Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(film)#Plot

[smjjames]

To note, that image, despite you saying things about CNN and MSNBC, is Slate, Salon, and HuffPo... and is one of those the National Inquirer, a tabloid? Really? Seriously though, Salon and co. would certainly be what I would call the left's equivalent of bullshit media, and I don't think anyone here will disagree with me.

Though this is tangent to your point. It's the death of modern rhetoric, really- no one's left to make a proper argument these days. So the media's left to dismiss false news as farcical rather than mounting a proper counterargument, and it just heightens the partisan nonsense on both sides.

His point was a bit more on the hypocrisy angle. Slate is supposed to be a more conservative news type site, seems a bit more opiniated than something like CNN or MSNBC, but it's pretty decent. The only Slate articles I've read are those aggregated off of RCP (or one of it's other subsections) Don't really know about Salon, Huffington post is just heavily biased on the liberal side. Does have a good poll aggregator however.

[smjjames]

Salon is left Breitbart, to be honest. Absolute crap.

It did seem rather opiniated rather than News news, and i didn't know that.

[misko27]

I love how Israel has become a sort of reverse scapegoat

Someone says there are problems in the middle east? They are CLEARLY blaming it all on Israel and Jews!

People actually do this though. Unironically. Beyond the confines of the internet, even the presence of Jews bring fire and rage in the middle east. An example from the New York Times on journalists being restricted from the Battle for Mosul:

The tightening of access, apparently, was not an effort to control the narrative, but a reaction to the recent appearance in Mosul of Bernard-Henri Lévy, the French philosopher and writer, who is producing a documentary film about the battle. Why was that controversial? Because Mr. Levy is Jewish.

His appearance stirred outrage in Iraq, and the authorities in Baghdad moved to shut down access for all journalists.

“The rumor spread that we were having relations with Israel,” said Lt. Gen. Abdulwahab al-Saadi, a special forces commander in Mosul, who said he had no idea who Mr. Levy was when he arrived. “In fact, we had no idea who this was that came to see us.”

He said access for journalists would be restored soon. “We will solve this problem,” he said.

[smjjames]

Oh wait, you said Salon, not Slate. I've read a few articles of theirs and it seemed okayish. However, looking at their main page, they're definetly on the sensationalist side.

Salon definetly bashes Trump heavily, but they don't appear to be conspiracy theory peddlers. I've been trying to read articles from both sides of the aisle.

On the Inquirer thing, you're thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer , the one shown in LWs post is a Philadelphia newspaper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Inquirer

Besides, it's not even fantastical enough, it's a fashion critique. One National Enquirer mag (or maybe it was another tabloid paper, same point being made though) I saw recently was that Hillary Clinton (showing someone who looks nothing like Clinton, didn't look much like Chelsea either) adopted an alien baby. THAT's the kind of sensationalism those tabloids do.

[Loud Whispers]

Oh wait, you said Salon, not Slate. I've read a few articles of theirs and it seemed okayish. However, looking at their main page, they're definetly on the sensationalist side.
Salon definetly bashes Trump heavily, but they don't appear to be conspiracy theory peddlers. I've been trying to read articles from both sides of the aisle.

Tbh Salon are worse

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Slippery slope magazine incarnate

Besides, it's not even fantastical enough, it's a fashion critique. One National Enquirer mag (or maybe it was another tabloid paper, same point being made though) I saw recently was that Hillary Clinton (showing someone who looks nothing like Clinton, didn't look much like Chelsea either) adopted an alien baby. THAT's the kind of sensationalism those tabloids do.

Picked because it shows how same information produces different outcomes when put through ideological news. The facts remain the same, Hillary and Ivanka both wore white, however one was wrong and the other was right

What does 'top 10 anime betrayals' (the first image) have to do with anything? The last imgur link is broken btw. But allright, you have a point with the hypocrisy.

The top 10 anime betrayals was just a little joke from current year man being betrayed by the current year. Just emblematic of the comedians who laughed at Europeans for fearing terrorist attacks by having an open border with Syria, rather fatally before the terror attacks began. They are the left-wing version of the people who turn their opponents into caricatures, jokes, intended to make their own side feel better than their opponents who are stupid retards who don't know news good. The RW equivalent for current year mans are peoples like Milo who pretty much do the same on the other side of the fence, only instead of calling their opponents stupid retards smugly they just call them cucks
Pretty cancer tbh
I'm not even sure if there's much point pointing out hypocrisy because nothing will ever get done about it. Consider this, can you ever criticize a news media if it is aligned with an ideology or cause? This is similar to how dismissing Breitbart or Fox makes opponents of RW whilst dismissing MSNBC or CNN makes opponents of LW. Then if you attack both sides, you come across as edgy moral highground 3rd position, ignored by both sides who commonly agree you suck. Thus nothing ever happens, because everyone is caught in narrative gridlock where it is a zero sum game of victory or defeat.
If your side gains power, your enemy becomes fake news whilst your side is reality. If your side loses, your enemy becomes reality whilst your side is fake news. Never ending cycle of truthslaughter

[Reelya]

IDK about that being a problem LW with those articles you googled. There's a social problem, which can only be truly solved by changing how people think. Yet to hear what the out-group actually think is Verboten because we might seem "ideologically impure" for listening to what the out-group has to say. It's not a recipe for dealing with a problem, that's a recipe for keeping our own hands clean and letting the issue fester.

It's like saying you want to "end rape", yet talking to rapists and finding out their motivations is verboten. It's actually like this. And while it might be more emotionally comforting to just "other" the bad people, it is clearly deficient in changing their behavior if you never ask them about it.

[smjjames]

Besides, it's not even fantastical enough, it's a fashion critique. One National Enquirer mag (or maybe it was another tabloid paper, same point being made though) I saw recently was that Hillary Clinton (showing someone who looks nothing like Clinton, didn't look much like Chelsea either) adopted an alien baby. THAT's the kind of sensationalism those tabloids do.

Picked because it shows how same information produces different outcomes when put through ideological news. The facts remain the same, Hillary and Ivanka both wore white, however one was wrong and the other was right

That's Melania, the Slovakian (or maybe Czech) wife of Trump, not Ivanka.

[Loud Whispers]

IDK about that being a problem LW with those articles you googled. There's a social problem, which can only be truly solved by changing how people think. Yet to hear what the out-group actually think is Verboten because we might seem "ideologically impure" for listening to what the out-group has to say. It's not a recipe for dealing with a problem, that's a recipe for keeping our own hands clean and letting the issue fester.
It's like saying you want to "end rape", yet talking to rapists and finding out their motivations is verboten. It's actually like this. And while it might be more emotionally comforting to just "other" the bad people, it is clearly deficient in changing their behavior if you never ask them about it.

In my eyes pedophiles trying to take the moral highground is a severe threat to society, a very large first step towards normalization that must be fought tooth and nail - the vanguard always seeks respectability before acceptance. I refuse even to allow pedophiles a voice as a group, quite happy that they are relegated to the dark corners of the web whilst in reality are atomized predatory individuals. The recipe for dealing with the problem is sectioning, prison, healthcare and suppression, which is especially important in today's apathetic climate.

Moreover my goals I set are not such things as "end rape" which is quite like wishing for world peace, the goal is so ill-defined as to be unachievable. A great curtailing of abuse and the elimination of institutional protection by powerful authorities will suffice for me, and will be a much better solution than giving them platforms to rally support. I don't have an in group of non-pedophiles and an out-group of pedophiles, I have morals and I defend them; will a pedophile change their mind if I ask them politely to not indulge in child predation? I doubt it, I'd much rather see threats neutralized than place society at their mercy. One thing I like about the right wing is that its grunts would never in a thousand years be sympathetic to pedophiles - shame their leaders often turn out to protect wealthy connected ones. Yet the class struggles of the left so often get used to protect such things as zoophiles and pedophiles, which I wish was just the inane stereotyping of Daily Mail-tier rags, however my conversations on Bay12 with supposedly normal progressives from Europe yonder and even the USA suggest otherwise.

You must forgive me, I really don't know what is going on in the USA, but the UK is so thoroughly fucked with this institutional pedophile support that when migrant gangs were raping girls for years on end the police wrote it off as children asking for it or when Savile or bloody hell, our MPs abusing students doing work placements with them - we are cutting clean through cliques of pedophiles that have made their way into positions of power, similar to the Catholic priest cases where they even had the audacity to entrench themselves in religious institutions.
Given your country's connections to powerful pedophiles, I suspect the USA is likewise long overdue a thorough inspection of its own leaders.

[smjjames]

Washington Times is a tabloidy paper though. Understanding pedophiles would benefit figuring out the causes and treating them, but that's as far as it should go. I'm not saying be sympathetic to them neccesarily, simply trying to understand the underlying causes.

[Dorsidwarf]

(snip)

In my eyes pedophiles trying to take the moral highground is a severe threat to society, a very large first step towards normalization that must be fought tooth and nail - the vanguard always seeks respectability before acceptance. I refuse even to allow pedophiles a voice as a group, quite happy that they are relegated to the dark corners of the web whilst in reality are atomized predatory individuals. The recipe for dealing with the problem is sectioning, prison, healthcare and suppression, which is especially important in today's apathetic climate.

Moreover my goals I set are not such things as "end rape" which is quite like wishing for world peace, the goal is so ill-defined as to be unachievable. A great curtailing of abuse and the elimination of institutional protection by powerful authorities will suffice for me, and will be a much better solution than giving them platforms to rally support. I don't have an in group of non-pedophiles and an out-group of pedophiles, I have morals and I defend them; will a pedophile change their mind if I ask them politely to not indulge in child predation? I doubt it, I'd much rather see threats neutralized than place society at their mercy. One thing I like about the right wing is that its grunts would never in a thousand years be sympathetic to pedophiles - shame their leaders often turn out to protect wealthy connected ones. Yet the class struggles of the left so often get used to protect such things as zoophiles and pedophiles, which I wish was just the inane stereotyping of Daily Mail-tier rags, however my conversations on Bay12 with supposedly normal progressives from Europe yonder and even the USA suggest otherwise.

You must forgive me, I really don't know what is going on in the USA, but the UK is so thoroughly fucked with this institutional pedophile support that when migrant gangs were raping girls for years on end the police wrote it off as children asking for it or when Savile or bloody hell, our MPs abusing students doing work placements with them - we are cutting clean through cliques of pedophiles that have made their way into positions of power, similar to the Catholic priest cases where they even had the audacity to entrench themselves in religious institutions.

While I disagree with LW on a great many things but I am in full agreement here that there are some situations, some things, where toeing the line simply is not acceptable whatsoever. Not now, not ever, and Godspeed to the people investigating the real cases of horrific circumstances,

[Rolepgeek]

I'm always reminded of that one CSI episode with the pedophile who kills the other pedophile because he abused a kid. Everyone's a person, even the people with fucked up brains. It just happens to be the case that those people can fuck up a lot of other people for life, and that needs to be prevented somehow.

Sidenote: You say 'preventing normalization', other people say 'dehumanizing'. Which I mostly think is relevant because of the amount of stuff I'm seeing that says 'don't let Trump become normalized' in response to stuff talking about his wife and what she's done in the past, aka attempts to humanize her. 'They are the enemy, never forget'.

[Reelya]

There's also the issue of cycles of violence
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482

Results Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators. Of the 96 females, 43% had been victims but only one was a perpetrator. A high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in childhood.

Notably, being sexually abused by a woman in childhood is one of the strongest measured correlations to a man later becoming an abuser. As is "parental loss", which i'm going to guess would most often be males raised without any male role model. Looking at the raw data often tells us things we don't expect or don't want to hear.

And none of this is really on anyone's radar. We'd normally say they're a "misogynist" indoctrinated by "the partiarchy" to explain their pathology towards girls/women. Or if that's not our preferred flavor of theory they're just a "monster" who needs no further explanation.

[smjjames]

There's also the issue of cycles of violence
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482

Results Among 747 males the risk of being a perpetrator was positively correlated with reported sexual abuse victim experiences. The overall rate of having been a victim was 35% for perpetrators and 11% for non-perpetrators. Of the 96 females, 43% had been victims but only one was a perpetrator. A high percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators. Having been a victim was a strong predictor of becoming a perpetrator, as was an index of parental loss in childhood.

Notably, being sexually abused by a woman in childhood is one of the strongest measured correlations to a man later becoming an abuser. And this is really not on anyone's radar. We'd normally say they're a "misogynist" indoctrinated by "the partiarchy" to explain their pathology towards girls/women. It's information like this which is why merely dehumanizing abusers isn't going to fix the problem.

I think you mean humanizing, not dehumanizing here. But yeah, merely understanding the problem doesn't solve the problem, only gives a base from which to start solving it.

[Reelya]

I think you mean humanizing, not dehumanizing here. But yeah, merely understanding the problem doesn't solve the problem, only gives a base from which to start solving it.

No i meant dehumanizing. By which I mean just labeling people as monsters who don't need to be understood is the opposite of dealing with the issue. That's how people normally speak of "fixing" the problem, like you can just run around and lynch the evil-doers, problem "solved".

But then you look at the real data, which suggests the biggest at-risk abuser is a boy who was kiddy-fiddled by his mom and had no dad. Nobody wants to think in such terms, because they're completely 180 degrees away from how the media/society normally explains the problem, which is that we have to stamp out bad male behavior / bad dads, then the problem will go away.