matter if they are refused a cab, they can wait for another one.     Again, you focus on one link that you say was 1997 while ignoring multiple incidents as recent as August 2019. 

Fair enough but those old links were there.  And I double down on bringing this up as a problem we need to prioritize.

The cab driver shouldn't have done that.  There's probably already a law in place for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Fair enough but those old links were there.  And I double down on bringing this up as a problem we need to prioritize.

The cab driver shouldn't have done that.  There's probably already a law in place for it.

Cab drivers, that's plural in multiple countries, recently, where it is against the law, yet it doesn't stop them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) A completely elementary response that adds nothing.

2) Flippant response leads me to believe that you are trolling me and I should add you to the ignore list.

3) You are yanking my chain, ie. trolling me.

4) I take no umbrage.  I respect religious rights but in both cases the business operator is being petty and stretching the definition of religious rights.

These posts amount to me re-explaining things, in response to your trolls.  That's my fault for wasting my time, but it stops now.

1) It does explain the difference between opinions and facts.  You seemed to have trouble with that. Not the actually definitions, but why people are not entitled to varying opinions based on facts.

2) Not flippant. It's true. (Well, not grade 9.  We didn't have grades.  Fourth Form, 15 years old.  It's roughly the same thing)

3) You don't like what I say, so calling me a troll is the best way to not have to answer me.  I do remember once you said I should be censored because I made sense.  Or words to that effect.  

4) Oh, you did answer me!  And you re-explained it completely differently.  You changed your mind.  In response to my argument.  Eventually.  Now both business owners are just  stretching the definition of religious rights instead of one causing you to foam at the mouth (umbrage) and the other, thankfully, having the person who pointed it out passing away.

If you add me to your ignore list two things will happen.

1) I won't give a toss.

2) I really won't give  a toss.

Edited by bcsapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Editor of Your Ward news, James Sears, gets jail time for promoting hatred against Jews and women.  The judge did not order the publication itself shut down because that would violate the constitutional right to free expression.

Link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a few of those, they were rude and obnoxious. They were offensive. But generally it was about satirical humour, and I disagree that he needed jail. His publication is online at http://yourwardnews.com/

ETA- Why is this in this thread? What is this thread about?

Edited by OftenWrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dialamah said:

Editor of Your Ward news, James Sears, gets jail time for promoting hatred against Jews and women.  The judge did not order the publication itself shut down because that would violate the constitutional right to free expression.

Link.

I disagree with the decision based on the link in OftenWrong's post.  There's nothing specific in your link, but there is a rather chilling "What starts with words can often lead to violence."  Thats pretty scary.

I'm wondering if you agree with it, and what you have seen in there that warrants jail time? Genuine request.

I just see a lot of peurile, offensive rubbish.  Not one for Library and Archives Canada , sure, but jail time is tyrannical for publishing offensive material.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

There's nothing specific in your link, but there is a rather chilling "What starts with words can often lead to violence."  Thats pretty scary.

I agree that what ideas can, and often do, lead to action.  Depending on the ideas, the action can be good or bad, life-giving or life-destroying.  Ideas are spread by words, giving those ideas more chance of being acted upon, good or bad.

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

what you have seen in there that warrants jail time?

I think people need to understand that misogyny and anti-semitism are not Canadian values, and spreading those ideas are unacceptable.  It appears our laws allow for prison time as part of that. 

Sears has been publishing for 12 years and he covers a lot of topics and is remarkably nasty about a lot of issues and people.  Yet the judge only found him guilty of promoting hatred against Jews and women and "protected" his constitutional right to express himself on other topics. 

I know some have the idea that allowing expression of bad ideas will allow them to be repudiated and become harmless, but that doesn't really seem to be working.  Consider the idea that vaccines cause autism; no matter how much "repudiation" is provided, measles and other avoidable diseases are increasing and have resulted in dead children.  The ideas behind White Supremacy are also spreading, gaining converts and resulting in death.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree that what ideas can, and often do, lead to action.  Depending on the ideas, the action can be good or bad, life-giving or life-destroying.  Ideas are spread by words, giving those ideas more chance of being acted upon, good or bad.

I think people need to understand that misogyny and anti-semitism are not Canadian values, and spreading those ideas are unacceptable.  It appears our laws allow for prison time as part of that. 

Sears has been publishing for 12 years and he covers a lot of topics and is remarkably nasty about a lot of issues and people.  Yet the judge only found him guilty of promoting hatred against Jews and women and "protected" his constitutional right to express himself on other topics. 

I know some have the idea that allowing expression of bad ideas will allow them to be repudiated and become harmless, but that doesn't really seem to be working.  Consider the idea that vaccines cause autism; no matter how much "repudiation" is provided, measles and other avoidable diseases are increasing and have resulted in dead children.  The ideas behind White Supremacy are also spreading, gaining converts and resulting in death.  

Canadian values have nothing to with what is proscribed by law though.  Do you really think values should be legislated?  Misogyny and anti-semitism are not values I hold dear, but I really cannot see telling someone else what they must believe. 

I assume then that you agree with the jail sentence.  Basic disagreement there, along with the idea that words should be banned because they might lead to actions.  Words that are spoken with a goal of leading to actions, I can see banning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Words that are spoken with a goal of leading to actions, I can see banning.

How do you know for sure that isn't Sear's intent?  The few issues I've read certainly supported the idea that something needed to be done, whether getting rid of JT or "teaching" women their place.  Not an explicit call to violence, as in "someone needs to kill JT" or "rape those feminazis" but the message was clearly that violence was acceptable and in some cases, might even be necessary at some point.  

In a different context, I looked at Blood and Honor's website.  They talked about non-violent actions to "wake people up" to the threat of non-white people, but then also offered respect and honor to those who would take action under the Combat 18 banner.  Another message that violence was acceptable, even though not explicitly calling for violence.

If you're comfortable with messages supporting violence against certain groups or individuals because they're not explicit calls to attack others, then I guess you have more tolerance for threats of violence than I do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dialamah said:

Editor of Your Ward news, James Sears, gets jail time for promoting hatred against Jews and women.  The judge did not order the publication itself shut down because that would violate the constitutional right to free expression.

Link.

I would sure like to see the words that he was to have said that made it appear as though he was promoting hatred in any way? This judge saying that he would like to give Sears more time in jail sounds to me like this judge is one of those comrade Trudeau appointed leftist liberal SJW judges who despises people's right to their freedom of expression. Would this judge say the same ting to some Islamic terrorist by chance and would like to give him more time in jail? Of course not. That would be seen as the judge being racist. Sears is just an enemy of the liberal elite establishment who had to be shut down no matter what. I have watched some of Sears interviews and he never came across to me has being a racist or was promoting hatred of any kind. Such a sad sorry country Canada has become, and yet most people do not seem to care. Hey, I am alright, so who cares as to what happens to the other guy or gal. Deplorable attitude. :(   

Edited by taxme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dialamah said:

How do you know for sure that isn't Sear's intent?  The few issues I've read certainly supported the idea that something needed to be done, whether getting rid of JT or "teaching" women their place.  Not an explicit call to violence, as in "someone needs to kill JT" or "rape those feminazis" but the message was clearly that violence was acceptable and in some cases, might even be necessary at some point.  

In a different context, I looked at Blood and Honor's website.  They talked about non-violent actions to "wake people up" to the threat of non-white people, but then also offered respect and honor to those who would take action under the Combat 18 banner.  Another message that violence was acceptable, even though not explicitly calling for violence.

If you're comfortable with messages supporting violence against certain groups or individuals because they're not explicit calls to attack others, then I guess you have more tolerance for threats of violence than I do.

 

I don't know what Sear's intent is.  He sounds like a tosser to me, but that's not illegal.

I would have to know which messages you mean regarding "supporting violence" to know whether or not I support the right to express them.  I am most definitely neither comfortable nor supportive of incitements to violence.  Expressions of hatred that others might use to excuse their violence, I am fully supportive of.  That is, the right to make them, not the expressions themselves.

Would you ban expressions of hatred against white supremacists because someone from Antifa went and beat one up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Would you ban expressions of hatred against white supremacists 

Yes. Alt-right extremism, including white supremacy, should be dealt with through the legal system.  One can denounce.the ideas behind extremism without hinting at "final solutions", or that they "should get what's coming to them."

5 hours ago, bcsapper said:

someone from Antifa went and beat one up? 

Mob violence is not a solution to anything, not even to neo-Nazis marching through the streets carrying symbols of hatred and threat toward Jews. As a civilized society we should be able to come together to loudly and firmly condemn those ideas and tactics.  Unfortunately, Trump and too many conservatives fail to do so, instead claiming "its not a serious problem", "it's free speech", "it's because of Liberals/democrats/progressives/Soros/Obama/Clinton" or "Anti-fa is the real problem".  

Compare that reaction to the reaction to of the same people to the Al-Quds rallies.  Those rallies, with the same implicit hatred of and threat to Jews as White Supremacist rallies, are not shrugged of as "part of free speech", or "not a serious problem", though they are still blamed on Liberals/democrats/progressives/Soros/Obama/Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Yes. Alt-right extremism, including white supremacy, should be dealt with through the legal system.  One can denounce.the ideas behind extremism without hinting at "final solutions", or that they "should get what's coming to them.".

You're the Alt-left extremist then, you should just be abandoned to have to deal with the world, no legal system at your control, because you are as much of a kook as the White Supremacists are, because you want to live in a totalitarian police state.

You are the mirror image of them, you are just as extreme, just as repugnant.  Like, honestly, you disgust me, totalitarian leftists are just as vile as the totalitarian right, you are simply blinded by your absurd self righteousness.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...