Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seaward wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Do you actually believe this? I'm genuinely curious.

Fox News' slogan is "Fair and Balanced." MSNBC's is "The Place for Politics." Academically, it is a wonderfully fascinating juxtaposition.

Is it? Shows you how much I watch network news, I guess, as I stopped watching MSBNC back when they were still claiming to be journalists at least.

Anyway, is your issue with Fox their commentary programs, or do you believe their actual news reporting is biased?

There was a court case about Fox firing some journalists because they refused to lie about news.

Actually MSNBC has been surprising me lately with their election coverage. They have been a lot more straight with their election night panelists. One guy who wears a sweater vest is particularly good. Yeah they still have a few of their liberal talking heads, like Matthews and Maddow, but they have gone much more news focused in the past four months or so. I wonder if their execs. Decided to mix it up after being pasted by CNN and FOX news for so long?

Speaking of news coverage:

Somebody please ask HRC if she thinks the Facebook corporation has a First Amendment right to editorialize about politics.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If you investigate the incident involving "triggly Puff" you will see what the outrage is about.

Terrific example of not getting the difference. I'll help you out: this woman is an idiot whose cause was picked up by virtually no one and is functionally famous for being an idiot - I'm using the word famous pretty loosely here - , and on the other side of the coin, you have state legislatures working on making sure people pee in the right place, and you have a sitting US Senator demanding Facebook explain how it's trending algorithm works.

As Bobby Jindal once famously said, "the GOP needs to stop being the stupid party."

This thread can be distilled to one of the following:

Old and busted: Corporations don't have rights!
New hotness: How dare the Senate question Facebook's 1st Amendment rights!?

Or...

Old and busted: Government should regulate the Internet!
New hotness: I can't believe government is investigating an Internet company!

Do I have that about right?

Ouze... I'll need that Skeletor SJB gif!

 whembly wrote:
Old and busted: Government should regulate the Internet!
New hotness: I can't believe government is investigating an Internet company!

There is a huge difference between the government regulating the infrastructure of the internet and the government regulating the content of the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Old and busted: Corporations don't have rights!
New hotness: How dare the Senate question Facebook's 1st Amendment rights!?

I really don't see what your point is. This has nothing to do with questions of corporate rights, facebook indisputably hasn't done anything illegal and attempts to "question" facebook in any legal sense are on the "mind control in the chemtrails" level of credibility.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Old and busted: Corporations don't have rights!
New hotness: How dare the Senate question Facebook's 1st Amendment rights!?

I really don't see what your point is. This has nothing to do with questions of corporate rights, facebook indisputably hasn't done anything illegal and attempts to "question" facebook in any legal sense are on the "mind control in the chemtrails" level of credibility.

Oh?

So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Old and busted: Government should regulate the Internet!
New hotness: I can't believe government is investigating an Internet company!

There is a huge difference between the government regulating the infrastructure of the internet and the government regulating the content of the internet.

I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.

 whembly wrote:
So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?

What does that have to do with anything? The facebook "issue" has nothing to do with election or campaign finance laws.

I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.

Only if you want to misuse the term "infrastructure". Calls for government regulation of the internet refer to the infrastructure of the internet itself. IOW, the physical cables, servers, etc, which are used to carry internet traffic. That is an entirely separate issue from government regulation of the content of the internet. Facebook is content, not infrastructure.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So, you're in favor of Citizen United's right to make a critical movie about Hillary Clinton?

What does that have to do with anything? The facebook "issue" has nothing to do with election or campaign finance laws.

That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.

I'd consider the algorithm Facebook uses to ID trends an "infrastructure" aspect of Facebook's business.

Only if you want to misuse the term "infrastructure". Calls for government regulation of the internet refer to the infrastructure of the internet itself. IOW, the physical cables, servers, etc, which are used to carry internet traffic. That is an entirely separate issue from government regulation of the content of the internet. Facebook is content, not infrastructure.

If you're talking about the FCC's Net Neutrality... you're right.

However, I was talking about regulation in general.

To me, the very threat by that Senator of investigating Facebook’s editorial decisions (or whatever the feth it is) gotta be hailed as harassment. It's beyond stupid.

However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.

 whembly wrote:
That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.

No, it had everything to do with election and campaign finance laws. The issue was not a private entity publishing an anti-Hillary video, it was the use of "independent" organizations to get around campaign finance laws.

However, I was talking about regulation in general.

And that regulation is nonexistent. The "old and busted" issue of government regulation is net neutrality.

However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.

Nothing about this is sudden. I suppose someone out there must have been calling for government regulation of internet content, but they're a tiny and irrelevant minority. I really don't understand why you seem to think that defending facebook in this involves some kind of contradiction with earlier positions.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That Citizen's United case wasn't about the election or campaign finance laws. It was about whether a private entity has a 1st Amendment right.

No, it had everything to do with election and campaign finance laws. The issue was not a private entity publishing an anti-Hillary video, it was the use of "independent" organizations to get around campaign finance laws.

In part, but it's really about political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

However, I was talking about regulation in general.

And that regulation is nonexistent. The "old and busted" issue of government regulation is net neutrality.

However, the schadenfreude is beyond unmistakable, as some of the folks spinning in FB's defense are all of the sudden laissez-faire libertarians.

Nothing about this is sudden. I suppose someone out there must have been calling for government regulation of internet content, but they're a tiny and irrelevant minority. I really don't understand why you seem to think that defending facebook in this involves some kind of contradiction with earlier positions.

You're missing the bigger picture. We have movements that want to use the power of the state to crush dissent. Just look at N.C. bathroom gak... Federal Government has no grounds to get involved.

We're living in the age where you will be made to care, and are expected to fall in line.

 whembly wrote:
In part, but it's really about political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

Yes, exactly like I said. This was about the rights (or lack thereof) of organizations in the context of election and campaign finance laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with the facebook issue, and your attempt to say "look at how you've changed your mind" is simply absurd. It is not inconsistent to have different opinions on two cases that have, at most, very superficial similarities.

You're missing the bigger picture. We have movements that want to use the power of the state to crush dissent. Just look at N.C. bathroom gak... Federal Government has no grounds to get involved.

We're living in the age where you will be made to care, and are expected to fall in line.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. None of that has anything to do with government regulation of internet content.

 whembly wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:

What? That all you got for that youtube vid? Seriously, check it out, it's hysterical. (not political at all, just looking for an excuse to post it).

Funny, but that doesn't change that no one argued Obama is perfect.

Had Romney won in '12, do you think Trump would be enjoying his successes now?

Except he didn't win.

Its an asinine to take the stance that Obama's actions had no bearing to the current election cycle.

In 2008, Obama ran against Dubya to great success. Right?

Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?

 Janthkin wrote:
Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.

This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....

You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".

No mate, he's bang on the money with you.

You made a claim that the "Left" is a monobloc in which every single member believes all the things about air conditioning and stuff.

That so obviously isn't true that it qualifies completely as a right-wing rant that works to shut off conversation and debate, which illustrates Janthkin's point precisely.

If you want to be in a discussion forum, you need to discuss things like a mature person.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No mate, he's bang on the money with you.

You made a claim that the "Left" is a monobloc in which every single member believes all the things about air conditioning and stuff.

That so obviously isn't true that it qualifies completely as a right-wing rant that works to shut off conversation and debate, which illustrates Janthkin's point precisely.

If you want to be in a discussion forum, you need to discuss things like a mature person.

I'm sorry you can't read between the lines. Let me redefine that for you. I didn't mean to call out EVERYONE on the left, just a highly visible, ever growing, ever more prominent and vocal group of the Left that has been dominating online news coverage, internet news sites, and college campuses and other areas vital for education and information.

At times like this the silent majority isn't the issue and isn't relevant. The exception being their silence, and at times passive acceptance and support of this kind of behavior.

The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.

The thing is on a forum you can't expect people to read between the lines, they read the lines you write unless it suits them to read between them, so you need to be careful about the lines you put down.

I never heard of Jiggly Puff until someone said I should Google it. I found a web site consisting of Angry White Dude doing a video rant against some fat woman since he characterises her as SJW gone mad, etc.

If people don't actively attack people like Jiggly Puff, perhaps it's because they don't see it as something that actually needs to be worried about and attacked in the way that Angry White Dude does. Maybe Jiggly Puff actually represents to people like me a minute, irrelevant portion of the political spectrum that is of practically zero interest and significance.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.

This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....

You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".

As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?

Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?

Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.

Let it go and view it as entertainment for yourself.
I'm hoping he picks Bernie as VP
Enough craziness already came out that it won't surprise me

 skyth wrote:
The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.

And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.

While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The stuff you posted represents the fringe of the left. This is the people that don't write laws or policy. The stuff that we complain about in the Republican party are mainline views. No way are these comparable. The gak you posted is like complaining that Republicans want young earth creationism taught in public schools to the exclusions of any other theory.

And right there IS the hole in your theory. These people may be fringe elements of the Left, but they do hold sway in policy. These groups have all ready been successful in implementing racist, sexist, anti free speech, anti-Christian, double standard policies across public schools and dozens of prominent colleges. This includes Harvard of all places. These people have ruined the livelihoods and careers of many educators and other students.

While this has simply been local school and college policy as of now there is a legitimate push to make this public policy in some cities. Prominent officials have voiced support. So yes, I'd say that things like this ARE comparable to demanding only teaching creationism in school.

Can I get some sources on this?

Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Let's remember that Trumpo isn't running against Obama, he's running against Cruz, Kasich, Bush et al. Given that Trumpo is the most left-wing of all the Republican candidates, how is his success a condemnation of Obama's left-wing presidency?

Goddamn, guys. I can't keep up with this. Is Trump the most left-wing Republican or is he Hitler incarnate? Y'all need to pick a lane and stay in it.

Trumpo doesn't stay a lane.

And even if we took all you just claimed is true, the Republicans still have Trump, Palin and a long line of prominent representatives of the party behaving like nobheads. Todd "legitimate rape" Akin anyone?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.

This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....

You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".

As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?

You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).

First off, the junk Cuda is complaining about is akin to claiming theWestboro Baptist church is representative of mainstream conservatism.

I seriously doubt anyone is implementing anti-Christian policies. Getting rid of things that give Christians special priveledges sure...I can see that and don't have a problem with. Basically, a bunch of BS made up claims.

What I seen come from conservative schools (like BYU) is expelling students because they were raped.

 skyth wrote:
First off, the junk Cuda is complaining about is akin to claiming theWestboro Baptist church is representative of mainstream conservatism.

I seriously doubt anyone is implementing anti-Christian policies. Getting rid of things that give Christians special priveledges sure...I can see that and don't have a problem with. Basically, a bunch of BS made up claims.

What I seen come from conservative schools (like BYU) is expelling students because they were raped.

Thank you. There's a lot of crazy coming from the fringe lefties, but trust me, they're hated by the lefties just as much as right wings hate the over the top conservatives.

I'd hardly call BLM, safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. a representative of mainstream lefties.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Spoiler:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:
Turn it down about 3 notches, folks. Believe it or not, and contrary to what you might see out of certain polarizing figures on both sides of the hypothetical aisle, it IS possible to have a conversation with people with views that differ from you.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Let's not forget that to the Left, Air conditioning is sexist, chicken sandwiches are racist, Time is racist and anti-cultural, grades are racist, freedom of speech doesn't extend to offensive thoughts, rape allegations should never be questioned, AIDS was created by the CIA, and Blacks can never be racist.

This is a good example of what NOT to do - statements like these don't leave any room for conversation with people whose views differ from yours. And since this is a discussion forum....

You are taking my statement completely out of context. AlmightyWalrus claimed that the "triggly Puff" incident being criticized by conservatives simply proves how wacko conservatives are. I was just pointing out that criticizing left-leaning philosophies that are bat-crap crazy isn't exactly "radical".

As a pretty liberal guy and a millennial (AKA The Antichrist), I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have never heard any of these things talked about by anybody I know or listen to. So I gotta ask, what are you talking about exactly?

You've seriously never heard about any of that? Sexist air conditioning has been a feminist talking point for years. It even got talked about on a segment on both CNN and MSNBC during prime viewing hours.
Racist Chicken Sandwiches are part of the reason that the chancellor of the University of Missouri was forced to step down (it's cultural appropriation)
Time based attendance and grades are racist towards Blacks and Hispanic culture, as claimed by a rather large body of people including members of the NAACP.
Blacks can NEVER be racist, according to Black Lives Matter and most Black celebrities. They now "own" the definition of "racist". There is even a major movie about it called "Dear White People" (No, not a comedy).

I've never heard of any of that.

Perhaps you could provide some links to the official statements given by the PR departments of Missouri University, the NAACP and the Black Lives Matter.