Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2017, 05:20 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:12 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 05:07 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The people who vote based on endorsements from the KKK are a tiny fraction of a percentage of a vote, a negligible amount. I'm not trying to polish a turd - Trump is a stinky turd, and I do not support the majority of his political positions.

Not based on the endorsment but despite of the endorsment. Which more or less means they're comfortable with that, don't mind or don't know. Either one doesn't sound good to me.

"Don't mind" sounds like the are okay with it. I think most people "don't care" because, why the fuck would you care what the KKK thinks? To me, and most Americans, it's irrelevant.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 05:25 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:20 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  "Don't mind" sounds like the are okay with it. I think most people "don't care" because, why the fuck would you care what the KKK thinks? To me, and most Americans, it's irrelevant.

Don't care sounds the same as don't mind to me. It's not as if the reasons for getting the endorsments were such a big secret. Every seconbd word he said was KKK material. So yeah, they voted for a borderline racist, who wasn't shy about flying his true colors. That's why I said, he was appealing to the most primitive instincts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes abaris's post
10-02-2017, 05:33 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:25 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 05:20 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  "Don't mind" sounds like the are okay with it. I think most people "don't care" because, why the fuck would you care what the KKK thinks? To me, and most Americans, it's irrelevant.

Don't care sounds the same as don't mind to me. It's not as if the reasons for getting the endorsments were such a big secret. Every seconbd word he said was KKK material. So yeah, they voted for a borderline racist, who wasn't shy about flying his true colors. That's why I said, he was appealing to the most primitive instincts.

Every second word he said was KKK material? I guess I might need to research KKK literature. You are obviously more well-versed than I am on this topic, but I would find it pretty surprising. I wonder if the rust-belt who twice voted in a black man, heard the same thing you did? The most damning thing I heard was the Mexican judge comments. What am I missing here?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 05:47 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 03:21 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, I call bullshit on your bullshit. Only a ideologue could watch Rachel Maddow and think "this is credible and reasonable" when she is yelling "Literally Hitler! and claiming that Trump is the last President of the US, or look at the like of race-baiters like Van Jones on CNN insinuating Trump won because white people hate black people, or Donna Brazile feeding the debate questions to the Clinton Campaign, or New York Times letting Clinton essentially edit their article of her or any of any number of examples I could list. I would say at this point Fox has more credibility than many of the "liberal" media", and I do not consider Fox a particularly credible either.

But leftists don't think like that, in general. We're quite well-known for trying to look at things as objectively as possible, and for reading sources that aren't part of our usual "echo-chamber" of thought. As Robert Frost once quipped, "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

Rachel Maddow is one voice on the left, one who has a show featured on MSNBC for the purposes of pandering to one particular type of leftist (the Hillary die-hards, mostly). She will stake out her ideological grounds and cheer for the home team right-or-wrong. True. But despite her ideological fanaticism, you can't say that MSNBC is being outright dishonest in their presentation in the way that FNC is, let alone an "we make up 98% of our alternative facts" organization like Breitbart. Just to show you an example of how leftists really tend to look at things, here's an example of Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk ripping Rachel a new one:





There are people who make their living by baiting, in all forms. But we're not talking about individual tactics; rather, we're discussing the well-established fact that while left-leaning groups may not present whole cases (skewed to left views) and therefore not be as useful as a more-centrist approach, there are organizations on the right wing which are outright fabricators and manipulators of "truth" to the point that to their viewers, anything even in the center looks "leftist". As Emma pointed out, there is simply no comparison between the two approaches.

I just had a guy make a claim about Global Warming, in which he cited a Breitbart article (he didn't say it was, but I knew that Breitbart and other right-wing sites were pushing that narrative) which claimed an EPA whistleblower had shown that Global Warming reports were being fabricated. When I showed him the Snopes.com article on the topic, demonstrating that what was being claimed was not congruent with reality-- the most honest parts of it consisted of "quote mining" to twist what the scientists actually did say-- he countered by calling Snopes untrustworthy because of its left-leaning ideology, which it does not actually have.

When I looked to see why he claimed Snopes was leftist, I found only a couple of sources that even claimed it was liberal-leaning, and several sources which said that Snopes is occasionally wrong, but known for well-cited/documented sources and for posting corrections when they make a mistake. They have repeatedly been tested and found reliable. The only sources claiming Snopes was leftist? You guessed it-- the "alternative facts" crowd, including Breitbart and The Daily Caller who are angry at Snopes calling them on other bullshit.

What does one do when so far on the right wing that almost literally any position other than your own--however centrist--is "liberal"? You proclaim that "the media" is leftist, even when they're reporting verifiable facts, and that you can't trust anyone but your own thought circle. This is something very few leftists do, but something that is common on the right.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
10-02-2017, 05:50 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:12 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 05:07 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The people who vote based on endorsements from the KKK are a tiny fraction of a percentage of a vote, a negligible amount. I'm not trying to polish a turd - Trump is a stinky turd, and I do not support the majority of his political positions.

Not based on the endorsment but despite of the endorsment. Which more or less means they're comfortable with that, don't mind or don't know. Either one doesn't sound good to me.

The KKK may not have convinced a lot of Trump supporters. Trump's emergence made them even more redundant.

There are many reasons people may have supported Trump. But none as predictive as their views on Obama's Muslim heritage.
Quote:You can ask just one simple question to find out whether someone likes Donald Trump more than Hillary Clinton: Is Barack Obama a Muslim? If they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.
Quote:
That’s more accurate than asking people if it’s harder to move up the income ladder than it was for their parents (54 percent), whether they oppose trade deals (66 percent), or if they think the economy is worse now than last year (81 percent). It’s even more accurate than asking them if they are Republican (87 percent).

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2017, 06:13 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:33 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The most damning thing I heard was the Mexican judge comments. What am I missing here?

Travel ban on muslims (still fightiing for that), mexican wall (wants to do it) after calling them rapists and criminals with some of them being good people being as an afterthought ....

Well, that certainly inspires white supremacists.

He hadn't much more on offer, other than make America great again - whatever that may mean.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2017, 01:25 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 05:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 03:21 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, I call bullshit on your bullshit. Only a ideologue could watch Rachel Maddow and think "this is credible and reasonable" when she is yelling "Literally Hitler! and claiming that Trump is the last President of the US, or look at the like of race-baiters like Van Jones on CNN insinuating Trump won because white people hate black people, or Donna Brazile feeding the debate questions to the Clinton Campaign, or New York Times letting Clinton essentially edit their article of her or any of any number of examples I could list. I would say at this point Fox has more credibility than many of the "liberal" media", and I do not consider Fox a particularly credible either.

But leftists don't think like that, in general. We're quite well-known for trying to look at things as objectively as possible, and for reading sources that aren't part of our usual "echo-chamber" of thought. As Robert Frost once quipped, "A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel."

Rachel Maddow is one voice on the left, one who has a show featured on MSNBC for the purposes of pandering to one particular type of leftist (the Hillary die-hards, mostly). She will stake out her ideological grounds and cheer for the home team right-or-wrong. True. But despite her ideological fanaticism, you can't say that MSNBC is being outright dishonest in their presentation in the way that FNC is, let alone an "we make up 98% of our alternative facts" organization like Breitbart. Just to show you an example of how leftists really tend to look at things, here's an example of Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk ripping Rachel a new one:





There are people who make their living by baiting, in all forms. But we're not talking about individual tactics; rather, we're discussing the well-established fact that while left-leaning groups may not present whole cases (skewed to left views) and therefore not be as useful as a more-centrist approach, there are organizations on the right wing which are outright fabricators and manipulators of "truth" to the point that to their viewers, anything even in the center looks "leftist". As Emma pointed out, there is simply no comparison between the two approaches.

I just had a guy make a claim about Global Warming, in which he cited a Breitbart article (he didn't say it was, but I knew that Breitbart and other right-wing sites were pushing that narrative) which claimed an EPA whistleblower had shown that Global Warming reports were being fabricated. When I showed him the Snopes.com article on the topic, demonstrating that what was being claimed was not congruent with reality-- the most honest parts of it consisted of "quote mining" to twist what the scientists actually did say-- he countered by calling Snopes untrustworthy because of its left-leaning ideology, which it does not actually have.

When I looked to see why he claimed Snopes was leftist, I found only a couple of sources that even claimed it was liberal-leaning, and several sources which said that Snopes is occasionally wrong, but known for well-cited/documented sources and for posting corrections when they make a mistake. They have repeatedly been tested and found reliable. The only sources claiming Snopes was leftist? You guessed it-- the "alternative facts" crowd, including Breitbart and The Daily Caller who are angry at Snopes calling them on other bullshit.

What does one do when so far on the right wing that almost literally any position other than your own--however centrist--is "liberal"? You proclaim that "the media" is leftist, even when they're reporting verifiable facts, and that you can't trust anyone but your own thought circle. This is something very few leftists do, but something that is common on the right.

I agree with the overwhelming majority of what you typed, however, I think you are comparing apples and oranges, and I think you are being too generous with the likes of Rachael Maddow.

Breitbart is relatively small organization that doesn't actually have journalists. They scour the internet for stories by real journalists, then they re-tale the tale with a nationalist, populist, conservative tone. The equivalent of Breitbart on the left is more like Salon. They do the same thing for the other team. Neither organization deserves a moniker more kind than "dumpster fire". MSNBC and CNN has journalists, they allege to try and uncover the truth, to seek out news and report it. People like Maddow, as you admit, try to support the hometeam with they are right or wrong. As far as I'm concerned she is like a louder, more moralizing and more alarmist version of Bill O'Reilley. If your team is never wrong then you are not credible, full stop..

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2017, 01:33 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(10-02-2017 06:13 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 05:33 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The most damning thing I heard was the Mexican judge comments. What am I missing here?

Travel ban on muslims (still fightiing for that), mexican wall (wants to do it) after calling them rapists and criminals with some of them being good people being as an afterthought ....

Well, that certainly inspires white supremacists.

He hadn't much more on offer, other than make America great again - whatever that may mean.

The travel ban is not against Muslims. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest, or is ignorant. I do not support the ban, but I'm also honest. Likewise, Trump's ignorant comments were that large numbers of Mexican illegal immigrants were criminals. He specifically said that "they" were sending their worst. Of course this is not born out by the statistics, and I don't know who the "they" is supposed to be, but there is a major problem with the drug cartel sending violence across the border. I think a better solution is to end the war on drugs, but I can recognize nuance, even when it is put in bombastically stupid terms. Most people could, I think. A large minority of hispanic voters did cast a ballot for Donald Trump...

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2017, 01:33 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(11-02-2017 01:25 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Breitbart is relatively small organization that doesn't actually have journalists.


Analysis: Breitbart’s Steve Bannon Leads the ‘Alt Right’ to the White House

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-ho...se-n683316

Stephen Bannon, who was hired by President Donald Trump to serve as his chief strategist at the White House, has hired two of his former Breitbart employees to join him in the high office – Julia Hahn and Sebastian Gorka.

http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/breitbar...ires.html/

According to two sources briefed on the move, Hahn’s title will be special assistant to the president and she is expected to primarily work under White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, himself a former key player at Breitbart. Prior to joining Donald Trump’s campaign, Bannon, an outspoken populist and member of the president’s inner circle, was chairman of the conservative website.

Along with speechwriter Stephen Miller, Bannon and Hahn form a nationalist wing of the administration – one that has shaped its intellectual worldview. The influence of Bannon and Miller was apparent in Trump’s inaugural address, which was packed with populist rhetoric.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-tru...aff-234016

If only they were as small and un-influential as you seem to think.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
11-02-2017, 03:04 AM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(11-02-2017 01:33 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(11-02-2017 01:25 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Breitbart is relatively small organization that doesn't actually have journalists.


Analysis: Breitbart’s Steve Bannon Leads the ‘Alt Right’ to the White House

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-ho...se-n683316

Stephen Bannon, who was hired by President Donald Trump to serve as his chief strategist at the White House, has hired two of his former Breitbart employees to join him in the high office – Julia Hahn and Sebastian Gorka.

http://pamelageller.com/2017/01/breitbar...ires.html/

According to two sources briefed on the move, Hahn’s title will be special assistant to the president and she is expected to primarily work under White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, himself a former key player at Breitbart. Prior to joining Donald Trump’s campaign, Bannon, an outspoken populist and member of the president’s inner circle, was chairman of the conservative website.

Along with speechwriter Stephen Miller, Bannon and Hahn form a nationalist wing of the administration – one that has shaped its intellectual worldview. The influence of Bannon and Miller was apparent in Trump’s inaugural address, which was packed with populist rhetoric.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-tru...aff-234016

If only they were as small and un-influential as you seem to think.

Imagine if the naked Emperor hired his unscrupulous tailors to also be his PR people, and then all you ever heard from the Emperor was how his clothes were the most best good. But isn't the Emperor naked? No, he just has alternative fabric... Weeping

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: