Unless polidicks somehow stopped being part of the forum, yes, it is.
Is my job to sell products in the store?
https://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/07/15/636042042631327676-1309428566_retail%20cashiers.jpg
So you want the cashiers to sell products and only allow stuff the customers buy?
What the fuck
Alright I don't like all this left wing threads, do I get to lock them?
Do you see any other mod taking the job?
If not, then surprisingly enough yes until you get someone else to do it for you.
As above, on what basis do I decide which content should be allowed and which content should be locked?
No, because this subforum is the only one left with a modicum of standards.
You're amazing.
How about we start with threads by people who were banned before for intentionally trying to start shit as shown by quotes on discord.
And how about have this "opinion piece" rule actually have some substance behind it not "every opinion piece is equal". For example, a Tim Pool piece is not an "opinion piece", it's a propaganda piece with either no sources, or dishonestly quoted sources, it has no journalistic standards anywhere, and yet you'd call it equal to something written and published as an opinion piece on any reputable news outlet?
Every news piece you read has to be evaluated on its own merits of course, but we can make everyone's lives easier and the entire subforum a lot less shit if the standards shift to block certain completely impossibly dishonest levels of journalism.
I want moderators to moderate the forum, yes
What constitutes a left wing thread?
If you don't want to moderate Polidicks then fair enough but let someone else do it, preferably someone who gives a shit.
I found a pretty good guideline here:
Polidicks Rules
Tim Pool listed these sources in order:
Bloomberg
Reuters
New York Post
Real Clear Politics
Washington Examiner (Explicitly Opinion)
CNN interview with Michael Bloomberg and Anderson Cooper
Quote from Mitt Romney
Quotes from Bill Maher and Michael Moore
Quote from Al Sharpton
Slate(Explicitly Opinion)
"with either no sources, or dishonestly quoted sources,"
Sure.... I think it is fine if somebody posts Contrapoints or a left-leaning opinion article, but I think it is silly to describe the list of sources Tim Pool used the way you did.
All this serves as is a huge strawman to peoples argument. That is not fair at all.
You're catching on. The only winning move is not to play.
Dishonest quoting:
In quoting the Bloomberg article, he:
Leaves out half the article, conveniently missing the bits where it says manufacturing job increases started under Obama, and that the gains from these tax cuts are unsustainable.
"U.S. factory employment is growing. That could help Republican lawmakers in the midterm elections in Congress in November. Trump rode to the White House partly on his popularity on Rust Belt states such as Michigan and Ohio.
But the surge in factory jobs started while Barack Obama was president, as companies recovered from the global financial crisis, and manufacturing employment is well below its peak in the 1970s.
More generally, economists question whether the animal spirits awakened by the U.S. fiscal stimulus can continue to boost growth. Private-sector economists predict growth will slow to 2.8 percent in the third quarter, according to Bloomberg polling."
"Trump’s victory lap caps a week in which he softened his stance on trade. A deal with the European Union to freeze tariffs blunted concerns that the president’s trade wars could undercut the economy. Still, Trump may have been looking in the rear-view mirror when he predicted a growth boom.
“The economy is currently firing on all cylinders, and that growth is likely peaking,” Bricklin Dwyer, senior U.S. economist at BNP Paribas, said in a research note."
So the graph shown in the top part of the article where growth peaks were higher under Obama than the current one somehow don't matter to Tim Pool.
In quoting Reuters:
He doesn't even read the article, just look at the numbers, which is meaningless unless you know why those numbers changed.
"“They’re not as wedded to one party,” Green said. “They’re easier to convince than, say, your 50- or 60-year-olds who don’t really change their minds very often.”"
"“It sounds strange to me to say this about the Republicans, but they’re helping with even the small things,” Hood said in a phone interview. “They’re taking less taxes out of my paycheck. I notice that.”"
It's a common pattern that Republican policies make you feel good by taking less through taxes, but you obviously don't care that they fuck you over more through other policies. It's a matter of people like you spreading this poorly thought out propaganda that's making people think the party of tax cuts for the rich is a good thing, when historically it isn't.
I don't disagree in the sense that the Dem party is doing an awful job, but you're a real scumbag for saying the GoP is good on any level.
In quoting NyPost
"Because the policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream"
Here we see an example of shoddy journalism. A proper journalist would have taken that claim and researched the facts. Free education is a majority opinion in America. Medicare for all is a very, very far from a fringe opinion in America. By quoting the article without doing any, yknow, journalism, he misrepresents the facts to his viewership.
"How would going further left move these people to the democratic side"
Bernie Sanders.
Do I really need to go on?
Even if I were to agree with the rest of his video, which I don't know because I already found that half of his video is done with shoddy journalism that does not belong in any discussion, the fact remains that his stuff does not belong in polidicks.
I think what hezzy is trying to say is that he thinks the recent threads with videos are valid and good content to be had in the polidicks forums.
I think he feels that those vloggers are valid political topics to be discussed.
and they are.
The problem is the fact that the people who posted those videos here, posted them satirically in an effort to prevent debate. If anyone would deserve to be banned, (and tbh i dont think so) its those people specifically, because they are trying to prevent the forums purpose.
the videos themselves are fine since their strategy was just ineffective, debate happened about the political topics.
Most political vloggers only have one possible way of being a "valid topic to be discussed"
It's in the context of "What is ruining political discourse through shoddy fact checking" and "How can the damage caused by these uncritical charlatans be mitigated"
I'm sure there's a few that produce quality content, but they're not people like Tim Pool or Crowder or Alex Jones or Lauren or even Conan or Noah or Oliver.
Its a condensed, summarised version of the political landscape, and id assume if any one is lying or misrepresenting the truth the guys from the other team would correct them.
I feel the problem is not that they can be bad at times or get things wrong, because that happens with mainstream articles too even if supposedly in lesser degree. its that certain people only watch their circle of rehashed slogan sound byte producers and only talks about "their guys" on "their safe spaces". The cure is to debate them openly on a place like polidics, and let their errors be shown outright by the opposition of the free market place of ideas. Not to keep them out of political debate, in a place where they cannot be subjected to scrutiny for everyone to see. Effectively turning them into breeding grounds for ever increasing extremism.
Tim Pool is just a standard right wing sjw liar and I can't believe Tudd is back to post him and all his other crap.
As for chadthegoatman I'm convinced he's further left than most of FP but something he'll never convince me of is that he doesn't do crack daily.
Oh and cortez is good, watch out for people lying about her there's a video going around by a conservative group where they edited it to make her look bad.
The current strategy of the Right in America is to create so much bullshit that people can't possibly keep up. I don't want to see that strategy happen to Facepunch as well.
And your solution is to not have the condensed summarised versions on facepunch? if anything i feel those bite sized videos are the only thing still allowing the semi informed middle class to keep up at all.
Define "keep up"
I wouldn't count "being fed misleading information by openly biased sources" as keeping up or being semi-informed.
If you actively follow and take your info from, for example, Crowder or Pool, you're not "semi-informed," you belong more in the ignorant camp.
It actually isn't that hard to "Keep Up" with the current news and information tbqh. The only reason people watch those Political vloggers is mostly out of "infotainment" or they think the vlogger is funny/charming.
If anyone wants to get into politics or researching about history or honestly anything. You should not be following these fuckers. This goes for both left and right leaning. Get your information straight from the source instead of listening it to someone who is possibly skewing the truth or injecting their bias/bullshit into it.
Bingo
And I never touched crack in my life. But my autism does come off something like illiterate writer would.
I do appreciate that you present specific issues he could have addressed, but I am seeing a commonality of an issue.
And that is it seems you want the entire context of each article. Which really wasn't the point of his video. For example you demand that he goes deep into the 4% growth rate, when really he was just presenting it as, "hey guys, this is something that looks good for trump, this will help him in the next election" and imo in this context it wasn't dishonest and he explains rationally mainstream voters will see this as a positive. Not to mention he finishes alot of his statements that this is just his opinion.
Sure it would be nice if he went deeper into the economy growth (I personally think it is a bit inflated due to companies reacting around inventory and tariffs), but that really isn't the point of his video, and likewise the rest of your points seemingly demand he should have gone deeper in context than the opinions he set out to do.
I mean I could easily do this same critique with something similar like any TYT or Contrapoints video a left-leaning person might throw out, but the end result is that this is an opinion video from a youtuber. Ofcourse it isn't up to certain standards, but that isn't against the rules as far as I can tell.
It's amazing how a perfectly functional system can be utterly dismantled by just 2 people.
No, they want content that's portrayed accurately.
"Allowing children to be raped for purely political aims does not just a great disservice to the country but is also morally bankrupt."
Should not be represented as
"Allow children to be raped for just service to the country is moral."
Could you use a way less hyperbolic example than that. Wow.
Were talking about some statistics and experts thoughts on largely polling data and economics, and you go straight to a pedo rape example?
We're talking about bending what someone wrote and intended into something that in no way represents at all what they wanted to convey.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
[Sargon of Akkad] Red Cortez
