Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 159 of 159 FirstFirst ... 59109149157158159
Results 2,371 to 2,379 of 2379

Thread: Bias in media

  1. #2371
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,523
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I am pretty sure is talking about the actual left as in policy based left on an economic scale type thing not the establishment democratic left.

    Which outlet is extreme in favor of Bernie and his policies etc. while calling out the establishment dems like many posters on here do? I would guess there has to be some out there but I don't think it is any of the mainstream ones.
    This.

    People still don't understand the difference between left of center, liberal, and leftist (or "the left").

  2. #2372
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    72,983
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    this post itself is left wing propaganda. how can anyone be so clueless.

    the left wing media loves people like this, they love that they can manipulate people like this so easily.

    orange man bad! Faux News bad! Russia!
    I've explained to you a million times the important distinctions between "leftist/far-left", "progressive", "liberal", "moderate", "centrist", "conservative", "far-right", etc. You refusing to pretend like there is more than two sides to a coin is your fault. Your intentional ignorance does not make me a propagandist

    What I am saying is factually true. There is no major leftist media outlet. I'm not saying "Liberal". I'm not saying "Democrat". I mean the word I am saying: "leftist". You and like minded "FAR RIGHT" people have Fox News. I and like minded LEFTISTS have nothing. Trump has a ton of media behind him...leftists like Sanders have, again, nothing.

    Come on dude. It's like pulling teeth.

    My guess is all you can ever see are those left/right media bias charts. They're all operating on a flawed and skewed scale. The far-left should be completely blank. It's not MSNBC. It's certainly not CNN. Or even Slate, Mother Jones, Vox, The Atlantic, Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Politico etc. They are, undeniably NOT leftist.

    It's Jacobin, maybe The Intercept, The Nation (sometimes), leftist podcasts no one here has heard about, etc. But nothing major. Certainly not anything that's owned by few insanely rich people who control the vast swatch of American media.
    Last edited by ManRam; 12-06-2019 at 12:34 PM.
    Hello there! Welcome to ManRam v8.00.
    Patch notes: This version is nice, funny, cool & good™ now

  3. #2373
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,523
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    I've explained to you a million times the important distinctions between "leftist/far-left", "progressive", "liberal", "moderate", "centrist", "conservative", "far-right", etc. You refusing to pretend like there is more than two sides to a coin is your fault. Your intentional ignorance does not make me a propagandist

    What I am saying is factually true. There is no major leftist media outlet. I'm not saying "Liberal". I'm not saying "Democrat". I mean the word I am saying: "leftist". You and like minded "FAR RIGHT" people have Fox News. I and like minded LEFTISTS have nothing. Trump has a ton of media behind him...leftists like Sanders have, again, nothing.

    Come on dude. It's like pulling teeth.

    My guess is all you can ever see are those left/right media bias charts. They're all operating on a flawed and skewed scale. The far-left should be completely blank. It's not MSNBC. It's certainly not CNN. Or even Slate, Mother Jones, Vox, The Atlantic, Buzzfeed, The Guardian, Politico etc. They are, undeniably NOT leftist.

    It's Jacobin, maybe The Intercept, The Nation (sometimes), leftist podcasts no one here has heard about, etc. But nothing major. Certainly not anything that's owned by few insanely rich people who control the vast swatch of American media.
    It's not nothing, it's just not major.

  4. #2374
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It's not nothing, it's just not major.
    He said not major earlier, which establishes the context to qualify the later assertion.

  5. #2375
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    72,983
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    It's not nothing, it's just not major.
    Yes, just like I said.

    Just in 400x as many words as needed!
    Hello there! Welcome to ManRam v8.00.
    Patch notes: This version is nice, funny, cool & good™ now

  6. #2376
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    He said not major earlier, which establishes the context to qualify the later assertion.
    I thought that was someone else. Okay.

  7. #2377
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    29,523
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    Yes, just like I said.

    Just in 400x as many words as needed!
    Hehe. I don't think Fox is far-right though either. So the far-right definitely has support "news" sites, but they are not major.

  8. #2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28,840
    Quote Originally Posted by joeyc77 View Post
    Sorry I just noticed these....

    First of all, congrats on finally adding the word “temporarily” to your Muslim ban quote as I do believe that has some significance to my point.

    Yes, I believe saying to ban or temporarily ban all Muslims is bigoted/misguided. My criticism to that quote is that it’s not well thought out and stupid. Do I believe trump is really a bigot? No. Do I believe he should have said that? No. The same way I can criticize a lot of presidents/senators/politicians for things the day. Omar was just one example and my criticism of her quote is the same. It was not well thought out. But I also don’t think it’s indicative of who she is as a person.

    My point is that the actions/legislation the politicians support is more important than their words during some speech. They ALL say stupid crap. Yes, I get more “triggered” by the stuff Dems say just like I’m sure ppl get “triggered” at the stuff trump says. But I don’t hold Dems to their words. Certainly not in this media era which focuses on 10-30 sec sound bites. We need to view our politicians better, regardless of which “side” they are on and give them the benefit of the doubt.
    Ok but it's not like he just said it by the slip of the tongue, he legitimately kinda rode this idea that we should temporarily ban muslims, and yes I recognize the use of that word temporary, but it's still temporarily bigotry. I dont really think hes actually a bigot, I dont think if he retires and is traveling he would really operate like a bigot. But he did in this instance, it feeds to a certain support base of his, and acceptable by an even broader base.

    Like I said, arguing wether a bigoted law is a good temporary law is a seperate discussion, and I can imagine some instances where it may be a good idea. Let's say muslim terror attacks spike in the US, and they are coming from all parts of the world, and it's a legitimately incredibly high spike like every day. I think many muslims in America would also support this bigoted approach.

    That part is debatable. What's not debatable is wether or not he was bigoted in his approach. He was. You seem to kind of agree with me here
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

  9. #2379
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    28,840
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Yes agreed you could make an argument for means to an end but we know how silly that would be.

    I would like to know why there is validity to single out the Muslim identity for said ban if we have major issues with security/visa/immigration issues that is about said issues not just one identity. This is where the double standards become obvious because trying to make the argument that we should single out an identity in such a way without clear proof/validity to do so becomes the extreme us vs them identity politics. I have not heard such reasoning from Trump or others on why we need to single out this identity with validity but I am still open to hearing it....

    I agree we both finished the statements but one of them is still missing a valid reason for said point. Omar is making the point we shouldn't blame entire identities for the actions of some. That is exactly what Trump called for and you even point to how it is an overreaction and ends don't justify the means. Why? Because he is simply singling out an identity to ban without clear validity/reasoning that would be applied to other identities. Should we ban right leaning thinkers due to recent domestic terrorism issues? Same type of logic but you would never suggest we act in such way, clear double standards. I am not saying we should, I am simply making the obvious point that it is ridiculous to see things in such a way and there is a major lack of validity in said arguments (it is just extreme identity politics).
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    As stated you could do the same thing with the right given recent domestic terrorism. The question becomes why focus on just this then in this way while never applying similar logic to other identities?

    The most obvious answer is people are focused on that specific identity and many are bigoted towards them. That sells and Trump used it to campaign against many different identities. The logic used would not work with another identity so there is something here creating a double standard and that is what we constantly see with Trumpism. Should we start questioning judges based on identity now too? This is Trump "logic" towards certain identities and just like with Birthirism it seems to help him gain support.

    No one can be 100% sure what the reasoning is for so many defending these types of extreme double standards but it is obvious how often it keeps happening thread to thread and the identities that don't seem included tend to be white/christian/male... shocking. I am so surprised some people happen to think it is identity based, you are are trying to claim it as any sort of logic while admitting it is exactly what has been said. Focusing on an act and blaming and entire identity, then you equate it in a sense to someone calling out that exact type of behavior (because a logical person would). It's ridiculous but somehow we have the POTUS doing it over and over with people pretending it is based in logic and not just extreme identity politics they would scream about if applied to an identity related to them.
    Yup, well said.
    RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS

    "i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts

    "God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory

    "don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •