Yeah, I have no belief in the sincerity of your desire to learn anything. Or, indeed, your intellectual ability to do so, since you still haven’t learned how the Pit works, 10 years on…
And they love free content. They’ll let pretty much anyone write a blog. It’s not like they pay anything for blog content.
Not the same situation to you, perhaps… but to someone who grew up as a victim of colonial brutality and oppression? Come on. That’d be like trying to “educate” a freed slave in 1870 America how the South wasn’t actually so bad.
I do not know if you have kids but if you don’t let’s for the moment pretend you do.
Imagine your kids are beside themselves with fury at the guest you invited over. You just thumb your nose at them since it is your house?
You’re actually supposed to use the inverse of the golden rule. “Do not do unto other others as you would not have them do unto you.”
Sorts out a lot of the messy believe system stuff.
Who did this? I followed your link. All I see is an unsubstantiated claim to that effect - IOW, something no more solid than your post.
ETA: Maybe not so much ‘unsubstantiated’ as ‘blatant spin,’ relying on the plainly ridiculous notion that the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, aka the Mother of all Bombs, could be used for a surgical strike.
Yeah, about that article. Smells like false flag bullshit, to me.
Well, if the original article was a troll, isn’t it worrisome that (a) they published it in the first place and (b) that no-one could tell? I mean, initially HuffPo SA actually put out a tepid “defence” of the article saying it represented “standard feminist thought” (I’m looking for the link but it seems they’ve deleted that, too). Doesn’t that say something about them, and, by extension, the sorry state of far left media?
Are you familiar with how blogs work? And most everyone I know called it poor satire, at best.
I haven’t seen any such defence - maybe you can find it in the Internet Archive or somesuch tool?
HuffPost isn’t remotely far left, at least for South Africa.
I have a friend that has a Huffington Post blog. They give them out readily and the entire system is automated. It’s not like the bloggers are assigned editors that review or approve the story prior to submission. The bloggers simply write and post under the HuffPo banner.
I assume if something is really offense and slips by whatever software filters they have to weed out offense content they might take some sort of action but it would happen after the fact. In fact, people complain all the time to HuffPo about my friend ( she writes columns profiling local community members and sometimes they don’t like the story) but she says that HuffPo is so removed from the process that no one can effectively get a complaint reviewed so she doesn’t care.
Huffington Post doesn’t care they just want free content.
For the last few links, we appear have a blog post which many read as satire and which has since been removed, an article that a poster here described as people “raging” which showed no such rage, and a comment about ISIS that appears to have no provenance whatsoever. I can see why people are really concerned.*
*About fake news.
FWIW, I read the “defence” Rick Sanchez is referring to. If memory serves, it did defend the article as “standard feminist thought” - which it was until the whole “disenfranchise white men for a generation” thing - and then proceeded to disingenuously pretend that the article didn’t call (satirically or otherwise) for the universal disenfranchisement of white men.
I don’t blame them for removing it -it was authored by the editor-in-chief, emphatically and poorly defending what now appears to be a massively successful trolling exercise.
Great Josh Marshall tweet: “Finding something stupid someone said on a college campus is truly the stocked pond fishing of opinion journalism.”
Yes, I’m afraid Verashni really did defend the article.
“Raging”, at least in internet gaming culture usage as I’ve encountered it (and the sense I was using the word in), doesn’t involve literal rage.
And you’re still deflecting from my main point that the article was about SJW types giving someone a lot of shit over something that doesn’t warrant it.
Also, someone else mentioned the @TheSafestSpace twitter account, which indeed documents a lot of the stereotypical SJW stuff you’re claiming doesn’t exist.
A combined 20 replies. And the first one? The one that got his dander up? If you think that was a vicious, horrible attack, you’re so goddamned delicate you need a wubby.
One person asked the dude a question, he said stupid shit and there were a TOTAL of 20 replies. And then you thought this is such an amazing example of a phenomenon that you trotted it out in this thread. You glommed onto some aggregator of such “news” stories and breathlessly posted it and that just makes me feel embarrassed for you.
I guess y’all can compete to be the Rick Kitchen of this thread.
Youre missing the point: Our national news broadcaster (the equivalent of the BBC or CBC, and theoretically the bastion of journalistic integrity in Australia) considered this a newsworthy thing, which is equally concerning.
Saying “What the hell is ‘non-binary’?” is not “saying stupid shit”, IMHO.
And the ABC isn’t an “aggregator of news stories” - they’re one of the most significant media organisations in Australia. They’re also famous for being a bit left-leaning; not in their coverage (they’re generally impartial when they cover something) but in the things they choose to cover.
As an experienced journalist myself, I can tell you if someone came to me and pitched that story I’d say “that’s not news” - so I’d suggest someone deciding to make it news probably had an agenda.
And the Sydney Morning Herald is Australia’s second largest news website; they’re not some random aggregator either.
On a college campus? I’m sorry, but give those anti-vaxxers a freakin’ platform. They’re terrible, yes–but you can’t shoot skeet without clay pigeons, and you can’t hone your debate skills without terrible positions to argue against.
I understand wanting to organize against noxious positions. That’s a laudatory impulse. How cool would it be, then, if demonstrators instead demanded equal time, including a question-and-answer time? If protestors coordinated in chatrooms or Google hangouts to research real-time the fallacious claims of asshole speakers and publicize refutations, organized to ask the most pointed, informed, and devastating questions they could in order to humiliate the charlatans who frequent the college circuit?
It sounds great to not give anti-vaxxers a platform, but it doesn’t work. What happens is that dumbshits like Rick Sanchez get so mad at the “SJWs” that they turn the targets into martyrs and heroes, and they go out and buy the charlatans’ books. Better to invite them into the lion’s den and let them get eaten alive than keep them out and let them advertise their victory.
Isn’t (wasn’t) that Milo’s entire platform? In fact, it seems that whenever he had a legitimate interview his whole shtick was 'naw man, I’m just out here to provide a balance [to the SJWs]". But in reality, he was a Right Wing deity.
As for demonstrators requesting equal time, it’s always fun to see how well it goes over when a non-religious group forces a public installation of a non-christian piece of artwork on public/government property. They’re correct that it’s only fair. If the religions right get to put statue of Jesus or a Nativity scene or the 10 commandments on public land, they really don’t have a leg to stand on when they tell someone else that they can’t don’t something similar. The funny thing is, many of these, on their own aren’t (anti) religious, the problem happens because they’re seen as retaliatory. The other thing I always find funny is that the Right, who will tell you what is and isn’t constitutional, has no problem ignoring separation of Church and State, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom Of Religion and probably some other things (or maybe less if I overstated anything) as soon as someone treads on them.
I’ve touched on this before, but I think a lot of people forget that if you want (and are granted) freedom, so are people that may do or say things that you disagree with. If you want to be free to display your religion, you have to do so with the understanding that others will do it as well. It’s amazing how many people will freely go on and on about their religious beliefs, but be insulted, to the point that they literally think it should be against the law, when someone else displays a different religion.
Next time a republican suggests that hijabs should be banned, see how well it goes over if it’s suggested that any adornments containing a cross, crucifix or otherwise imply that the wearer is Christian should also be banned.
It is if you’re more interested in denying the legitimacy of non-binary genders than in understanding them.