How does he speak for 10 minutes non-stop without going a second over that mark? That's the real question.
:huh:
You can just imagine a twitching Elissa Strauss reading this in a quivering, unstable voice,
with the sound of a broken music box playing in the background.
People like this are dumbfounding, kinda scary even.
What the fuck is happening to every single major media source? This is something I previously couldn't see even CNN publishing.
The worst part is she gets a major media outlet pedestal like CNN to spout this kind of nonsensical bullshit.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53000509]What the fuck is happening to every single major media source? This is something I previously couldn't see even CNN publishing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;53000518]The worst part is she gets a major media outlet pedestal like CNN to spout this kind of nonsensical bullshit.[/QUOTE]
It's an unsourced opinion piece. I doubt an editor took more than a glance at this. It only exists to make them ad revenue on their website. It's arguable whether or not it's ethical to associate this kind of shenaniganery with their brand but you probably shouldn't let it color your perceptions of the real news they publish.
I just liked Thomas when I was a kid because trains where cool n stuff, I didn't even comprehend fascism...
[QUOTE=cbb;53000651]It's an unsourced opinion piece. I doubt an editor took more than a glance at this. It only exists to make them ad revenue on their website. It's arguable whether or not it's ethical to associate this kind of shenaniganery with their brand but you probably shouldn't let it color your perceptions of the real news they publish.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't say the same thing if they used an article by Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos, would you?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53000740]You wouldn't say the same thing if they used an article by Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos, would you?[/QUOTE]
Can't say this about Milo but there's a bit of a difference between this and calling for genocide.
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
And, I mean, Milo has kinda advocated for pederasty.
[QUOTE=Saxon;53000667]I just liked Thomas when I was a kid because trains where cool n stuff, I didn't even comprehend fascism...[/QUOTE]
Lmao spot the fascist
[QUOTE=Saxon;53000667]I just liked Thomas when I was a kid because trains where cool n stuff, I didn't even comprehend fascism...[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/Y6jHEsq.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Paramud;53000746]
And, I mean, Milo has kinda advocated for pederasty.[/QUOTE]
having actually watched that episode and DP's response, its ?somewhat? more complicated than just that
Sadly the only way to understand the full context of it is by watch two episodes of many hour long podcast. The media was pulling that then-old news up to slam him. DP argued for him pretty reasonably I'd say too in their response.
[QUOTE=Paramud;53000746]Can't say this about Milo but there's a bit of a difference between this and calling for genocide.
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
And, I mean, Milo has kinda advocated for pederasty.[/QUOTE]
What are you even talking about? Why does it have to be genocide or pederasty? Nobody's talking about those things.
The claim was that who CNN decides to associate with shouldn't color people's perceptions of the real news they publish.
If CNN hosted Milo's article on how SJWs are ruining America, then you most certainly would judge CNN for it, no?
I'm so happy that someone finally recognized Thomas The Tank Engine's adoration of neo-colonial exploitation of the natives' lands for the sake of the prosperity of invading white men
the biggest crime in paw patrol is forcing a dog to be a cop its unethical
[QUOTE=cbb;53000651]It's an unsourced opinion piece. I doubt an editor took more than a glance at this. It only exists to make them ad revenue on their website. It's arguable whether or not it's ethical to associate this kind of shenaniganery with their brand but you probably shouldn't let it color your perceptions of the real news they publish.[/QUOTE]
if they aren't willing to give the time of day to see if an opinion piece is more than hot garbage then why should i think they'll do the same with their news
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53000740]You wouldn't say the same thing if they used an article by Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos, would you?[/QUOTE]
If they published one opinion piece by them that had nothing to do with any of their bigoted or harmful beliefs, then I would absolutely say the same thing. Now if they repeatedly published opinion pieces by people like Milo or Spencer then we would run into a problem, because there comes a certain point where a certain expectation falls on CNN to not publish content by people that have malicious intentions.
This comparison you're drawing is absurd. There's a world of difference between publishing one silly opinion piece about cartoons and publishing an opinion piece by someone that promotes pedophilia or someone that wants to setup a white ethnostate. You shouldn't let something harmless like this color your perception of the larger whole of CNN's work which is typically accurate and well sourced information.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53000994]if they aren't willing to give the time of day to see if an opinion piece is more than hot garbage then why should i think they'll do the same with their news[/QUOTE]
Because opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces. You shouldn't have an expectation that this kind of article is going to be unbiased and sourced like an actual news article would be because they aren't the same kind of content.
This woman claims to be an expert on this issue, but then she goes on to call the Fat Controller by his culturally appropriated, neo-imperialist Americanised name, Sir Topham Hatt. Truly an outrage.
[QUOTE=cbb;53001153]If they published one opinion piece by them that had nothing to do with any of their bigoted or harmful beliefs, then I would absolutely say the same thing. Now if they repeatedly published opinion pieces by people like Milo or Spencer then we would run into a problem, because there comes a certain point where a certain expectation falls on CNN to not publish content by people that have malicious intentions. [/QUOTE]
If you stopped here, I'd simply agree with you.
[QUOTE=cbb;53001153]comparison you're drawing is absurd. There's a world of difference between publishing one silly opinion piece about cartoons and publishing an opinion piece by someone that promotes pedophilia or someone that wants to setup a white ethnostate. You shouldn't let something harmless like this color your perception of the larger whole of CNN's work which is typically accurate and well sourced information.[/QUOTE]
To test consistency of your argument I gave you an extreme comparison on purpose to make it black-and-white situation. You either don't judge CNN on who's opinion pieces they host or you do.
But your answer was that if it was a one timer then it would also be okay, so I'm fine with that.
Although I don't think this is the first "sjwlish" article CNN hosted but I don't really care about it enough to argue about it.
Articles like this practically exist to fuel the alt right (the average right winger will probably never hear about this) and the original writer should be ashamed of themselves for writing such substanceless bullshit, presuming that they aren't conspiring to discredit the side of argumentation they're supposedly arguing 'for' in the grand scheme of things.
Either they're an ivory tower idiot incapable of realizing just how ridiculous they sound, or an intentionally malicious sycophant out to get [I]something[/I] out of making their own 'side' look bad. Regardless, political discourse suffers, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
[QUOTE=froztshock;53001917]Articles like this practically exist to fuel the alt right (the average right winger will probably never hear about this) and the original writer should be ashamed of themselves for writing such substanceless bullshit, presuming that they aren't conspiring to discredit the side of argumentation they're supposedly arguing 'for' in the grand scheme of things.
Either they're an ivory tower idiot incapable of realizing just how ridiculous they sound, or an intentionally malicious sycophant out to get [I]something[/I] out of making their own 'side' look bad. Regardless, political discourse suffers, and they should be ashamed of themselves.[/QUOTE]
I mean maybe it exists to make the normal right wing person say "what the fuck" but I think for the most part it probably exists to stroke the dick of the "alt left"
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
e: clarification
by "alt left" I mean leftist counterpart of the alt right. I know there's no such thing, but the only reason there is no such thing is because nobody has called themselves "alt left" in any serious manner. the alt right invented their own name and no leftist counterpart has decided to compare themselves to the alt right to my knowledge.
[QUOTE=butre;53001995]I mean maybe it exists to make the normal right wing person say "what the fuck" but I think for the most part it probably exists to stroke the dick of the "alt left"[/QUOTE]
It's really hard to say when you've got foreign actors like Russia out to divide the US populace and radicalize various groups therein for the purpose of weakening the collective resolve of the US population, as was made apparent with evidence that they'd courted certain left-wing actors as well.
I'd honestly say that the [I]best[/I] way to discredit a certain group would be to smear yourself in shit, run out into the street, and proclaim yourself [I]proudly[/I] to be a member of said group, while screaming various vaguely schizophrenic things which paint yourself as a psychopath and generally unretalable to the general populace.
I know that's what I'd do if I wanted to make a fool of my enemies on the internet.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53001840]If you stopped here, I'd simply agree with you.
To test consistency of your argument I gave you an extreme comparison on purpose to make it black-and-white situation. You either don't judge CNN on who's opinion pieces they host or you do.
But your answer was that if it was a one timer then it would also be okay, so I'm fine with that.
Although I don't think this is the first "sjwlish" article CNN hosted but I don't really care about it enough to argue about it.[/QUOTE]
I understood that you were testing my consistency which is why I made two separate statements.
The 1st addressed your argument.
The 2nd addressed the false equivalency in your argument and has no bearing on the 1st. I can simultaneously make the 1st statement and still apply different levels of scrutiny to different opinion pieces hosted on CNN's website.
An article suggesting that Spongebob is libcuck propaganda doesn't demand the same kind of criticism as an article suggesting that we should murder all non-white people.
[QUOTE=froztshock;53002002]It's really hard to say when you've got foreign actors like Russia out to divide the US populace and radicalize various groups therein for the purpose of weakening the collective resolve of the US population, as was made apparent with evidence that they'd courted certain left-wing actors as well.
I'd honestly say that the [I]best[/I] way to discredit a certain group would be to smear yourself in shit, run out into the street, and proclaim yourself [I]proudly[/I] to be a member of said group, while screaming various vaguely schizophrenic things which paint yourself as a psychopath and generally unretalable to the general populace.
I know that's what I'd do if I wanted to make a fool of my enemies on the internet.[/QUOTE]
well shit I'd have a couple buckets of beer and put an axe to someone's face if I was trying to prove something like that. subterfuge is for nerds
[QUOTE=butre;53002064]well shit I'd have a couple buckets of beer and put an axe to someone's face if I was trying to prove something like that. subterfuge is for nerds[/QUOTE]
Getting boozed up and behaving like a flaming retard honestly strikes me as one of the better ways to make a political argument yeah, which is kinda sad. It requires relatively little factual basis and the ability to reach a wide audience, and little else. In this age of the internet, where anyone can behave as a representative of a given social group, I could probably set myself up as a supposed conservative on twitter, amass as large a following as I'd like, and then proceed to behave as the most ridiculous strawman as I deigned, because there would be people out there who would defend me as "part of the tribe". This isn't a behavior unique to one political group or another, but rather something of a universal constant.
It's one of the reasons why I believe social media is cancer and refuse to use it in general.
i like how you put that. getting boozed up and acting like a flaming retard is my life story, maybe I should start making a political statement with it if I ever decide it necessary.
the only thing social media has ever done for me (other than introduce me to @dril) is make me hate people I thought I liked so yeah social media is pretty terrible
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
though I do feel like "drunk jackass puts axe in friend's face" would be the headline rather than "enlightened individual proves political adversary wrong" in that particular case
[QUOTE=butre;53002117]i like how you put that. getting boozed up and acting like a flaming retard is my life story, maybe I should start making a political statement with it if I ever decide it necessary.
the only thing social media has ever done for me (other than introduce me to @dril) is make me hate people I thought I liked so yeah social media is pretty terrible
[editline]24th December 2017[/editline]
though I do feel like "drunk jackass puts axe in friend's face" would be the headline rather than "enlightened individual proves political adversary wrong" in that particular case[/QUOTE]
Move to eastern Europe and the first headline won't even be out of place
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53000874]What are you even talking about? Why does it have to be genocide or pederasty? Nobody's talking about those things.[/QUOTE]
Should I believe that you brought up those names randomly or that perhaps you were purposefully drawing the comparison between this opinion piece and their extremist agendas. Please, don't insult our intelligence by acting like we don't know what you were fucking doing.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;53000509]What the fuck is happening to every single major media source? This is something I previously couldn't see even CNN publishing.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is that this is so atrocious of an opinion piece that I would expect it on everydayfeminism.com before CNN. :v:
[QUOTE=cbb;53002062]I understood that you were testing my consistency which is why I made two separate statements.
The 1st addressed your argument.
The 2nd addressed the false equivalency in your argument and has no bearing on the 1st. I can simultaneously make the 1st statement and still apply different levels of scrutiny to different opinion pieces hosted on CNN's website.
An article suggesting that Spongebob is libcuck propaganda doesn't demand the same kind of criticism as an article suggesting that we should murder all non-white people.[/QUOTE]
There is no false equivalency because I did not say that the article MUST be about murdering non-white people. In fact I haven't said a word about the content of the article. I simply said "by Spencer or Milo". You assumed the article would be much worse, namely about genocide or something, and based on that assumption, yeah it would be on a different level, however I didn't say anything about the content, only on the author.
I think we agree, and I was wrong about your inconsistency.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
