Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:50 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Hi, late to the thread here and there’s much too much to respond to. But there’s one thing that’s really troubling me about the theories presented by senoy and sleestack on the difference between liberals and conservatives: couldn’t you use those models to form a pretty cogent defense of Osama bin Laden as a conservative?

Was he promoting traditional values? Yep.
Did he clearly value the community (ummah) over a broader more liberal notion of society? Yep.
Did his moral foundation encompass loyalty and authority? Yep and yep.
Was his way of life under threat? You betcha!

So, he was a disenfranchised conservative pushing back against against liberal society that couldn’t understand and refused to accept him, in a way consistent with his moral framework. Right?

No wonder Obama wanted him dead.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure, and, on top of all that, if he didn't knock down the twin towers, he'd probably still be alive today.

I think most people hold beliefs that, if taken to radical extremes, could result in some pretty bad shit. That's why extremism has kind of a bad connotation.
  #102  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
What happened was that after the Civil Rights era, Democratic politicians began to seize on that momentum to push further Civil Rights legislation and Republicans were quick to paint themselves as upholders of tradition
I think this is spot on. Democrats predictably lost strength in the South as a result of their support for for Civil Rights, but they were competitive in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Not anymore. As you adroitly point out, the Democrats took civil rights beyond boundaries that rural folks were comfortable with and people in rural white America perceived it as an attack on the social structure. Their getting into bed with corporate America didn't necessarily help either.

On some level, I think rural Trump supporters understand that Trump is a deeply flawed person, but he's forgiven because he's doing things that 'nicer' conservatives wouldn't have dared: he's channeling their frustrations and there's a certain level of catharsis that comes with that. It sometimes reminds me of how people where I grew up scream at the tops of their lungs when their favorite professional wrestler body slams or suplexes an opponent they can't stand.
  #103  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:56 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
Hi, late to the thread here and there’s much too much to respond to. But there’s one thing that’s really troubling me about the theories presented by senoy and sleestack on the difference between liberals and conservatives: couldn’t you use those models to form a pretty cogent defense of Osama bin Laden as a conservative?

Was he promoting traditional values? Yep.
Did he clearly value the community (ummah) over a broader more liberal notion of society? Yep.
Did his moral foundation encompass loyalty and authority? Yep and yep.
Was his way of life under threat? You betcha!

So, he was a disenfranchised conservative pushing back against against liberal society that couldn’t understand and refused to accept him, in a way consistent with his moral framework. Right?

No wonder Obama wanted him dead.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Umm.. I think it's obvious that bin Laden was a conservative in many senses.(If you're trying to approximate a progressive-conservative divide in the Middle East. Their politics aren't the same as ours. For instance, a Royalist in the UK would likely be on the conservative side of the spectrum, while a Royalist in Saudi Arabia might not.. or they might be. Trying to push our political spectrum on Saudi Arabian politics is difficult. Bin Laden as an example was an environmentalist, maybe for its own sake and maybe because environmentalism would weaken the Saudi monarchy, who knows? He was also a wealth redistributionist, but not in favor of democracy, so liberal, but not classically liberal?)

Much of the global south though is 'community' in its social structure though. It's one of the big differences between the industrialized west and the more agrarian south. We conceive of our social structures very differently and I think that that is one of the major issues that we have had there. We're busy setting up 'society' style laws and systems and the global south largely doesn't relate to social structures that way and rather than understanding how they do relate to social structures, we just think that if we set up the right 'society' things will fall into place and I think that is an error.

Last edited by senoy; 10-10-2018 at 12:58 PM.
  #104  
Old 10-10-2018, 12:57 PM
Procrustus Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 11,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Their getting into bed with corporate America didn't necessarily help either.
I don't know what this means.
  #105  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:01 PM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Sure, and, on top of all that, if he didn't knock down the twin towers, he'd probably still be alive today.



I think most people hold beliefs that, if taken to radical extremes, could result in some pretty bad shit. That's why extremism has kind of a bad connotation.


Was it really that extreme? His way of life was under threat. What was he going to do, write an op-ed for the New York Times? The liberals would never be able to understand his suffering because they lack the moral foundation. So he acted out of a cri de coeur. His methods were flawed, but what choice did he have?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #106  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:14 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 57,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
So, basically at its core, America is a society founded on a healthy dislike of everyone else.
I daresay part of that is your death grip on religion (likely the most divisive concept in history) but I'm not sure it's a specifically American thing. If you took the population of Europe and said "okay, you're all one country now", I can imagine getting the same kind of internal antipathy.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #107  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:15 PM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Much of the global south though is 'community' in its social structure though. It's one of the big differences between the industrialized west and the more agrarian south. We conceive of our social structures very differently and I think that that is one of the major issues that we have had there. We're busy setting up 'society' style laws and systems and the global south largely doesn't relate to social structures that way and rather than understanding how they do relate to social structures, we just think that if we set up the right 'society' things will fall into place and I think that is an error.

I think we are agreeing here.

I wasn’t trying to map Osama to our political spectrum. The community vs society model seems to work pretty well to explain both his motivations and the American political divide.

But my concern is that we find ourselves unable to choose between two moral frameworks. If the community-based social structure and moral framework leads (at least in the context in which Osama bin Laden lived) to 9/11, we should be able to say there’s a problem with it. If it leads (in the context of America) to homophobia, racism, and misogyny then we should be able to call it wrong there too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #108  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:29 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I daresay part of that is your death grip on religion (likely the most divisive concept in history) but I'm not sure it's a specifically American thing. If you took the population of Europe and said "okay, you're all one country now", I can imagine getting the same kind of internal antipathy.
I don't think it has to do with religion. People hate the other people that go to their church too. There's reason that 'Sister Better-than-you' and 'Holier-than-thou' are expressions. We tend to dislike people of our own religion. That's why we have a billion denominations. To be honest, I'm not sure what it is. I think that part of it is that we're really, really big. China has the same issues where people from Shanghai hate people from Beijing and they all hate people from Henan. People from New York and people from Mississippi just don't have a ton in common.

We're also very different from one another on much smaller scales. We don't have much of a shared cultural history and what history we do have in common tends to paint us all as individualistic risk takers which is hardly a trait that breeds comity. We're also a nation that really, really cares about material things and that breeds jealousy. We have big houses, big cars and the best stuff. Being 'the best' is a national obsession and that means that everyone else is by definition 'not the best.' And if you do admit that they are 'better' than you, it's much better to blame that on some sort of shady advantage they have rather than a defect that you have. Again, these aren't positions that tend to foster togetherness. I think that we have a very 'zero sum' cultural personality where someone else doing well necessarily means that you aren't. I'm sure if I thought on it more than just offering the comment off-handedly I might be able to come up with a better theory, but there are my thoughts of the moment.
  #109  
Old 10-10-2018, 01:32 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by epolo View Post
I think we are agreeing here.

I wasn’t trying to map Osama to our political spectrum. The community vs society model seems to work pretty well to explain both his motivations and the American political divide.

But my concern is that we find ourselves unable to choose between two moral frameworks. If the community-based social structure and moral framework leads (at least in the context in which Osama bin Laden lived) to 9/11, we should be able to say there’s a problem with it. If it leads (in the context of America) to homophobia, racism, and misogyny then we should be able to call it wrong there too.
Sure, but 'society' based frameworks lead to communism and Nazism. It's not really the social framework that is a problem. There are pros and cons to both and you can certainly have a wonderful 'society' just as easily as a wonderful 'community.' I don't think pointing fingers at 'community' is particularly helpful anymore than them pointing fingers at 'society.'
  #110  
Old 10-10-2018, 07:19 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think this is spot on. Democrats predictably lost strength in the South as a result of their support for for Civil Rights, but they were competitive in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Not anymore. As you adroitly point out, the Democrats took civil rights beyond boundaries that rural folks were comfortable with and people in rural white America perceived it as an attack on the social structure.
I'd like to know what this means.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #111  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:22 PM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Please, give me one solid example of a story that happened one way (link the "ORIGINAL SOURCES OF INFO" please) and then link the "Twilight Zone" media spin.
Here's a particularly good example. Welcome to the Twilight Zone:
"CBS’s Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally-challenged teenager.

In the video he is choked and repeatedly called the n-word. His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump. Police are holding four people in connection with the attack."

Now read the unspinning:
https://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-...tim-was-black/
  #112  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:23 PM
The_Peyote_Coyote The_Peyote_Coyote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 3,036
I would divide Trump supporters into roughly four categories:

1.) People who think he's going to restore the coal fields, bring back jobs in the Rust Belt, and restore rural America. I don't think all of these people are motivated by hate; they want the jobs back or they want the good old days rural America. I agree with much of Senoy's analysis of rural America and would make these observations. A while back I read an Associated Press article that claimed about 25 percent of rural America is dying, and I believe it. I live in southwest Indiana and I can take you to towns that ain't going to be here in 20-50 years. The rural voters want Trump to reverse this, some because they like the rural way of life, some because they don't want to move to the cities where they have to work with minorities and/or homosexuals and/or take orders from women. Many of these people do not want to be told that coal isn't coming back because natural gas is cleaner and cheaper, that automation and computerization are going to continue to reduce jobs even if Trump's tariffs work (and I don't think they will), and that large parts of rural America aren't coming back. I think the Democrats will be able to reason with some of these people in the next year or two and make them realize the extent of their folly.

2.) Religious fundamentalists. Trump does lie like a Persian rug, but in general he has kept his promises to this group. He has nominated two conservative justices who will likely do everything they can to eliminate legal abortion; he has moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem; and he is pulling out of the Iran deal. Most of these are comfortable with his push against the LBGT community. Many of these people do hate. They hate gays, Muslims, blacks, anyone who is different from them. (For some of the conservatives on this board, don't bother to argue. As I said above, I live in Indiana and I've met too many fundamentalists.)

3.) The haters. These are not only the racists and Nazis, but people I've met who hate the Clintons or Obama. These are the ones who wear shirts with mottos like "Fuck your feelings." These are definitely tied to Trump by hate.

4.) Republicans. I think many know that Trump is dumber than a block of sandstone, but they support him anyway because they're getting what they want: judges who will rule against environmental protection and unionization and destruction of some federal agencies. They aren't bothered by Trump's treason because many of them would like to turn this country into a kleptocracy like Russia.

So, in summary, I would that hatred is what binds Trump to many of his supporters.

Last edited by The_Peyote_Coyote; 10-10-2018 at 09:25 PM.
  #113  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:07 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Here's a particularly good example. Welcome to the Twilight Zone:
"CBS’s Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally-challenged teenager.

In the video he is choked and repeatedly called the n-word. His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife. His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump. Police are holding four people in connection with the attack."

Now read the unspinning:
https://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-...tim-was-black/
You know, at first, I was ready to congratulate you on finding an example, but the more I looked into it, the less sure I was. So, since we agree that fake news is an issue and checking sources is important, let's check the facts together.

The website you linked, Mediaite, is the source of this story, as far as I can tell. I clicked through a few other sites (mostly small-time right-wing blog -- interesting that Mediaite, a pretty small website, is the largest to report this.... Hm....) and they all reference the story as originating there. You'll also note that while the article appears to be chock full of links to citations, none of the links actually work.

The first hyperlink, on the words "A CBS Radio News report" takes me to entercom.com/. When I hover over the link, it references www.cbsradio.com -- which means that CBSRadio.com is NOT A REAL WEBSITE. Entercom is the company that owns the domain. Their actual website is cbsnews.com/radio because they are just one part of CBS News. Why might he have linked a fake page? Perhaps it was an accident. (And perhaps, if the audio is even real, it was an accident on the reporter's part to leave out the race of the attackers?)

The next link, on the words "torturing a mentally disabled man", links to Mediaite's own coverage of the original event. Fine, at least this one works.

Next up, the words "posted the clip on Reddit" link to an invalid link on the website Clyp, which does allow you to load audio clips. Going to their main page and selecting a random clip, we see a valid URL format:https://clyp.it/grdibbk3
Compared to the one from Mediaite:
[URL="[URL="https://clyp.it/slitsuox"]"]

I initially thought that the url "slitsuox" reminds me of a number of other file sharing websites where the URL address of each file is a collection of random words, but every other link I could find on their main page was just a collection of random letters and numbers. Is it possible that this was once a real link? Sure, it is. If I go through enough Clyp files maybe I'll find that they sometimes use words. But I doubt it.

Also, I went on Reddit, and searched for various keywords involving "CBS", "Torture", "Radio", "Race", "Mediaite". I couldn't find this supposed leak to Reddit the website mentioned; but I know my searches were looking for the right thing, because they all brought me to the only page referencing this event, a giant list of supposed "fake news" on /r/the_donald. All it says is:

Quote:
CBS lies about "BLM" chicago kidnapping, lying about race of victim and perpetrators. http://www.mediaite.com/online/cbs-r...tim-was-black/
So -- the only reference to this incident on Reddit, where the incident supposedly occurred, is a link to the article describing it. Reminds one of the XKCD article showing how a falsehood posted on Wikipedia can be referenced by a "legitimate" source, which will then be referenced by Wikipedia as proof that the falsehood is true.

The next link is inside a quote box, apparently "how CBS characterized the attack" with no reference for where they did this. However, copying the entire first sentence and pasting it into Google, yields only Mediaite, other right-wing blogs that reference Mediaite as a source, and the Wikipedia page "CBS News controversies and criticism" under the header Misrepresentation of 2017 Chicago torture incident. The source on Wikipedia's article is.... Drumroll... Mediaite's initial article! As well as a link that supposedly shows that Armstrong and Getty, radio hosts on KGO-810, also criticized what happened. Unsurprisingly, if you're paying attention, the link is broken.

The next hyperlink on the text "CBS’s Dean Reynolds" takes us to Dean Reynolds profile. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be useful, or if we're meant to believe that the hyperlink was included in Dean Reynolds' message somehow, but whatever.

[hey, wait a minute! Why would the way that "CBS characterized the attack" involve them speaking about themselves in the third person? CBS news is Donald Trump, confirmed!]

The last link, on the words "attackers yelled “F*** white people.”", just takes us back to the original Mediaite article about the event. So it's been linked twice now.

Also, the last sentence - "Listen above, via CBS Radio" - is a total lie. The video is hosted by Mediaite and has their logo on the top.

Meanwhile, if we go to CBS News' website and the article on the event, we can see that the very first line begins:

Quote:
CHICAGO -- Four black suspects have been charged with hate crimes in an attack on a mentally disabled white teen that was live-streamed on Facebook, according to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.
Emphasis mine.

So... yeah. Is this story total bullshit? Don't ask me. Check for yourself.
  #114  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:58 PM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
You know, at first, I was ready to congratulate you on finding an example, but the more I looked into it, the less sure I was. So, since we agree that fake news is an issue and checking sources is important, let's check the facts together.

The website you linked, Mediaite, is the source of this story, as far as I can tell. I clicked through a few other sites (mostly small-time right-wing blog -- interesting that Mediaite, a pretty small website, is the largest to report this.... Hm....) and they all reference the story as originating there. You'll also note that while the article appears to be chock full of links to citations, none of the links actually work.

The first hyperlink, on the words "A CBS Radio News report" takes me to entercom.com/. When I hover over the link, it references www.cbsradio.com -- which means that CBSRadio.com is NOT A REAL WEBSITE. Entercom is the company that owns the domain. Their actual website is cbsnews.com/radio because they are just one part of CBS News. Why might he have linked a fake page? Perhaps it was an accident. (And perhaps, if the audio is even real, it was an accident on the reporter's part to leave out the race of the attackers?)

The next link, on the words "torturing a mentally disabled man", links to Mediaite's own coverage of the original event. Fine, at least this one works.

Next up, the words "posted the clip on Reddit" link to an invalid link on the website Clyp, which does allow you to load audio clips. Going to their main page and selecting a random clip, we see a valid URL format:https://clyp.it/grdibbk3
Compared to the one from Mediaite:
[URL="[URL="https://clyp.it/slitsuox"]"]

I initially thought that the url "slitsuox" reminds me of a number of other file sharing websites where the URL address of each file is a collection of random words, but every other link I could find on their main page was just a collection of random letters and numbers. Is it possible that this was once a real link? Sure, it is. If I go through enough Clyp files maybe I'll find that they sometimes use words. But I doubt it.

Also, I went on Reddit, and searched for various keywords involving "CBS", "Torture", "Radio", "Race", "Mediaite". I couldn't find this supposed leak to Reddit the website mentioned; but I know my searches were looking for the right thing, because they all brought me to the only page referencing this event, a giant list of supposed "fake news" on /r/the_donald. All it says is:



So -- the only reference to this incident on Reddit, where the incident supposedly occurred, is a link to the article describing it. Reminds one of the XKCD article showing how a falsehood posted on Wikipedia can be referenced by a "legitimate" source, which will then be referenced by Wikipedia as proof that the falsehood is true.

The next link is inside a quote box, apparently "how CBS characterized the attack" with no reference for where they did this. However, copying the entire first sentence and pasting it into Google, yields only Mediaite, other right-wing blogs that reference Mediaite as a source, and the Wikipedia page "CBS News controversies and criticism" under the header Misrepresentation of 2017 Chicago torture incident. The source on Wikipedia's article is.... Drumroll... Mediaite's initial article! As well as a link that supposedly shows that Armstrong and Getty, radio hosts on KGO-810, also criticized what happened. Unsurprisingly, if you're paying attention, the link is broken.

The next hyperlink on the text "CBS’s Dean Reynolds" takes us to Dean Reynolds profile. I'm not sure how that's supposed to be useful, or if we're meant to believe that the hyperlink was included in Dean Reynolds' message somehow, but whatever.

[hey, wait a minute! Why would the way that "CBS characterized the attack" involve them speaking about themselves in the third person? CBS news is Donald Trump, confirmed!]

The last link, on the words "attackers yelled “F*** white people.”", just takes us back to the original Mediaite article about the event. So it's been linked twice now.

Also, the last sentence - "Listen above, via CBS Radio" - is a total lie. The video is hosted by Mediaite and has their logo on the top.

Meanwhile, if we go to CBS News' website and the article on the event, we can see that the very first line begins:



Emphasis mine.

So... yeah. Is this story total bullshit? Don't ask me. Check for yourself.
This video appears to have the recording you couldn't find:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoOU3xvqU8
The Youtuber here is quite high profile. If it were all a hoax, I would think it would have been taken down by now.
  #115  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:00 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 10,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You and some 2400 law professors. And the ABA.
And 48 Senators. You guys were close though. If it were a game of horseshoes, you'd have definitely earned a point.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-11-2018 at 12:02 AM.
  #116  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:05 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
So... yeah. Is this story total bullshit? Don't ask me. Check for yourself.
I actually was checking the sources too and I agree with your research.

Regardless, if some avoidance of informing about the race of the perpetrators took place, CBS also later reported on how those perpetrators got 8, 3 years of prison or probation for 2 of them. With the most years going to the ringleader and yes; Hate crime charges were also in the law book they threw at them.

Point being that CBS did not hide the race of the perpetrators in the follow ups, even if one accepts the Mediate spin, CBS corrected the reporting.

What I noticed is that nowhere in those articles from alt-media they give their readers or viewers the whole picture or point at the "corrections"/real news/ or followups that CBS made.

On Edit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
This video appears to have the recording you couldn't find:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoOU3xvqU8
The Youtuber here is quite high profile. If it were all a hoax, I would think it would have been taken down by now.
Oh, That is Mark Dice. Whom I showed before that he is usually an unreliable narrator. As pointed before, using the fallacy of popularity does not help in an argument.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-11-2018 at 12:09 AM.
  #117  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:15 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
This video appears to have the recording you couldn't find:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoOU3xvqU8
The Youtuber here is quite high profile. If it were all a hoax, I would think it would have been taken down by now.
1) You're already misrepresenting my point. I didn't have any issue finding the recording; it was right there at the top of the page.

2) I'm not saying that the audio itself is necessarily faked, but presenting this as "fake news" is ridiculous, considering how CBS, the same organization that you're claiming is in on this conspiracy to cover up the race of the perpetrators, posted this on their website the very same day:

Quote:
CHICAGO -- Four black suspects have been charged with hate crimes in an attack on a mentally disabled white teen that was live-streamed on Facebook, according to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office.
3) Are you going to answer any of the holes I poked in your news source?
  #118  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:29 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Two more thoughts on your video...

1) He doesn't provide any sources for his claims, not even in his description. That's automatically a red flag.

2) Holy crap, what is with the tirade about the N word he goes off on halfway through the video? What a deranged individual.
  #119  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:43 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,526
Sorry, I know it's something of a hijack but someone has to respond to Bullitt's long post earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullitt View Post
I am among very very many of the silent majority who voted for Trump in 2016. [...] he's basically a blow-hard who spouts some stupid shit but I seriously doubt he's a racist pig.
Firstly I'm not sure in what sense you can say "majority".
But anyway, people consider him a racist pig (among other things) because of his actual words an actions. The central park 5 thing. The way he calls any black critic of his "low IQ". Mexican immigrants are rapists (and some, I assume, are good people). Refusing to rent apartments to black people, muslim ban, and on and on.
If my own mother talked this way I'd have to concede she is a racist. It's breathtaking that people are capable of handwaving all this.

Quote:
But there are many of us, and we are decent people.
I would not paint all trump supporters are racists, but you don't get to say you're all decent people either.

Quote:
Trump's crotch grabbing? Sure, I get it. Locker room kind of talk, but from a very rich adult man who should know better. Inappropriate as all hell? Certainly. Young males would talk that way more when they were in high school and perhaps during college days.
Once more: it's not the vulgar language that's the problem, it's admitting to sexual assault. If I had heard such a thing in a locker room I would have found it disturbing. At the very least I wouldn't socialize with that person again.

Quote:
But when you're rich and growing up, you start living by your own set of rules and you don't have to blend in and try to be accepted like many of us common folks do -- your money and status 'validate', to some degree, your ugly behavior.
Yeah, he's a monster, what's your point?

Quote:
Look at the Clintons. Hillary has treated The Help like scum, lower than dirt.
Oh, it's whataboutism. I get it.

Quote:
I admire people who are rich and powerful and strong leaders, in whatever walks of life (and "rich" doesn't always mean monetary wealth), who are also humble, kind, and generous. Who aren't dicks. Who aren't assholes. I'm fortunate to belong to a church with several like that in my congregation.
Right, so you're saying Trump really has no excuse.

And, if you want to follow many of the principles that I presume your church espouses, you will regularly denounce trump's behaviour WRT e.g. scamming people out of money, his many affairs and cover ups, committing fraud, etc as well as obviously his constant lying.
Certainly not already pledging to vote for the guy.
  #120  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:58 AM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia Larry Borgia is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
This video appears to have the recording you couldn't find:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoOU3xvqU8
The Youtuber here is quite high profile. If it were all a hoax, I would think it would have been taken down by now.
Any chance you can speak for yourself, using your own words, instead of linking to shitty trolls on YouTube? No? cool, didn't think so.
  #121  
Old 10-11-2018, 01:25 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleestak View Post
The original five are Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity..
In every great evil perpetrated by one group of peoples onto another group of peoples, appeals to loyalty (e.g. to race), authority (e.g. to the fuhrer), and sanctity (e.g. to religion) have been involved, not care and fairness. Other things have been involved too, such as avarice, but if it is only the King who is avaricious then he has to use one of the three above (and maybe also fear) to get the populace to rise up and go kill those others.

Some people learn from history, some don't.
  #122  
Old 10-11-2018, 04:41 AM
bmasters1 bmasters1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 410
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
This is bullshit.

If they don't want an abortion, they don't have to have one. If they don't want gay marriage, they don't have to get married to another dude. You say, "They actually aren't trying to make abortion illegal for everyone," and then simultaneously, "They didn't want it legal where they lived." That's a really, really, really, fine hair to split. Saying "they didn't want X legal where they live" means they MUST be telling someone else what they are and are not allowed to do.

This whole time, I keep hearing people say, "The government / liberals / city folk can't tell me what to do!" And then they IMMEDIATELY turn around and use the power of the state to tell someone else what to do. This is complete and utter bullshit. It has nothing to do with community or tradition or anything else, and everything to do with power. By which I mean: "We want the power to tell people what they MUST do, and we don't want anyone else to stop us."

No one is making them have an abortion. No one is making them have a gay marriage. We're just telling them they don't have the right to infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms... Which is what I thought they wanted??

These people make arguments that are inherently contradictory and then wonder why we think they are liars and hypocrites.
Could this be applied to Trump supporters/non-Trump supporters, where the non-supporters try to acknowledge the supporters' right to be supporters, only to have it thrown back in the non-supporters' faces with something like "Not good enough! You must support Trump like we do, or you're against God/against America, and you don't deserve to live here!"?

Or could it even be applied to FOX News viewers/non-FOX News viewers, where those who do not see FOX News try to acknowledge that those who see FOX News have every right to see it, only to have that thrown back in the non-viewers' faces with, "FOX News is the only news this community runs on, and if you're not a FOX viewer, you're not being informed and you're hearing fake news (so says our great leader Donald J. Trump)!"?
  #123  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:01 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Not nearly as strong as the leftist glue of smug self righteousness and perpetual outrage.
Erm, no, that's the right you're thinking of there. "Smug self-righteousness and perpetual outrage" are pretty much the constant output of right-wing media - I mean, it's a perfect description of Alex Jones, Hannity, O'Reilly, Lahren, Coulter, Limbaugh, Pirro (who loves to scream the word "DEMONRATS" at the screen) and fellow travellers. Keith Olbermann used to do that sort of schtick on the left, but where is he now? Doing a web series for GQ magazine - hardly a sign of strong left-wing support for his approach. I suppose you could arguably put Bill Maher in that box - he's certainly smug - but he's hardly a cheerleader for the left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think this is spot on. Democrats predictably lost strength in the South as a result of their support for for Civil Rights, but they were competitive in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Not anymore. As you adroitly point out, the Democrats took civil rights beyond boundaries that rural folks were comfortable with and people in rural white America perceived it as an attack on the social structure.
Not quite. What happened was that the era in which minority groups and women began to see gains in civil rights and equality was also the era, starting during the Reagan years, in which the power of the working class fell due to offshoring, automation, union busting and the diversion of a much larger slice of business growth gains to management and away from the working force (which up to the early '80s had been benefiting from business growth to a much greater extent). The two trends were correlated but not causally-linked, although not only was it a natural assumption ("Those people are doing better than they used to and I'm doing worse, therefore they must be taking my stuff"), it was a message actively promoted by the people actually responsible for the working class no longer improving in line with business growth, i.e. the wealthy. And they spent decades hammering that message home because it meant they got to keep screwing the working class and scapegoating others for it. Hell, the whole "Only Republicans are real hardworking Americans and Democrats want to take our money and give it to lazy shiftless minorities and illegals" thing is taken as gospel by a sizable portion of modern Republicans.

So no, the problem isn't what the Democrats did; it's what the Republicans have been saying the Democrats did. And the Republicans have been very good at propaganda in recent decades.

Quote:
Their getting into bed with corporate America didn't necessarily help either.
Well, no it really didn't - corporatism in the Democratic Party has undermined whatever political agenda the party may have had. But the alternate was to be poor and even further out of power. Souls go cheap in DC.

Quote:
On some level, I think rural Trump supporters understand that Trump is a deeply flawed person, but he's forgiven because he's doing things that 'nicer' conservatives wouldn't have dared: he's channeling their frustrations and there's a certain level of catharsis that comes with that. It sometimes reminds me of how people where I grew up scream at the tops of their lungs when their favorite professional wrestler body slams or suplexes an opponent they can't stand.
It's not even that. It's tribalism. Based on many, many internet exchanges I've had, Trump supporters, once committed, will defend their tribe. You can point out all the lies and corruption you want and they were handwave it away because no matter how bad their side is, they must defend it from outsiders. Furthermore, they are operating on the basis that you are doing the same - that anyone criticizing Trump must unconditionally support Hillary, that you are repeating talking points verbatim from CNN (I'm not sure why CNN is the particular bugaboo here) as they are doing for their sources, that you are only opposing Trump out of partisan bias rather than because Trump and his Congressional enablers are truly terrible people doing truly terrible things.

And yes, there is tribalism on the left too (although it's probably more prevalent amongst Sanders supporters than Clintonites). But the old Will Rogers joke about Democrats not being an "organized political party" remains true today - unquestioning defense of one's side is not nearly the driving force it is on the right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
And 48 Senators. You guys were close though. If it were a game of horseshoes, you'd have definitely earned a point.
When ACA was passed after over a year of consultation and vast amount of GOP input, it was repeatedly characterized as being "rammed down our throats". Now the Republicans have basically adopted the policy of ""We're in control so we're not even going to pretend to be fair and honest and interested in bipartisanship - we'll just do what we want and you can't stop us, so fuck all y'all".

But thanks for the additional demonstration of this, HD. And I appreciate your restraint in not adding the usual line about "crying libtards".
  #124  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:15 AM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
1) You're already misrepresenting my point. I didn't have any issue finding the recording; it was right there at the top of the page.

2) I'm not saying that the audio itself is necessarily faked, but presenting this as "fake news" is ridiculous, considering how CBS, the same organization that you're claiming is in on this conspiracy to cover up the race of the perpetrators, posted this on their website the very same day:



3) Are you going to answer any of the holes I poked in your news source?
I guess I misread your post. I thought you were saying you doubted whether the radio broadcast happened. I too began to wonder, and finally found the recording in the youtube video. It looks like some posters are attacking the youtuber. It is a seperate, and irrelevant, debate over the reputation of the youtuber. All that is relevant here is: is the recording a hoax? If the recording were a hoax, then I argue: given how the youtuber has already been hounded by the mainstream media, then they would have been keeping an eye on his channel and would have complained to youtube and the video would have been taken down. I can understand debating that. But surprisingly, it seems no one is doubting the authenticity of the recording. If that is indeed the case, it is an example of "Twilight Zone" reporting, which I was asked for. I don't see how an auxillary website post by CBS changes how we should view this recording. Many people will listen to the radio in their car, and are too busy to read website followups on what they heard. I was asked for an example of Twilight Zone reporting, and I gave an example. I can understand debating: real or hoax recording? But if it is conceded to be real, then I consider this branch of the debate over: Twilight Zone reporting example given.
  #125  
Old 10-11-2018, 05:49 AM
KidCharlemagne KidCharlemagne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Let's see if I got this straight. The charge for which you requested a cite was that some right-wing Dopers append a celebration of liberal discomfort to whatever other reason they may think they have. In response I cited HurricaneDitka's referring to the "benefit" of "poking [liberals] in the eye." But this is "non-responsive" because the enjoyment of eye-poking was appended to some other argument; it was just a "secondary purpose", an "ancillary benefit."

Is English your first language?
Oh don't worry. Everyone else saw just how utterly and completely you owned him.
  #126  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:33 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,625
Careful. If he's packing a quiver full of zingers like the "senators and horseshoes" bit, we're all going to end up like Saint Sebastian.
  #127  
Old 10-11-2018, 07:47 AM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 39,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think this is spot on. Democrats predictably lost strength in the South as a result of their support for for Civil Rights, but they were competitive in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. Not anymore. As you adroitly point out, the Democrats took civil rights beyond boundaries that rural folks were comfortable with...
This implies that the boundary lay on this side of the Civil Rights Act.

That is absolutely not true; the comfort boundary was decades prior to that. The Civil Rights Act was opposed by the majority of white Americans, and the vast majority in rural areas. White people did not want black people to have codified equal rights. Dr. Martin Luther King was literally one of the most hated men in America. Today it's fashionable to pretend that opposition to the CRA was limited to a minority number of shoeless rubes, but it's just not true. There is no dividing line between "stuff where the civil rights supporters had the majority of white people" and "stuff where they lost that" because they never had the majority of white people. Most white people were not terrorists, lynching and shooting and firebombing, but they were politely racist, if you will.

The cause of equality and liberty ALWAYS runs up against an entrenched majority opposition. It's simply the nature of it.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #128  
Old 10-11-2018, 09:55 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I guess I misread your post. I thought you were saying you doubted whether the radio broadcast happened. I too began to wonder, and finally found the recording in the youtube video. It looks like some posters are attacking the youtuber. It is a seperate, and irrelevant, debate over the reputation of the youtuber. All that is relevant here is: is the recording a hoax? If the recording were a hoax, then I argue: given how the youtuber has already been hounded by the mainstream media, then they would have been keeping an eye on his channel and would have complained to youtube and the video would have been taken down. I can understand debating that. But surprisingly, it seems no one is doubting the authenticity of the recording. If that is indeed the case, it is an example of "Twilight Zone" reporting, which I was asked for. I don't see how an auxillary website post by CBS changes how we should view this recording. Many people will listen to the radio in their car, and are too busy to read website followups on what they heard. I was asked for an example of Twilight Zone reporting, and I gave an example. I can understand debating: real or hoax recording? But if it is conceded to be real, then I consider this branch of the debate over: Twilight Zone reporting example given.
Nope, it is more likely to be an example of early reporting getting it wrong, as it is very usual on early reports of very violent incidents. Also Babale noted that CBS reported it properly the same day. It is like with the 911 attacks, where early mistakes in reporting are taken by conspiracy minded guys as gospel.

To be Twilight Zone reporting, the media outfit should remove any further explanations from other more reliable sources of information and should double down on the past reporting.* That is not the case here, and as for the YouTuber, doubling down on him as if he is a reliable source is just what conspiracy followers do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Dice
Quote:
Mark Shouldice (born December 21, 1977), known professionally as Mark Dice,[1] is an American YouTube personality,[3] conspiracy theorist,[4][5] and author[4] known for his conspiracy theories about secret societies such as The Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Grove events, Satanists and the Illuminati control of the world.[6][7][4][8] Dice has also attracted criticism and attention for his claim that the United States government orchestrated the September 11 attacks



* In reality we do enter the Twilight Zone when alt-right wing media maintains misunderstandings or false information that matches the already set biases of the makers of unreliable sources of information.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-11-2018 at 09:56 AM.
  #129  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:30 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I guess I misread your post. I thought you were saying you doubted whether the radio broadcast happened. I too began to wonder, and finally found the recording in the youtube video.
I don't doubt that CBS Radio broadcast those words. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if they didn't, but I have no reason to doubt it. However, in order for this "Twilight Zone" of liberal lies to exist, you need to show BOTH:

1) That CBS said something misleading
2) That CBS did this with the intention of misleading people

Even if we grant 1, which I'll come back to in a second, what about 2? Well, the fact that CBS's website, that same day, DID mention the race of the attackers, and continued mentioning the race of the attackers in all of their followup articles, shows that if CBS is trying to mislead people, they aren't doing a very good job of it.

Now, let's get back to point 1: is the video real?

Considering how the original source appears to be the Mediaite article, and how many flaws that article had in terms of journalistic integrity, I would not be at all surprised if, for example, the audio was edited. The clip begins with a broadcaster introducing the story, then passing it to Dean Reynolds; we then hear some audio from the attack, followed by Reynolds beginning his report with the words, "In the video, he is..."

So -- does this clip represent an accurate view of what was broadcast that day on CBS Radio? Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. The YouTube video offers no source, and the Mediaite article (the first mention of this issue on the web) offers an invalid source (a supposed Reddit thread that doesn't seem to exist, and a link to a file that apparently never existed). When a report fails to properly cite its sources, it is automatically dubious. This doesn't mean it is false, but it's a red flag. Agreed, or disagreed?

(You've still never addressed the issues with the original article, so let me ask again, one last time: Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to?)

Quote:
It looks like some posters are attacking the youtuber. It is a seperate, and irrelevant, debate over the reputation of the youtuber. All that is relevant here is: is the recording a hoax? If the recording were a hoax, then I argue: given how the youtuber has already been hounded by the mainstream media, then they would have been keeping an eye on his channel and would have complained to youtube and the video would have been taken down.
You are committing so many fallacies here that I'm not even sure which one to begin with. You've got appeal to authority, ad populum, ad hominem, a false dichotomy, and you're begging the question (do you have some evidence for me that every false claim on YouTube posted by an unpopular or controversial figure is immediately taken down?)

Quote:
I can understand debating that. But surprisingly, it seems no one is doubting the authenticity of the recording. If that is indeed the case, it is an example of "Twilight Zone" reporting, which I was asked for.
I doubted the authenticity of the recording as soon as I noticed how sketchy this Mediaite website is, but I didn't consider that relevant to the argument, because even if the clip is real, and not taken out of context, it's not an example of "Twilight Zone" reporting, because CBS is not denying that the perpetrators are black!

(For what it's worth, I doubt the recording is "fake" in the sense that someone did a passable imitation of Reynolds. I very much doubt that the recorded audio clip contains the entire report that CBS broadcast, but that's not the point)

Quote:
I don't see how an auxillary website post by CBS changes how we should view this recording. Many people will listen to the radio in their car, and are too busy to read website followups on what they heard. I was asked for an example of Twilight Zone reporting, and I gave an example. I can understand debating: real or hoax recording? But if it is conceded to be real, then I consider this branch of the debate over: Twilight Zone reporting example given.
It's relevant because EVEN if the clip is real, in order for your "Twilight Zone" claim to be true, there needs to be both ACTION (a lie is told) and INTENT (this is done to spread the Liberal Agenda). The fact that CBS did not hide the race of the perpetrators or victims, and in fact mentioned it in the first line of their written article from that day, tells us about their intent. So even if, for some reason, we accept the PROVABLY FALSE source of this audio clip, all you've shown is that CBS said one misleading thing on-air. There is no evidence that this is part of a liberal main-stream media campaign of Fake News.

On the other hand, we DO have evidence of Fake News on Mediaite, since they posted an article about an audio record and used PROVABLY FALSE citations to back up their claim.


Throughout our discussion, you've picked and chosen which parts of my post to reply to. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you've been acting in good faith, but my patience is running out. So here are three questions I want the answers to, or we'll take this to the Pit.

Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to? When a source acts in this fashion, does it at all lead you to doubt its authenticity? Note that I am not asking you to take my word for any of what I've said in this thread. Every claim I've made has been accompanied by a link to its source.

Do you have some evidence for me that every false claim on YouTube posted by an unpopular or controversial figure is immediately taken down? You're claiming that this Mark Dice cannot possibly be lying, as Mainstream Media Flunkie YouTube would take down his video if he told a falsehood. Can you back this up? And if that's the case, can you explain why this channel, which claims that the Earth is flat, has not been taken down?

Do you disagree with the claim that CBS News' articles show their intent, and that therefore the fact that they are NOT hiding the race of the victims shows that there is NOT some "Mainstream Media" conspiracy to present the "Twilight Zone" news?
  #130  
Old 10-11-2018, 10:44 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
PS: Let me just clarify what I mean by the possibility that the recording was edited. In the (FAKE SOURCED) clip posted by Mediaite, the broadcaster introduces the topic. We then cut to sounds of the attack, followed by Reynolds describing the injuries suffered by the victim, with no mention of anyone's race. It would have been trivially easy to remove parts of the audio if, for example, the broadcaster actually cut to Reynolds, who reiterated the facts INCLUDING the race of the attackers and victim, then played the audio of the attack, then described the injuries of the victim.

Did this happen? Maybe, maybe not. We have no way of knowing. What we do know is that Mediaite claims that the audio came from Reddit, when it clearly did not, so they're known liars. Had they posted a valid source for the audio, we could make our own judgement.

We also know that all of the sources reporting this alleged "Twilight Zone" episode are referencing Mediaite, or referencing no one at all. To use the same fallacy you did when defending Mark Dice -- do you really think that if this was a real incident, the only person to catch it would be an anonymous Redditor who apparently doesn't exist, and a third-rate political blog like Mediaite would be the only one to get the scoop? Why isn't Fox News frothing with rage about this, if it's true?

ETA: That's not actually my argument; it was a fallacy when you brought it up about Mark Dice, and it's still a fallacy now. I'm just pointing out that your own argument doesn't hold water, and can be used to attack your point of view just as effectively.

Last edited by Babale; 10-11-2018 at 10:45 AM.
  #131  
Old 10-11-2018, 11:53 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Oh, and I would also like to get your thoughts on this:

When a report fails to properly cite its sources, it is automatically dubious. This doesn't mean it is false, but it's a red flag. Agreed, or disagreed?
  #132  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:03 PM
Pardel-Lux Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 10
Made me laugh, I know where you got that from :-)
__________________
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Plato
  #133  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:06 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pardel-Lux View Post
Made me laugh, I know where you got that from :-)
I'm not sure I follow, where I got what from? If I made a reference to something, it was unintentional.
  #134  
Old 10-11-2018, 12:31 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,378
I kind of differ in thinking that the glue is not the shared bond, but a brew of cultural narcissism and conspicuous outrage (in the Veblen sense of "conspicuous consumption").

i.e. We are, or should be, the highest-status people in society. High-status people ordinarily would signal themselves with conspicuous consumption, but we lack the material status for that kind of display. So we signal our imaginary status with conspicuous outrage. The cruelty isn't the point, but it's the necessary instrument for maximizing the display of outrage.

So what they really want is to look powerful by being jerks together, and being persecuting the out-group is the best strategy for doing that.
  #135  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:04 PM
epolo epolo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 363
Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Sure, but 'society' based frameworks lead to communism and Nazism. It's not really the social framework that is a problem. There are pros and cons to both and you can certainly have a wonderful 'society' just as easily as a wonderful 'community.' I don't think pointing fingers at 'community' is particularly helpful anymore than them pointing fingers at 'society.'


In what way are Nazism and communism “society” based frameworks under your model?

They were both authoritarian systems that prized homogeneity (although of different sorts) and stability. Neither one was big on rule of law.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Morpheme Addict
  #136  
Old 10-11-2018, 03:22 PM
senoy senoy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,127
The difference between 'society' and 'community' is how the individual relates to it. The ultimate 'community' system is a family where the individual relates to the group as a subset of the group. The ultimate 'society' is a business where the individual relates to the group as something to conduct transactions with. 'Community' relates to itself through relationship "You know Bob, he's Jim's brother." 'Society' relates to itself via codified transactional rules that protect the interest of the individual. A quick way to tell the difference is to ask whether a person feels a moral responsibility to the group or not. (Keeping in mind that Tonnies felt that all groups are mixes of both, but most lean one way or the other.) If you have a member of a group that is more likely to say, "I follow the norms of the group because it's the right thing to do and offending the group is immoral.' it's more 'community.' If you have a member that is more likely to say "I follow the norms of the group because it benefits me to do so." then it's more 'society.'

Not being in Nazi Germany, I couldn't tell you with certainty what people felt, but Nazism was extremely codified and adherence to law was scrupulous. I think that fear of governmental institutions was a strong motivator and I would lean it toward 'society.' Communism while subsets of it functioned as 'community,' I would claim most people supported the state not out of love and agreement that the state was a moral good, but rather because it benefited them to do so. Chinese communism is probably the most 'society' of the communist states. I don't think that Chinese people are saying "I am the Communist Party." but rather "If I don't follow the rules, my head is going to roll."
  #137  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:16 AM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Did anyone notice that after Kanye West recently met with Trump, CNN responded with a segment many view as racist against blacks?
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...west-criticism
I see this as CNN trying to cause a perception that Trump is racist, because they want to keep blacks as a mostly monolithic Democrat voting block.
  #138  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:27 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 21,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Did anyone notice that after Kanye West recently met with Trump, CNN responded with a segment many view as racist against blacks?
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...west-criticism
I see this as CNN trying to cause a perception that Trump is racist, because they want to keep blacks as a mostly monolithic Democrat voting block.
I've noticed that you've linked to FoxNews' particular take on that rather than the actual CNN segment. Why is that?
  #139  
Old 10-12-2018, 10:38 AM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I've noticed that you've linked to FoxNews' particular take on that rather than the actual CNN segment. Why is that?
Because I don't know where it is. If you can find it, post a link, please. You can go on youtube and search for "cnn kanye segment racist" and find commentary on it, with clips. Omiting the word racist you get a bunch of CNN videos, but I didn't see the one under discussion.
  #140  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:31 AM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Did anyone notice that after Kanye West recently met with Trump, CNN responded with a segment many view as racist against blacks?
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...west-criticism
I see this as CNN trying to cause a perception that Trump is racist, because they want to keep blacks as a mostly monolithic Democrat voting block.
Hey Jim Peebles, are you planning on answering my questions? I can repeat them for you if you'd like. I'm sure you just missed them, rather than ignoring hard to answer questions because you're not debating on an intellectually honest level.

Also, do you think that it is a red flag for Fox News to complain about the media coverage over on CNN without actually linking to CNN's coverage? For example, I could post a Pit thread saying "Jim Peebles is a horrible racist who said he would love to murder minorities". I could even have that thread get very popular, if a lot of people who are already inclined to dislike you just believe my allegations. But if, in that thread, I never actually post a link to you saying anything racist -- for example, because you never did say anything racist -- would that be particularly honest reporting?

And even if you DID say something racist, if I fail to link to that post, wouldn't you suspect I have some ulterior motive here?
  #141  
Old 10-12-2018, 11:46 AM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Hey Jim Peebles, are you planning on answering my questions? I can repeat them for you if you'd like. I'm sure you just missed them, rather than ignoring hard to answer questions because you're not debating on an intellectually honest level.

Also, do you think that it is a red flag for Fox News to complain about the media coverage over on CNN without actually linking to CNN's coverage? For example, I could post a Pit thread saying "Jim Peebles is a horrible racist who said he would love to murder minorities". I could even have that thread get very popular, if a lot of people who are already inclined to dislike you just believe my allegations. But if, in that thread, I never actually post a link to you saying anything racist -- for example, because you never did say anything racist -- would that be particularly honest reporting?

And even if you DID say something racist, if I fail to link to that post, wouldn't you suspect I have some ulterior motive here?
I already said I can't find the original CNN segment. I cited an article with quotes. Do you want me to post a link to a secondary youtube commentary with video clips? If I am not mistaken, there are 2 objections to my posts here:
1. The radio clip might be a hoax or deceptively edited.
2. No one knows where the original CNN video segment is.
I guess I am not really interested in writing a lot on 1 and 2. I see them as examples of the mainstream media stoking a false perception that racism is everywhere. I'd rather give more examples than get into the weeds discussing objections 1 and 2.

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 10-12-2018 at 11:48 AM.
  #142  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:06 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I already said I can't find the original CNN segment. I cited an article with quotes. Do you want me to post a link to a secondary youtube commentary with video clips?
Actually, having reviewed your link again, this is an example of your own failure, not Fox News', because they actually DO provide the original footage. It's an embedded Twitter video of the discussion. I find it very telling that you passed judgement before watching the original video, though.

After watching your video, I have no idea what Fox News is complaining about. CNN is having a panel discussion where they are allowing a number of people to give their opinions. They are claiming that Kanye West is ignorant, because, for example, he spoke about how we need more STEM funding without knowing what STEM is. I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on how black people choose to use terms for blacks (and by the way, Fox is claiming that they said "The N Word" which they clearly did not do -- you can watch your own Mark Dice video for a (much more offensive) breakdown of the difference between the N Word proper and other words that start with N and are used to refer to black people. 1 minute 40 seconds in.

Quote:
If I am not mistaken, there are 2 objections to my posts here:
1. The radio clip might be a hoax or deceptively edited.
2. No one knows where the original CNN video segment is.
I guess I am not really interested in writing a lot on 1 and 2. I see them as examples of the mainstream media stoking a false perception that racism is everywhere. I'd rather give more examples than get into the weeds discussing objections 1 and 2.
You are mistaken. The questions I wanted you to answer were:

1) When a report fails to properly cite its sources, it is automatically dubious. This doesn't mean it is false, but it's a red flag. Agreed, or disagreed? This is a one-word answer, you can handle it. Agree? Disagree? It applies to your Mediaite example, but not your Fox News example, since Fox News did post the CNN video -- which you clearly didn't watch.

2) Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to? This is straight-up lying by your first cite. I'd love to hear your justification, or if you agree that lying like this is bad, why you take the article seriously anyways.

3) Do you disagree with the claim that CBS News' articles show their intent, and that therefore the fact that they are NOT hiding the race of the victims shows that there is NOT some "Mainstream Media" conspiracy to present the "Twilight Zone" news? You made a claim -- that the Mediaite article showcases bias on the Left. Do you stand by your claim despite the fact that CBS News clearly isn't trying to hide the race of the perpetrators, when we take in their actions as a whole?

4) Do you have some evidence for me that every false claim on YouTube posted by an unpopular or controversial figure is immediately taken down? You claimed that if Mark Dice's video had no basis, it would have been taken down because he is despised by the Left. I asked for a cite that shows that videos are taken down for no reason other than their anti-Liberal content.

Four questions. None of them have to do with the footage being fake or not. Are you going to answer them, or weasel out of a clear response again?
  #143  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:19 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,453
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Hey Jim Peebles, are you planning on answering my questions? I can repeat them for you if you'd like. I'm sure you just missed them, rather than ignoring hard to answer questions because you're not debating on an intellectually honest level.
Dial it back. This is not appropriate for this forum.

[/moderating]
  #144  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:23 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Dial it back. This is not appropriate for this forum.

[/moderating]
That's fair, and I apologize for my hostile tone.
  #145  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:24 PM
Jim Peebles Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Actually, having reviewed your link again, this is an example of your own failure, not Fox News', because they actually DO provide the original footage. It's an embedded Twitter video of the discussion. I find it very telling that you passed judgement before watching the original video, though.

After watching your video, I have no idea what Fox News is complaining about. CNN is having a panel discussion where they are allowing a number of people to give their opinions. They are claiming that Kanye West is ignorant, because, for example, he spoke about how we need more STEM funding without knowing what STEM is. I don't feel qualified to pass judgement on how black people choose to use terms for blacks (and by the way, Fox is claiming that they said "The N Word" which they clearly did not do -- you can watch your own Mark Dice video for a (much more offensive) breakdown of the difference between the N Word proper and other words that start with N and are used to refer to black people. 1 minute 40 seconds in.



You are mistaken. The questions I wanted you to answer were:

1) When a report fails to properly cite its sources, it is automatically dubious. This doesn't mean it is false, but it's a red flag. Agreed, or disagreed? This is a one-word answer, you can handle it. Agree? Disagree? It applies to your Mediaite example, but not your Fox News example, since Fox News did post the CNN video -- which you clearly didn't watch.

2) Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to? This is straight-up lying by your first cite. I'd love to hear your justification, or if you agree that lying like this is bad, why you take the article seriously anyways.

3) Do you disagree with the claim that CBS News' articles show their intent, and that therefore the fact that they are NOT hiding the race of the victims shows that there is NOT some "Mainstream Media" conspiracy to present the "Twilight Zone" news? You made a claim -- that the Mediaite article showcases bias on the Left. Do you stand by your claim despite the fact that CBS News clearly isn't trying to hide the race of the perpetrators, when we take in their actions as a whole?

4) Do you have some evidence for me that every false claim on YouTube posted by an unpopular or controversial figure is immediately taken down? You claimed that if Mark Dice's video had no basis, it would have been taken down because he is despised by the Left. I asked for a cite that shows that videos are taken down for no reason other than their anti-Liberal content.

Four questions. None of them have to do with the footage being fake or not. Are you going to answer them, or weasel out of a clear response again?
1. Disagree. Lots of things can point to dubiousness. Bad citations can sometimes, but it is not automatically a red flag.
2. The web is dynamically changing, and the hyperlinks on old articles can break.
3. Some people will only hear about a particular story from one radio blurb. As such, it should be clear on its own. Who knows how this one came to be so deceptive. Maybe we can hire a PI to interview the radio broadcast employees and find an innocent explanation.
4. The issue is whether the clip is a hoax or deceptively edited. Mark Dice's high profile, and the fact that things are taken down points towards it being real. Without hiring a PI, we won't know for sure.
  #146  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:44 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
1. Disagree. Lots of things can point to dubiousness. Bad citations can sometimes, but it is not automatically a red flag.
These aren't "bad citations" in the sense that the author quoted Wikipedia or an unreliable book. These are straight-up dishonest citations. If it doesn't make you question the honestly of the entire article, is there anything that would?

Quote:
2. The web is dynamically changing, and the hyperlinks on old articles can break.
That's a fair point. However, in my analysis of each of the links, I covered why this makes no sense. For example, the first invalid link, to CBSRadio.com, is to a website that's never existed. And clearly the author is familiar with the correct website -- CBSNews.com/radio -- because he links to it later in the article.

Quote:
3. Some people will only hear about a particular story from one radio blurb. As such, it should be clear on its own. Who knows how this one came to be so deceptive. Maybe we can hire a PI to interview the radio broadcast employees and find an innocent explanation.
That's a fair point, but it's also not the question I asked. Yes, if the audio we've heard is accurate to what was broadcast, then it's misleading. However, we can judge intent based on a person's pattern of behavior. CBS does not have a pattern of covering up the race of the attackers, because every other example of their coverage of the event does properly state the race of the attackers. We don't need a PI to determine whether it is likely that this was done with intent to deceive. We aren't going to court here -- we don't need "proof beyond reasonable doubt". We just need to decide whether we will trust the source or not.

Quote:
4. The issue is whether the clip is a hoax or deceptively edited. Mark Dice's high profile, and the fact that things are taken down points towards it being real. Without hiring a PI, we won't know for sure.
You stating "the fact that things are taken down" means absolutely nothing. Do you have any examples of things being taken down simply because they are untrue? Because the Flat Earth channels I linked are clearly untrue, and also clearly on YouTube.

When you go to report a YouTube video to flag it for removal, the following options are available:

Sexual content
Violent or repulsive content
Hateful or abusive content (By the way, I reported Mark's video under this category due to his little "digression" about how blacks are lying about the N word. I chose the subcategory, "Promotes hatred or violence".)
Harmful dangerous acts
Child abuse
Promotes terrorism
Spam or misleading
Infringes my rights
Captions issue

Of these, the only option that possibly relates to your claim that untrue videos are taken down is "Spam or misleading" which is described as "Content that is massively posted or otherwise misleading in nature". The subcategories are:

Mass advertising
Pharmaceutical drugs for sale
Misleading text
Misleading thumbnail
Scams/fraud

Clearly, this is meant to target people spamming or advertising false products, not for any untrue claim. This is reinforced by YouTube's Community Guidelines page. They explain that the "Spam or misleading" category actually refers to "Spam, misleading metadata, and scams" which you can read about in more detail here. Note that it's pretty clear that this rule is meant to remove people who are lying in order to scam you out of money, not just anyone who says something untrue in a YouTube video.
  #147  
Old 10-12-2018, 12:49 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to? When a source acts in this fashion, does it at all lead you to doubt its authenticity?
I have an explanation:

The article is 21 months old. Other sites can re-arrange things, move things, take things down...whatever. Links that used to work break. Happens all the time. Mediaite, like most websites, does not re-visit old pages and work to fix broken links. Any large website that tries to do so will quickly find it is the only thing their employees ever do so no one does this.

The alternative is to think the website published the article with broken links in order to pretend they had evidence they did not have. Highly unlikely (and if they did try that at a high profile site like this you would expect to be able to find others calling them out on it and we don't see that).
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 10-12-2018 at 12:50 PM.
  #148  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:03 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I have an explanation:

The article is 21 months old. Other sites can re-arrange things, move things, take things down...whatever. Links that used to work break. Happens all the time. Mediaite, like most websites, does not re-visit old pages and work to fix broken links. Any large website that tries to do so will quickly find it is the only thing their employees ever do so no one does this.

The alternative is to think the website published the article with broken links in order to pretend they had evidence they did not have. Highly unlikely (and if they did try that at a high profile site like this you would expect to be able to find others calling them out on it and we don't see that).
1) Mediaite is not a "high profile" site. It is rarely referenced anywhere else, aside from even smaller right-wing blogs, for good or for ill. I could make the same argument about the original allegations BY Mediaite. CBS is HUGE compared to Mediaite; why didn't Fox News call them our if they really did air the misleading segment?

2) I've already addressed your broken link claim in the very post you quoted. The Reddit post they claim originally broke the story doesn't appear to exist despite a thorough search on Reddit, that DID turn up references to Mediaite's article but no original post (why didn't they link THAT by the way? If it was real, you'd think they could post THAT). The audio clip hosting service they "linked" uses an entirely different format for its URLs. CBSRadio.com never existed, and the author of the Mediaite article clearly knew that because they linked CBSNews.com/radio -- the correct website -- later in the article.
  #149  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:14 PM
Pardel-Lux Pardel-Lux is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Berlin
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
I'm not sure I follow, where I got what from? If I made a reference to something, it was unintentional.
Really? That is even funnier. Monthy Python, the sketch Nobody Expects Tha Spanish Inquisition: "Our main weapons are fear and surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope". That is so close to what you wrote that I though from memory it was verbatim, now checking it I am even more amazed if you did not know the sketch.
__________________
Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Plato
  #150  
Old 10-12-2018, 01:17 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pardel-Lux View Post
Really? That is even funnier. Monthy Python, the sketch Nobody Expects Tha Spanish Inquisition: "Our main weapons are fear and surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope". That is so close to what you wrote that I though from memory it was verbatim, now checking it I am even more amazed if you did not know the sketch.
I'm familiar with the sketch, but I am still not sure which sentence you're comparing that too?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017