Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So you don't have an honest truthful answer, and you're backed into a corner, so you come out with some sandbox insults.

How do you even take yourself seriously saying that after you just got done calling me a chihuahua?  

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not my fault that you think that painting fingernails contributes to the economy in the same way as producing oil. 

Nobody said that, but it is your fault that you loudly and angrily express opinions on topics you're sublimely ignorant and uneducated on - like economics.   

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The onus isn't on me to do an investigation into your broad, unfounded allegations.

You're the accuser, and FYI Moonbox, saying "j'accuse" isn't enough. You need to cite something.

I don't know wtf you're talking about with mustard.

The birther conspiracy wasn't Hannity's, it was started by a Democrat named Andy Martin in 2004, and Hillary bumped it up in 2008.

What is the "terrorist fist-bump"?

That you don't even know what any of this stuff is just further demonstrates your ignorance.  Look it up - it's funny.  That's what Fox News is all about.  Hilary also had nothing to do with the birther conspiracy.  There's zero evidence of that.  There's plenty of evidence, however, that Donald Trump promoted the conspiracy with help from Fox News, and then hilariously tried to blame it on Hilary after it was resoundingly debunked.   

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Tucker Carlson was right, some states did have ridiculous covid measures. Can you specifically cite what he was wrong about?

Not really, because the measures turned out to not be ridiculous.  From the very beginning, Carlson and Fox News have been downplaying the virus and telling viewers what they want to hear "There taking away ur freeedom - the virus is just hysteria" and then when it blows up in their face they pretend they've been taking it seriously the whole time.  

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The things that you're citing here are nickel-and-dime. There's nothing at all here to compare with the constant stream of lies that CTV/CNN et al said just about the Dr For/Kavanugh incident alone.

The Seth Rich conspiracy doesn't compare?  Fox News peddling an absolutely baseless theory that the Clinton campaign assassinated him doesn't compare? Oookay.  

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

t that CNN and CTV COMPLETELY lack credibility then you're destined to be a perpetual victim of mushroom management - keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.  

I think CNN sort of operates as a counterpoint to Fox News - both are extremely biased and lack credibility, regularly fail fact-checks and have histories of retracting statements and coverage.  I don't have much of an opinion on CTV.  I don't really pay attention to it.  

As for Rebel Media, it fails to even be as serious at Fox News.  It's a rinky-dink clown show with a bunch of caustic morons that spend their time promoting opinions that its clueless fringe viewers already hold.  It serves no purpose other than to validate you and let you drink your own bathwater.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 643
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Anybody can be racist against any other race, but most people are not racist.  I guess that was what Day was commenting on.  Obviously intolerance goes far beyond mere racism.

I think we have given too many special interest groups a voice, and a stage to be heard, (more on the left side) and now today they are all screaming at the same time, and nobody is really hearing any

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scho

Posted Images

20 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

How do you even take yourself seriously saying that after you just got done calling me a chihuahua?   

I said you yap like a chihuahua. Learn the language.

Quote

Nobody said that, but it is your fault that you loudly and angrily express opinions on topics you're sublimely ignorant and uneducated on - like economics.   

Not my fault that you don't understand the most basic elements of the economy dude.

You're like the WHO of the economics world - you know the big words, you just don't understand the most basic concepts. 

Quote

That you don't even know what any of this stuff is just further demonstrates your ignorance.  Look it up - it's funny.  That's what Fox News is all about.  Hilary also had nothing to do with the birther conspiracy.  There's zero evidence of that.  There's plenty of evidence, however, that Donald Trump promoted the conspiracy with help from Fox News, and then hilariously tried to blame it on Hilary after it was resoundingly debunked.   

Grow up dude. You're referencing a few minor things from 5 years ago. I referenced a litany of serious lies and idiotic conspiracy theories from the last 3 years, plus a successful libel suit from a high school kid. 

If you want to refuse to understand just how low the quality of reporting is that you so greatly admire that's one thing, but for you to run your mouth on me with no facts is a total joke. 

Quote

Not really, because the measures turned out to not be ridiculous.  From the very beginning, Carlson and Fox News have been downplaying the virus and telling viewers what they want to hear "There taking away ur freeedom - the virus is just hysteria" and then when it blows up in their face they pretend they've been taking it seriously the whole time.  

WTF do you know about "taking covid seriously"? 

The Dems were the ones who were out and about, after Trump had already banned travel from several countries, saying "Ride the subway, eat in restaurants, come hang out in the big throngs of people at Chinatown, it's racist to block travel, don't wear masks"? Who said all that moonbox? 

The virus isn't completely hysteria, the measures that libs have taken to control the virus are as stupid as can be.

Don't go in your own garden, you can't walk in a 400 sq km park, but people can walk through and airport with 10,000 people in it or loot a Wal-Mart.

With firends like you who needs enemies?

Quote

The Seth Rich conspiracy doesn't compare?  Fox News peddling an absolutely baseless theory that the Clinton campaign assassinated him doesn't compare? Oookay.  

How many people ever got robbed with two gunshots to the back in the last 20 years?

Not worth investigating?

Sounds familiar.

"fact-checkers" like Snakes and PolitiFake called it "fake news". That's better reason to believe it's true than video footage of Hillary doing it herself.

Quote

I think CNN sort of operates as a counterpoint to Fox News - both are extremely biased and lack credibility, regularly fail fact-checks and have histories of retracting statements and coverage.  I don't have much of an opinion on CTV.  I don't really pay attention to it.  

CNN operates as an alt-left agitator/propagandist, period. If they were left-leaning but told a reasonable approximation of the truth sometimes that would be quite different.

Quote

As for Rebel Media, it fails to even be as serious at Fox News.  It's a rinky-dink clown show with a bunch of caustic morons that spend their time promoting opinions that its clueless fringe viewers already hold.  It serves no purpose other than to validate you and let you drink your own bathwater. 

Rebel isn't really "worth watching". They really do cover important topics that the Canadian MSM won't touch with a 10' pole though. Unfortunately they occupy a very important space until something better fills that void. 

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

What of it ?  If the NYT hired someone who is a racist to spout racist things then they should not have done that.  Feel better now ?

Is she just a racist saying stupid but innocuous racist things, like "black people like watermelon and fried chicken"?

Is she a discriminatory racist saying more insulting things like "Scots and Jews are cheap"?

Is she an active racist who illegally discriminates against people and violates their civil liberties in some way because of their race or religion?

Or is she a hate-monger calling for genocide against millions of people? Yup, nailed it.

There are dumb racists, there are low-level racists, there are racists who need to face serious consequences for their despicable actions, and then there are criminal racists who need to be in jail for inciting hatred, murder and genocide. 

Is she so god-damned stupid that she doesn't realize that it's the Dems who keep black people in the ghetto, just like were the ones that tried to keep them in chains, and then tried to stop them from voting? The ones that still tell blacks to fear cops, when cops are responsible for less than 1% or their violent deaths? The ones that enact policies that stop the police from effectively eliminating crime in black neighbourhoods? 

Yeah, she's a Demmie. That explains everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shady said:

So like The New York Times right?

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the lead essayist on New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project, wrote a letter to the editor in Notre Dame’s The Observer stating that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world.”

“The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community,” she writes.

The Times doesn't mind racism as long as it's directed against white people.

Is the newest member of the New York Times editorial board, Sarah Jeong, a racist?

From one perspective — that commonly held by people outside the confines of the political left — she obviously is. A series of tweets from 2013 to 2015 reveal a vicious hatred of an entire group of people based only on their skin color. If that sounds harsh, let’s review a few, shall we? “White men are bullshit,” is one. A succinct vent, at least. But notice she’s not in any way attacking specific white men for some particular failing, just all white men for, well, existing. Or this series of ruminations: “have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people are allowed to do that aren’t cultural appropriation. there’s literally nothing. like skiing, maybe, and also golf. white people aren’t even allowed to have polo. did you know that. like don’t you just feel bad? why can’t we give white people a break. lacrosse isn’t for white people either. it must be so boring to be white.” Or this: “basically i’m just imagining waking up white every morning with a terrible existential dread that i have no culture.” I can’t say I’m offended by this — it’s even mildly amusing, if a little bonkers. (Has she read, say, any Shakespeare or Emily Dickinson?) But it does reveal a worldview in which white people — all of them — are cultural parasites and contemptibly dull.

A little more disturbing is what you might call “eliminationist” rhetoric — language that wishes an entire race could be wiped off the face of the earth: “#cancelwhitepeople.” Or: “White people have stopped breeding. you’ll all go extinct soon. that was my plan all along.” One simple rule I have about describing groups of human beings is that I try not to use a term that equates them with animals. Jeong apparently has no problem doing so. Speaking of animals, here’s another gem: “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” Or you could describe an entire race as subhuman: “Are white people genetically disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.” And then there’s this simple expression of the pleasure that comes with hatred: “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” I love that completely meretricious “old” to demean them still further. And that actual feeling: joy at cruelty!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-white-racism.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

You go to every neighborhood in this country, and you start knocking on doors, you will always find good people and a-holes.

The left's/social activists conservatives obsession to focus on one group's a-holes (white racists) is what is causing this problem. In your pursuit for justice you turn a lot of good people into a-holes. 

Everywhere you go these people just keep talking and talking, work, public places even your own family. After millions of years of evolution and the progress that we have made instead of focusing our energy on productivity and advancement. When you set a goal you don't have time to think about RACISM and how people look at you. Go see a doctor if you are always paranoid thinking everyone is treating you differently due to your background.

Where do these agitators and criminals that protest daily get their money from ? How do they eat ? Who pays their bills ? 

Answer WE DO, I pay through my nose in taxes so people can party in the street and climb on statues because they are too dumb to pick up a book and learn something. If you go in the middle of that crowd they don't even know when the Civil War was fought and I am referring to all races, most of the agitators as a matter of fact are white communists that are using a minority's tragedy in the USA to push their agenda.

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Is she just a racist saying stupid but innocuous racist things, like "black people like watermelon and fried chicken"?

Is she a discriminatory racist saying more insulting things like "Scots and Jews are cheap"?

Is she an active racist who illegally discriminates against people and violates their civil liberties in some way because of their race or religion?

Or is she a hate-monger calling for genocide against millions of people? Yup, nailed it.

There are dumb racists, there are low-level racists, there are racists who need to face serious consequences for their despicable actions, and then there are criminal racists who need to be in jail for inciting hatred, murder and genocide. 

Is she so god-damned stupid that she doesn't realize that it's the Dems who keep black people in the ghetto, just like were the ones that tried to keep them in chains, and then tried to stop them from voting? The ones that still tell blacks to fear cops, when cops are responsible for less than 1% or their violent deaths? The ones that enact policies that stop the police from effectively eliminating crime in black neighbourhoods? 

Yeah, she's a Demmie. That explains everything.

You breath long enough you are gonna say something stupid. Now the thing with stereotypes is no one minds them if they are positive. It's when they are negative the shit hits the fan but the issue with them is their accuracy. On that note all people on this forum are nutz, spazzo and twitcho.

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're the accuser, and FYI Moonbox, saying "j'accuse" isn't enough. You need to cite something.

Hmmmm.

Is it fair to say you're still assembling a string/post-it note diagram evidencing your accusations against CTV?  Perhaps this map contains paper mache and the paste is still drying.

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

Hmmmm.

Is it fair to say you're still assembling a string/post-it note diagram evidencing your accusations against CTV?  Perhaps this map contains paper mache and the paste is still drying.

Do you not know how to click on a video link? Maybe you have no speakers attached to your computer?

I can't upload knowledge directly to your brain eyeball. I think it may still be too traumatized from the huge genocide of 1692 for it to work properly right now anyways.

Edited by WestCanMan
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you not know how to click on a video link? Maybe you have no speakers attached to your computer?

Sure I know how to click a link and my speakers work just fine.

Quote

I can't upload knowledge directly to your brain eyeball.

That's why you need to cite actual evidence that proves your accusation because as you clearly know j'accuse is not enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure I know how to click a link and my speakers work just fine.

That's why you need to cite actual evidence that proves your accusation because as you clearly know j'accuse is not enough.

Yeah the video of CTV was there, if you can't figure out what's wrong with what they said, that explains your extremely myopic point of view. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Yeah the video of CTV was there, if you can't figure out what's wrong with what they said, that explains your extremely myopic point of view. 

J'accuse is not enough and neither is your interpretation or opinion of what you think a video means. My view is not lacking in foresight, imagination or insight at all. The only thing lacking is your honesty.  You're saying j'accuse is not good enough for others while saying its plenty good enough for you. 

The onus isn't on anyone to accept your broad, unfounded albeit specifically defined allegations, like careful neglect for example, on the basis of your opinions.

That said anyone can draw some very specific well defined conclusions about your dishonesty and back it up with the solid evidence you provide and of which more will surely be provided in approx.....

3...2...1...

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

J'accuse is not enough and neither is your interpretation or opinion of what you think a video means. My view is not lacking in foresight, imagination or insight at all. The only thing lacking is your honesty.  You're saying j'accuse is not good enough for others while saying its plenty good enough for you. 

The onus isn't on anyone to accept your broad, unfounded albeit specifically defined allegations, like careful neglect for example, on the basis of your opinions.

That said anyone can draw some very specific well defined conclusions about your dishonesty and back it up with the solid evidence you provide and of which more will surely be provided in approx.....

3...2...1...

I'm not gonna go back and forth with you like pre-schoolers over a simple thing like: True or False. 

You think that: "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru" is a really fair, quick summary of that shooting. That's a good "first approximation" for you. That's your own choice. 

I think that's not a first approximation at all. I think that's a really misleading approximation. I think that's garbage, and I hold the media that I watch to a far higher standard than that. 

That's why I primarily watch Fox and you primarily watch CNN and other shows with a similar level of accuracy.

We actually agree on this eyeball. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 8:26 PM, WestCanMan said:

If you have some criticisms of Rebel, can you cite something, and comment on the inaccuracy of it? 

Websites like Rebel Media & Breitbart are using a microscope and focusing only on issues that plays well with the far right narrative. It uses a microscope to amplify issues x 100 in the minority/immigrant community. It is no different than what CNN & MSNBC are doing on the other side putting a microscope on the white middle american. Both sides take away the rational thinking of the human being by repetition. If you study cults you will realize one of the first things that they do is repeat, repeat, repeat a message until eventually you become that message. 

People always need to find a side, always need to believe in something, reminds me of an old Testament story, when Moses goes up to the mountain and the people, the sheep were becoming scared and they built a golden calf. That golden calf provided temporary relief but it was not sustainable in the long run as the truth is not in one thing, the truth is in many things from my point of view.

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm not gonna go back and forth with you like pre-schoolers over a simple thing like: True or False. 

You think that: "Killed after falling asleep at a drive-thru" is a really fair, quick summary of that shooting. That's a good "first approximation" for you. That's your own choice. 

I think that's not a first approximation at all. I think that's a really misleading approximation. I think that's garbage, and I hold the media that I watch to a far higher standard than that. 

That's why I primarily watch Fox and you primarily watch CNN and other shows with a similar level of accuracy.

We actually agree on this eyeball. 

Killed after falling asleep at a drive through is about as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shady said:

Killed after falling asleep at a drive through is about as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

Compared to accusing someone of careful neglect? :lol:

You're suggesting he was killed before he fell asleep?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Independent1986 said:

Websites like Rebel Media & Breitbart are using a microscope and focusing only on issues that plays well with the far right narrative. It uses a microscope to amplify issues x 100 in the minority/immigrant community. It is no different than what CNN & MSNBC are doing on the other side putting a microscope on the white middle american. Both sides take away the rational thinking of the human being by repetition. If you study cults you will realize one of the first things that they do is repeat, repeat, repeat a message until eventually you become that message.

This focus, this 'narrative driven' reporting on the part of the mainstream media is what has caused so many to question its honesty and to look for alternative sources. And we can't deny that the major media have agendas and their coverage and the slant they put on that coverage reflects what they want us to think. The media lost its legitimacy because of this. Now they're just one more group of people narrow-focusing on specific kinds of stories to try and persuade us to their way of thinking. Right now and for some time they've been parading stories of white racism before us with something like a sense of glee, waving them in our faces "See!? See how racist white people are!? See how racist our country is!?" But as you say, they're using a microscope, or maybe a telescope (looks a long way but gives you a very narrow focus) picking out the few incidents from across the continent they can wave at us and pretend they're proof of what they believe so that WE believe it too. And it's worked for a lot of people.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Shady said:

Killed after falling asleep at a drive through is about as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as it gets.

I like this sudden belief that after decades of cracking down on drunk driving it's no longer important. No, no, no, they should have just driven the guy home, patted him on the back, and maybe issued a ticket later. Drunk driving is no big deal! Hey, who can it hurt!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Argus said:

This focus, this 'narrative driven' reporting on the part of the mainstream media is what has caused so many to question its honesty and to look for alternative sources. And we can't deny that the major media have agendas and their coverage and the slant they put on that coverage reflects what they want us to think.

Where is the right-wing Deepstate media-mob thingy and why doesn't it ever assert itself the same way?

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Where is the right-wing Deepstate media-mob thingy and why doesn't it ever assert itself the same way?

You are being sarcastic right?

The entire public sphere was eliminated and replaced with a patchwork of anecdotes for consumers, a generation ago.

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

This focus, this 'narrative driven' reporting on the part of the mainstream media is what has caused so many to question its honesty and to look for alternative sources. 

Yes, I agree but please don't tell me the alternative sources are were the truth is. Rebel Media and Breitbart have the truth ? Please. Mediocrity and propaganda attracts mediocrity and propaganda. The division is out of control, family vs family. To use an analogy: There has to be legal consequences for screaming fire in a crowded movie theatre. 

 I would not be surprised if some of these alternatives are lead by the same figures from the mainstream. Kind of playing the roulette: you put on red and black chances is you will win both ways. Their problem is that there is a green 0 number on the board. You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. 

Edited by Independent1986
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Independent1986 said:

Yes, I agree but please don't tell me the alternative sources are were the truth is.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it tells you parts of the story the mainstream media leave out. Sometimes it gives you information which let's you question the whole narrative. The mainstream media don't lie, except by omission. And of course, there's a lot of that. And a lot of slant on what they show us. This is usually due to the fact the media massages the story to suit its narrative. And that the mainstream media almost universally agree on what that narrative is - which is ideologically on the Left. So to get a different narrative, or information which contradicts the one the media give, you have to turn to alternative sources. Those alternatives have their own narrative, obviously. But between the two you can usually get a decent picture of what's going on.

There is, for example, nothing in the mainstream which questions the existing narrative regarding systemic racism, or that the police are racist and that the killing of black men by police is due to racism. You can, however, find counter arguments on the internet from credible people who give facts the media ignores. I've posted several of them in recent days.

Edited by Argus
Link to post
Share on other sites

I note that Facebook, which has been assailed as the home of 'hate speech' and which has been subjected to a boycott from a lot of virtue signalling companies, including major corporations, has agreed to modify its censorship rules. Now just to start we all know Facebook already censors a lot of content, as do almost all social media organizations. Virtually all of that content is on the Right. There is no brake on how far to the Left you can go and still be welcomed by social media. Hard line radical Marxists are embraced. Anti-white rhetoric is fine. Anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity are no problem. Nor do they even try to disguise this. As one person amply demonstrated when they created a pair of accounts and posted identical content, but simply changed the words 'white' for 'black', then made complaints about both. The hateful comment towards whites was fine. The hateful comment towards blacks resulted in an account suspension.

And as I said, it wasn't like Facebook was a free-for-all or anything near it. It already banned any racist content. It's not like the KKK or some openly white supremacist organizations had accounts. The organized boycott gave almost no examples of hate speech on Facebook. But what seems to have incensed them was that they refused to censor Trump. Now I don't like Trump myself, but if no one has a problem with social media excluding politicians because their words offend the Left then there's a major threat here to freedom of speech, not to mention to Democracy.

And that's the real issue. Much of the Left no longer believes in freedom of speech, except where that speech is in agreement with their doctrine. And too many of them are coming out of university claiming speech that offends them is 'violence' and has to be suppressed. Now that belief is strong enough that the corporate world is embracing it out of fear of being boycotted themselves. I can see a time not that far in the future where no comments, no beliefs that go against the prevailing Leftist doctrine are even permitted on social media.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

... Now I don't like Trump myself, but if no one has a problem with social media excluding politicians because their words offend the Left then there's a major threat here to freedom of speech, not to mention to Democracy.

And that's the real issue....

 

Yes, this is the larger issue at play, and Mark Zuckerberg is standing up for that principle, even as Facebook loses shareholders and advertising revenue.

The silencing and cancel culture must be confronted and exposed for the much larger threat it/they represent.  

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.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...