Same. The BBC is one of my main news sources and I haven’t seen anything to suggest that. Perhaps I missed that story.
And to be fair, there’s a real need to reform them:
ICE under Trump became a perfect example of what happens when you have a lot of power and limited accountability. That needs to be fixed.
Seems a reasonable approach to me.
Another person changing my meaning by snipping. I immediately followed that up by saying I haven’t seen much in the media and got my impression from the SDMB. (And even that was probably seeing thread titles without necessarily reading them, since I wasn’t much interested in the subject.)
The real lesson here is that DT’s posts should never be snipped, so she can’t use this excuse to re-frame her statements.
It’s always amusing to me when someone proudly stands up and declares their ignorance.
I was assuming you simply misunderstood my post and didn’t intend to misrepresent me (I didn’t report it, by the way). But that seems increasingly less likely as you continue to insist on your wildly incorrect interpretation.
I don’t think it’s something to be ashamed of. No one can know everything. I’d rather admit to ignorance and become informed than hide it and remain ignorant.
True.
Lee Fang says on that page that he spoke with 40 people; I see five interviews. They do show some diversity of opinion. Three of them seem in favor of the protests; only one seemed to me to be clearly explaining why. Without knowing what the other 35 people said, I’m still a bit unsure.
Ignorance isn’t something to be ashamed of. But I try to stop myself from expressing firm opinions on things that I’m ignorant about.
I don’t know much about him. I doubt his intention was anything like as simple as ‘wanting to cast a bad light on BLM’, though.
You’d have to know you were ignorant to avoid it. But I don’t think I have done that?
No, emphasizing the particularly stupidly disingenuous part is not “changing meaning”. Since I am obviously also here at the SDMB, that commonality, that the rest of your post attempts to blame for your idiocy, is already dealt with - if you got that impression about abolishing ICE from here, then that’s still your own stupidity, not the Dope.
I emphasized the BBC part because you were so obviously trying to intentionally leave the idea that you’re some innocent non-consumer of RW media, shaped only by here and the Beeb. When your posting history and the sources you’ve used in the past show that to be a laughable lie. So I emphasized it so I could laugh at it.
And in any case - any complaints about “snipping” are of course hollow on Discourse, with its wonderful “expand quote” caron.
“What’s the use of having ignorance if you can’t show it?” - Lou Costello
Does that mean anyone who consumes right-wing media is no longer innocent? 
I don’t go to right-wing sites to read the news. I do read articles that sound interesting in eg the Times or Telegraph if I see them linked to, and that is influenced by what I see on social media like Twitter. With more controversial events I try to find local sources to avoid the spin.
But I honestly don’t recall reading anything about the movement to abolish ICE in any media. I get an impression of what (US) progressives think from this website and from Twitter. There were a lot of threads about Trump’s terrible immigration rules, especially the family separation, and not knowing the difference between ICE and the Border Force I assumed they were related.
It’s still bad if done intentionally. But like I said, I assumed @Sunny_Daze had simply misunderstood, and that would be fine if she accepted it when I corrected her - but she didn’t.
Ponder no more, the answer is “yes”. Anyone who knowingly consumes right-wing media is not innocent. Also, stupid.
As would be anyone who believes this whopper:
I guess what I have been reading is what’s sometimes called the ‘intellectual dark web’, not right-wing news sites. And in some ways I do think I was more innocent before. More innocent because more ignorant. But you can think what you like, I know you’re not interested in understanding.
Not news sites, still largely right-wing bullshit, as has been covered here before. When Jordan Peterson is their leading “intellectual”, that says all you need to know about the IDW.
You? Nothing there to understand.
It’s worth reading the right-wing media sites occasionally - not to be informed about what’s actually happening but to be informed about what a disturbingly large percentage of the population believe is happening. One can often spot the dissemination of new approved narratives when specific phrases suddenly start simultaneously popping up everywhere both in writing and from the mouths of RW talking heads and politicians.
This is particularly useful when the same phrases also start popping up (virtually verbatim) in posts here, as it’s a handy flag to distinguish hivemind activity from original thought.
I would say “reading them occasionally” is not the same thing as “consuming them”, though.
And really, you just have to read what the usual gang of idiots here post, and the articles they link to, to get a good sense of what’s happening there. For instance, I’ll take a bet that “illiberal” has been the word of the month on all those sites.
Before Biden/Afghanistan became the thing, it was “CCP”. It makes no sense, but then it rarely does.
“CCP” was Octo’s favorite word for a while there.
Yeah, that tracks.
The Intellectual Dark Web is a lot like the Holy Roman Empire: it isn’t actually intellectual, nor on the “dark web”.