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.
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)!”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Oh don’t worry. Everyone else saw just how utterly and completely you owned him.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?)
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?)
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)
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?
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. *
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?
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.
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.
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
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.”
Did anyone notice that after Kanye West recently met with Trump, CNN responded with a segment many view as racist against blacks?
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?
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.
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?