This is What Happens When You Criticize Donald Trump | Keith Olbermann
88 replies, posted
[QUOTE=J!NX;51439461]Tbh personally I compared this guy to alex jones because I didn't know who else to compare to but I feel thats unfair because
1. Keith has actual points and isn't just shitting out of his ass the entire time
2. Keith isn't an actual diagnosticable cunt[/QUOTE]
I'm really glad you took that back.
In your defense, I actually can't think of a right-wing show that has actual points AND a tv presenter who gets "emotional". I guess the O'Reilly Factor would be the closest person but sometimes he talks out of his ass.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439471]I'm really glad you took that back.
In your defense, I actually can't think of a right-wing show that has actual points AND a tv presenter who gets "emotional". I guess the O'Reilly Factor would be the closest person but sometimes he talks out of his ass.[/QUOTE]
I mean, this entire skit was pretty unbiased and had actual facts
[t]http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/04/Beck-Cheetos-screenshot2.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=J!NX;51439504]I mean, this entire skit was pretty unbiased and had actual facts
[t]http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/04/Beck-Cheetos-screenshot2.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
I don't even know if Glenn Beck counts anymore because he had some sort of awakening during this election. Does he still lean right wing or is he now a moderate?
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439460]I had every right to make a joke. No mercy for people who strawman.
And unfortunately you're [I]still[/I] strawmanning.
[quote][QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439224]lmao, people in here saying the series is "one-sided" and "biased"
it's not a news show, it's a passionate opinion piece[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234]So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439238]i never said it wasn't??[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439283]Explain your argument please because for me what you said looks like you are saying that it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle.[/QUOTE][/quote]
How did you transform his argument from
"One sided and biased opinion pieces aren't an issue in the context of Keith Olbermann's webseries. It's funny that people think otherwise."
to
"Infowars is terrible for being one sided and biased, but to complain about a series being one sided and biased is wrong. And also they can't be criticized for that."[/QUOTE]
Are you stupid or something? How the fuck is it a strawman if he said [B]THAT IS HIS POINT[/B]?
[quote][QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439224]lmao, people in here saying the series is "one-sided" and "biased"
it's not a news show, it's a passionate opinion piece[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234]So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439238]i never said it wasn't??[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439283]Explain your argument please because for me what you said looks like you are saying that it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439305][B]that is my point[/B], yes?[/QUOTE][/quote]
His argument was that you can't criticize opinion pieces on being biased. Since then he took it back because it turned out he mixed up a word, but that was his argument at the time. [U]I asked if I understood him correctly[/U] and he said "[U]that is my point, yes[/U]". What kind of mental gymnastics you have to go through to turn a situation like that into stawmanning, which you have to demolish [B]without mercy[/B] no less, is beyond me.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439514]I don't even know if Glenn Beck counts anymore because he had some sort of awakening during this election. Does he still lean right wing or is he now a moderate?[/QUOTE]
I don't think even Glenn Beck knows what Glenn Beck thinks tbh
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439516][QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439460]"Infowars is terrible for being one sided and biased, but to complain about a series being one sided and biased is wrong. And also they can't be criticized for that."[/QUOTE]
Are you stupid or something? How the fuck is it a strawman if he said [B]THAT IS HIS POINT[/B]?[/QUOTE]
Please find me the post where he says or implies that infowars is terrible for being one sided and biased.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439283]Explain your argument please because for me what you said looks like you are saying that [B]it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle.[/B][/quote]
As far as I know, this is the only thing he agrees with.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439654]Please find me the post where he says or implies that infowars is terrible for being one sided and biased.
As far as I know, this is the only thing he agrees with.[/QUOTE]
Please find me a post where I said that he said that infowars are terrible for being one sided and biased...
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439305][QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439283]Explain your argument please because for me what you said looks like [B]you are saying that it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle.[/B][/QUOTE]
that is my point, yes?[/QUOTE]
And yeah that bolded part (which was his point by his own admission) is the only thing I was arguing against.
[editline]28th November 2016[/editline]
Just stop with these mental gymnastics already. I asked the guy if I understand him correctly and he said "that is my point, yes". You can dance around this all day and you're not changing this.
He made an argument that opinion pieces cannot be criticized for being biased and one sided in context of Keith. Then I said that if Keith couldn't be criticized for it then so can't be Alex Jones on the same basis and then I gave my reasoning why opinion pieces can be called out for being biased and one sided.
I don't know what you are trying to pull here but you might want to take some of your own "no mercy for strawman" medicine.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439659]Please find me a post where I said that he said that infowars are terrible for being one sided and biased...[/QUOTE]
Alright.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439516]Are you stupid or something? How the fuck is it a strawman if he said [B]THAT IS HIS POINT[/B]?[/QUOTE]
You said that was his point, and the point that you're referring to is
[quote]"Infowars is terrible for being one sided and biased, but to complain about a series being one sided and biased is wrong. And also they can't be criticized for that."[/quote]
I'm still waiting for my original request. So let me make this easier for you.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234][QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439224]lmao, people in here saying the series is "one-sided" and "biased"
it's not a news show, it's a passionate opinion piece[/QUOTE]
So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
Find me the post where Coyoteze brings up Infowars.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439676]Alright.
You said that was his point, and the point that you're referring to is
I'm still waiting for my original request. So let me make this easier for you.
Find me the post where Coyoteze brings up Infowars.[/QUOTE]
Let me make it easier for you.
The point I was referring to was "you are saying that it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle" [B]which he admitted that it was indeed his point[/B]. I haven't argued against anything else with him so I don't see where the strawman is.
He didn't talk about infowars directly. He said opinion pieces can't be criticized for being biased. That includes infowars, by his own admission as well.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439659]Just stop with these mental gymnastics already. I asked the guy if I understand him correctly and he said "that is my point, yes". You can dance around this all day and you're not changing this.
He made an argument that opinion pieces cannot be criticized for being biased and one sided in context of Keith. [B]Then I said that if Keith couldn't be criticized for it then so can't be Alex Jones on the same basis and then I gave my reasoning why opinion pieces can be called out for being biased and one sided. [/B]
I don't know what you are trying to pull here but you might want to take some of your own "no mercy for strawman" medicine.[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with your post about infowars is that you were clearly trying to dismiss his argument based on non-existent hypocrisy. There is quite literally no other reason why you would bring up infowars.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234]So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
You performed [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism"]Whataboutism[/URL] by bringing up infowars, then you assumed that his argument had something to do with infowars to make it easier to attack.
Person 1: ISIS are pretty terrible people for torturing people.
Person 2: SO DOES THE US GOVERNMENT.
Person 1: American Soldiers are some of the bravest people on the planet for facing danger head on.
Person 2: Cop killers are brave for facing danger head on, sooo....
[editline]28th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439685]Let me make it easier for you.
The point I was referring to was "you are saying that it's so wrong to criticize opinion pieces for being biased and one-sided that it's funny. And that opinion pieces can't be criticized on that angle" [B]which he admitted that it was indeed his point[/B]. I haven't argued against anything else with him so I don't see where the strawman is.[/QUOTE]
The only thing I agree with is this post is the "I haven't argued against anything else with him" because "So does infowars" isn't an argument.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439685]He didn't talk about infowars directly. He said opinion pieces can't be criticized for being biased. That includes infowars, by his own admission as well.[/QUOTE]
So tell me, why the hell did you bring up infowars?
please stop
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439696]The problem I have with your post about infowars is that you were clearly trying to dismiss his argument based on non-existent hypocrisy. There is quite literally no other reason why you would bring up infowars.[/QUOTE]
There is. Imagine I wasn't trying to [I]dismiss[/I] his argument but instead I gave him an example of something he (presumably) would criticize for being biased and one-sided to prove it wrong, all in order to convince him that opinion pieces can indeed be criticized for being biased.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439696]You performed [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism"]Whataboutism[/URL] by bringing up infowars, then you assumed that his argument had something to do with infowars to make it easier to attack.
Person 1: ISIS are pretty terrible people for torturing people.
Person 2: SO DOES THE US GOVERNMENT.
Person 1: American Soldiers are some of the bravest people on the planet for facing danger head on.
Person 2: Cop killers are brave for facing danger head on, sooo....[/QUOTE]
No I didn't.
It wasn't:
Person 1:Keith is biased.
Me: So is infowars so.....
It was:
Person 1: We can't criticize Keith on being biased because it's an opinion piece and opinion pieces cannot be criticized for being biased.
Me: Sure we can. The same way Infowars are an opinion piece and we clearly can call them out on being wrong because they are biased and present one-sided evidence.
It's not whataboutism at all. It would be clear to you if you had read my argument against his position. There's nothing about his position on infowars there. I only argued against his position that opinion pieces cannot be criticized for being biased, which I double checked if he actually meant that.
So since I haven't done what you're accusing me of, take your "no mercy" pill now.
And all this talk is meaningless anyway because we're talking about an argument that he didn't really want to make because he mixed up words biased and subjective.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439738]It was:
Person 1: We can't criticize Keith on being biased because it's an opinion piece and opinion pieces cannot be criticized for being biased.
Me: Sure we can. The same way Infowars are an opinion piece and we clearly can call them out on being wrong because they are biased and present one-sided evidence.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234]So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
"I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well." =/= "Sure we can."
[editline]4[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439738]There is. Imagine I wasn't trying to [I]dismiss[/I] his argument but instead I gave him an example of something he [highlight](presumably)[/highlight] would criticize for being biased and one-sided to prove it wrong, all in order to convince him that opinion pieces can indeed be criticized for being biased.[/QUOTE]
Ok so you admit that you assumed that he had an issue with infowars, and that you assumed that his issue or issues with infowars involved bias.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439745]"I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well." =/= "Sure we can."[/QUOTE]
"I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well." =
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439659]Then I said that[B] if Keith couldn't be criticized for it then so can't be Alex Jones on the same basis[/B] and then I gave my reasoning why opinion pieces can be called out for being biased and one sided.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439745]Ok so you admit that you assumed that he had an issue with infowars, and that you assumed that his issue or issues with infowars involved bias.[/QUOTE]
Yes I assumed he would be okay with calling out infowars on being biased therefore I used infowars as an example to show a flaw in his reasoning that opinion pieces cannot be called out for being biased.
When are you going to understand that I didn't try to make it look like he said something about infowars? Mention of infowars was a part of my counter-argument. I wasn't implying that he said something about it.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439756]Mention of infowars was a part of my counter-argument. I wasn't implying that he said something about it.[/QUOTE]
How was that a counter argument?
That's not an argument. That's whataboutism and didn't need to be said.
[editline]4[/editline]
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;51439224]lmao, people in here saying the series is "one-sided" and "biased"
it's not a news show, it's a passionate opinion piece[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439756]Yes I assumed he would be okay with calling out infowars on being biased therefore I used infowars as an example to show a flaw in his reasoning that opinion pieces cannot be called out for being biased..[/QUOTE]
There's just 1 teeny tiny problem... Infowars doesn't identify itself as an opinion piece, and I think it's safe to say that Alex Jones labels everything he says as a fact and not an opinion.
[quote]By establishing a team of news reporters who provide cutting edge analysis and on the ground high tech breaking coverage, Infowars.com continually dominates the news coverage while wearing our bias - the truth - openly and proudly on our sleeve.[/quote]
[quote]The manipulation of facts and the slow relentless war on reality is being waged on this landscape of the mind. When those who seek to control humanity can convince the world that what they say is true, we will rapidly descend into the most oppressive tyranny ever seen.[/quote]
[quote]ALEX JONES AND INFOWARS STAND AGAINST THIS ONSLAUGHT. EVERY DAY CONNECTING THE DOTS, PEELING BACK THE ONION. HE DIGS DEEPER INTO THE STORY WITH THE INSIGHT OF EXPERTS, WHISTLEBLOWERS AND INSIDERS. SEEKING THE TRUTH AND EXPOSING THE SCIENTIFICALLY ENGINEERED LIES OF THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR ULTIMATE GOAL OF ENSLAVING HUMANITY.[/quote]
[url]http://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones-show/[/url]
That is if, you're referring to the Alex Jones Show. If you're referring to the entirety of Infowars... hate to say it but they're also a news site.
[url]http://www.infowars.com/news/[/url]
[QUOTE=J!NX;51439535]I don't think even Glenn Beck knows what Glenn Beck thinks tbh[/QUOTE]
He has transcended the spectrum of right and left.
Actually he's still pretty right wing when it comes to the American spectrum. He's just a bit less conspiracy-laden now.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439764]How was that a counter argument?
That's not an argument. That's whataboutism and didn't need to be said.[/QUOTE]
Alright for the last time.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;51439234]So is infowars?
I don't know what argument you're trying to make here but you're doing it for infowars as well.[/QUOTE]
Meant: If you're going to say we can't call out Keith on being one-sided and biased then we can't call out Infowars on being one-sided and biased because those are both opinion pieces.
And I said that in hopes that he would agree that Infowars is clearly wrong because of their bias. I wasn't trying to dismiss his argument. I was trying to convince him. Read my next reply to him, I've let go of infowars and made another clearer example. And that was all that the mention of infowars was, an example.
[editline]28th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439764]There's just 1 teeny tiny problem... Infowars doesn't identify itself as an opinion piece, and I think it's safe to say that Alex Jones labels everything he says as a fact and not an opinion.
[URL]http://www.infowars.com/about-alex-jones-show/[/URL]
That is if, you're referring to the Alex Jones Show. If you're referring to the entirety of Infowars... hate to say it but they're also a news site.
[URL]http://www.infowars.com/news/[/URL][/QUOTE]
Oh okay didn't know that. Then it was a pure strawman. Punish me without mercy if you please. I don't care anymore.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51439239]
What laws?
[/QUOTE]
About ~6ish minutes in the video he goes on his tangent to just break as many laws as possible.
Did you watch the video fully?
I know you are not going to give a shit about my earlier points, but how can you tell me that tangent was not sensational and seditious like an Alex Jones sketch besides more yelling?
I am for the left to get better, and his type of shit isn't going to help if you want to know if I am a troll.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51440042]You are plain wrong. Wrong.
He talked about the proposed law of """economic terrorism"" designed to criminalize ""protests disrupting economy"", which is ridicilous and would only serve to harm legitimate protests since riots are criminal already, just because of the /pol/ meme of Soros-funded BLM/Clinton/Whatever_people_are_protesting_for_these_days protestors.
He says that if oppressive laws come to pass like that, apply civil disobedience. He is right when he says civil disobedience has a higher chance of successfully forcing the governments to repeal oppressive laws than evasion of those laws.
If you read this like "kill people,vandalise, ANARCHY AA" then YOU havent watched the video or you are so biased it is affecting your listening comprehension skills.
[/quote]
Sorry, but my point still stands that his language is incredibly seditious, and relying on his viewers to take his cry for resistance to only Ghandi-level is incredibly optimistic. The fact you had to air quote his questionable use of language just proves even you think this shit is sensational.
With how the hardcore left have handled anti-left Trump rallies in retarded ways like blocking highways, looting, and destruction, I rather not keep egging these unstable people on with emotional fear-mongerers like Keith.
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/[/url]
[quote]You are plain wrong. Wrong.[/quote]
Was that a Trump joke? lol
[editline]oh hamburgers[/editline]
-snip-
[QUOTE=Tudd;51440011]About ~6ish minutes in the video he goes on his tangent to just break as many laws as possible.
Did you watch the video fully?
I know you are not going to give a shit about my earlier points, but how can you tell me that tangent was not sensational and seditious like an Alex Jones sketch besides more yelling?
I am for the left to get better, and his type of shit isn't going to help if you want to know if I am a troll.[/QUOTE]
That's incredibly disingenuous of you, but someone pointed that out already for you and you're probably never going to reply to this argument again.
Keith Olbermann says that if Trump or his colleges start making the act of peaceful assembly illegal, he encourages you to break those new laws. It's not fear mongering when a congressman wants to label protesting as "ECONOMIC TERRORISM" and that fact that Donald Trump thinks that any form of criticism towards him and his colleges is harassment.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51440011]I am for the left to get better, and his type of shit isn't going to help if you want to know if I am a troll.[/QUOTE]
I honestly find this statement beautiful. You come into the thread, [B]strawman[/B] Keith Olbermann's arguments by [B]oversimplifying[/B] them. You then proved you clearly didn't watch the video because you attributed the economic terrorism quotes to Keith Olbermann (When it was the congressman who made that term), and in the same sentence you call it fearmongering while talking about how the hardcore left handles anti-trump rallies by being criminals aka [B]cherrypicking and fearmongering[/B].
Looting and destruction are already illegal in protests. Do you know what this proposed law would do? It would try to charge the leaders of movements for their members protesting, even if they had nothing to do with it other than that they share the same ideas.
Obviously you're not going to come back to this thread. And if you do you're going to be dodging most of the points and/or continue to spew misinformation about the video. This is what you people always do in these types of threads. Hit and run shitpost. You find someone speaking an opinion you don't like, you then attack that opinion for dishonest or misguided reasons, you get called out on it, then you leave the thread without another word or try to shove this shit under the rug and move on.
For the record, I'm not talking about the alt-right. I'm talking about the alt-right shitposters who think that the left is the problem and that they're more reasonable, innocent, and just than those filthy liberals. These are the people who were never wrong because they never admitted that their arguments have flaws because 99% of the time they leave the thread and move onto another issue.
[quote=Trebby]My quotes of Olbermann are themselves direct quotes of the Washington Senator.
Rioters and Protesters are another debate. Rioters are already arrested and charged. Do you really think we need a new law for them, one that is so vaguely worded? A group walking down a street with a sign may be "disrupting traffic" and thus criminalized.
Ther should be no laws governing demonstrations: If a demonstration is not peaceful, that means it breaks existing criminal laws. Vandalisation, murder, intimidation, blocking highways are already illegal.
Vaguely worded laws created for other purposes than they are used for are the main tools of corrupt democratic governments against dissidents. I come from one such country. You too: Remember Patriot Act? It isnt "suppressing dissdents" bad but it comes from the same family overall. There is a pattern.
This is why unnecessary broad laws may actually be a very great threat to a society it is implemented upon.
This is why it is an important topic, this new law proposal. From its wording, it is obvious it may be used to crackdown upon peaceful protests, thus it WILL be used as such. Legislature is a tricky matter.
[/quote]
Treb
- I made a mistake with Trebgarta's economic terrorism quotes because Keith said it, but never presented the quote in the video. I had no idea that it was the actual term the washington senator used. Not for that law with how it is in written in its current form also.
- I am all for civil disobedience, but I personally don't think his target audience handles things well at all in that regard.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51441981]
I honestly find this statement beautiful. You come into the thread, [B]strawman[/B] Keith Olbermann's arguments by [B]oversimplifying[/B] them. You then proved you clearly didn't watch the video because you attributed the economic terrorism quotes to Keith Olbermann (When it was the congressman who made that term), and in the same sentence you call it fearmongering while talking about how the hardcore left handles anti-trump rallies by being criminals aka [B]cherrypicking and fearmongering[/B].
Looting and destruction are already illegal in protests. Do you know what this proposed law would do? It would try to charge the leaders of movements for their members protesting, even if they had nothing to do with it other than that they share the same ideas.
Obviously you're not going to come back to this thread. And if you do you're going to be dodging most of the points and/or continue to spew misinformation about the video. This is what you people always do in these types of threads. Hit and run shitpost. You find someone speaking an opinion you don't like, you then attack that opinion for dishonest or misguided reasons, you get called out on it, then you leave the thread without another word or try to shove this shit under the rug and move on.
For the record, I'm not talking about the alt-right. I'm talking about the alt-right shitposters who think that the left is the problem and that they're more reasonable, innocent, and just than those filthy liberals. These are the people who were never wrong because they never admitted that their arguments have flaws because 99% of the time they leave the thread and move onto another issue.[/QUOTE]
Cherry picking that these protests have not always been handled quite well and have turned into riots like Portland? I would hope they still civil, but honestly I have very little hope for people who think blocking highways is a valid form of protest.
I didn't see the leader part, but still not for the law the way it is written.
And hello, I am back. I had other things to do today. I have never engaged in this activity of actively ignoring arguments. Maybe you just experience people getting tired of arguing with you?
I really don't think there are many true alt-righters on this forum honestly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.