The NYT is essentially smearing AOC again. They are trash and play this game all the time. Backhandedly of course in a round about way
https://presswatchers.org/2020/07/the-new-york-times-has-a-misogyny-problem-too/

I'm not going to explain it because its sophisticated enough to let the article have to walk you through the whole thing.

7/24/2020 6:30:00 PM

Joy Reid literally “hoped” the US would get worse today

7/24/2020 8:45:34 PM

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1286876397252689922?s=21

Local media is a cesspool thanks in large part to Sinclair. And there is no liberal alternative.

Well meaning local broadcasts like WRAL (owned by CBC) sanitize the news to the point they normalize everything Trump says and people can’t realize is obvious mental decline and general craziness... and then there is Sinclair..

^^ you’re such a trash person who has some God complex like you understand things on a level that the “regular people” just can’t. What would we do without Earl here to explain everything to us idiots

[Edited on July 25, 2020 at 7:19 AM. Reason : X]

7/25/2020 7:18:29 AM

Its literally the opposite so I don't know where you got that. If I thought that, there would be no point in posting. (Why even bother talking to people who can't understand things on the level you can?) I'm so confident that everyone can understand the things I understand that I think its as simple as exposing them to the same information.

I also didn't even try to explain that story because its too sophisticated that I will mess it up so I left it to the authors because they did it better than I could (again, the opposite of what you're saying). Again, you're probably taking something someone else did and attributing it to me because no part of your response applied to my post.

7/25/2020 9:01:04 AM

To be fair, I misread what you said. So I apologize. I read it essentially as “I’m not going to explain it to you people because it’s far too sophisticated.”

So. Mea culpa.

[Edited on July 25, 2020 at 10:10 AM. Reason : X]

7/25/2020 10:09:54 AM

Quote :

"During David Brooks' livestream today, I implored you guys not to ask him why, if he hates millennials so much, did he marry one. Well that backfired ?? https://t.co/RJ1MooZGp4"

7/25/2020 11:14:47 AM

Big tech platforms are marking claims as "misinformation" and then linking to fact checking websites that say they are simply unconfirmed or that there is not sufficient evidence to prove the claim.

But when MSM makes a claim that "sources" told them Kushner was urging Trump to concede and Kushner denies it, it doesn't get labeled as misinformation.

Huge double standard.

11/11/2020 5:10:02 PM

No, not really. Here, let me give you a dumbed down and exaggerated example that perhaps even you can appreciate:

Consider one questionable news source that claims George Soros' favorite food is bratwurst, while another questionable news source claims his favorite food is twice baked aborted fetus, served in virgin's blood. You see (assuming I still have to spell it out for you), it is not simply a function of the reliability of the source. It is also a function of how inflammatory, provocative, and shit-stirring the news is, as well. Not only is it not a double standard to give more cautious labels to inflammatory reports, it is actually prudent.

You're Welcome! Let me know if you have any other basic logic issues you are currently struggling with.

11/11/2020 6:01:38 PM

I'm struggling with this.
https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1325622425640443905

Quote :

"It is also a function of how inflammatory, provocative, and shit-stirring the news is, as well."

This is how all authoritarian powers justify their use of censorship. Of course, any news that is damaging to the credibility of the authority is going to be provocative, inflammatory and shit-stirring. Might as well go full on North Korea. I'm glad you understand why they operate the way they do and value stability (the greater good) over the unfiltered truth. People aren't mature enough to filter information on their own so you have to do it for them.

[Edited on November 11, 2020 at 10:51 PM. Reason : k]

11/11/2020 10:50:38 PM

Quote :

"This is how all authoritarian powers justify their use of censorship. Of course, any news that is damaging to the credibility of the authority is going to be provocative, inflammatory and shit-stirring. Might as well go full on North Korea. I'm glad you understand why they operate the way they do and value stability (the greater good) over the unfiltered truth. People aren't mature enough to filter information on their own so you have to do it for them."

Wow! Somehow you managed to get it almost completely backwards.

Unfiltered truth? LOL! Let me remind you, the topic was spreading unsupported bullshit. Do you know the difference between unfiltered truth and unsupported bullshit? It would not surprise me to learn that you do not.

No. What leads to full on North Korea type shit is allowing a leader to spread unsupported bullshit and propaganda unchecked by the media...especially when that unsupported bullshit and propaganda is also inflammatory, provocative, and shit stirring.

11/12/2020 1:40:05 AM

CNN spread unsupported bullshit and I just showed you proof in that tweet yet no one was there to call them on it.

I'm not saying they aren't censoring things that are unsupported. I'm saying that they are doing it when they don't like the story but when they like the story they let the unsupported bullshit ride. That is propaganda. Its not about truth for them. Its about choosing what you talk about and choosing what you censor. The media is simply a tool to control how people think.

[Edited on November 12, 2020 at 3:35 AM. Reason : triple negative in my post]

[Edited on November 12, 2020 at 3:36 AM. Reason : we just lived through 4 years of mostly unsupported theories dominating the media cycle]

11/12/2020 3:35:13 AM

^Already been addressed. If you stop going around in circles, perhaps we may have a conversation.

11/12/2020 10:15:08 AM

Not to point out another obvious fact, but CNN reporting two conflicting statements from within the Trump whitehouse doesn't necessarily imply that CNN is wrong.

Trump is known to contradict himself tweet to tweet if you give him 24 hours. It would not surprise me that Kushner gave one set of advice. Trump shot it down and told him to go away, so he then came back with another proposal that might be more palatable for Trump.

In any other White House I would exclude this as a likely possibility, but in this one, you have to at least consider it.

11/12/2020 10:31:49 AM

^

11/12/2020 10:54:24 AM

Anonymous sources have no accountability and the gymnastics you are willing to do to justify it proves that. We've seen people take countless stories and run with them as fact. Even things like the Russian bounties have never been substantiated. They could literally say "sources" told them (anything) and you would consider it as truth. This is really the test that you don't actually care about unsubstantiated claims. The whole argument basically boils down to an appeal to authority allowing you to give these "news" outlets the benefit of the doubt.

There has to be a name in order for it to at least have some accountability attached to it. You want to hold Trump and his supporters accountable but don't want to hold your corporate overlords accountable at all.

[Edited on November 12, 2020 at 12:50 PM. Reason : they've been wrong so many times]

11/12/2020 12:49:52 PM

So do you contend that Watergate never happened since Deep Throat was an anonymous source?

11/12/2020 5:14:21 PM

Yeah, I bet horosho would've been a Nixon bootlicker back when Deep Throat was spilling the beans.

Look, we're dealing with an administration which has created a work atmosphere where employees don't feel like they have the opportunity to speak openly and candidly. You (horosho) are intent on finding fault with the messenger for this predicament, for some reason, while the rest of us lay the blame where it actually belongs--at the source.

[Edited on November 12, 2020 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

11/12/2020 5:46:47 PM

Do you not see the problem with accepting any negative thing you hear about this administration just because you know this administration is shady? Do you not see how that gives the media an opportunity to make up things because they know you think the administration is capable of them? Basically allowing them to get away with reporting realistic fiction as long as it is believable.

I never thought about watergate like that. It is interesting to go back dissect historical events with newly obtained perspective. I've done that with a lot of the wars and seen them in different light but watergate still exists in my mind the way it was presented to me which, like other historical events, is likely completely biased and one sided.

[Edited on November 13, 2020 at 6:45 PM. Reason : it was fact that iraq had wmd in 2004. todays twitter would mark tweets stating otherwise as misinf]

11/13/2020 6:44:28 PM

Jesus Christ, can you at least stick to the fucking topic?

Let me remind you, yet again, that the subject was the spread of unsupported bullshit, and how Trump being called out for spreading unsupported bullshit vs CNN not being called out for reporting rumors of what Jared did or did not tell Donald is not a double standard.

At no point did I claim nor imply you should be "accepting any negative thing you hear about this administration"....you fucking moron.

11/13/2020 7:45:24 PM

OMFG I didn't realize how much I missed that moving the goal pic. I was distracted by the watergate posts. I wasn't talking about Trump specifically. I was talking about how anything posted online that they don't already know about being labeled as unsupported misinformation. We just went through 4 years of unsupported rumors being reported by the media but the moment a media source reported one about Biden, it was completely shut down. Thats the double standard. Its not media bs vs Trump bs, its media vs media on stories based on whether they hurt or help Trump.

11/13/2020 11:15:26 PM

11/14/2020 12:54:13 AM

Quote :

"There has to be a name in order for it to at least have some accountability attached to it."

.......followed by..........

Quote :

"I never thought about watergate like that. "

Looks like I've found the double standard you seem so fucking concerned about.

LMFAO!!!

I'll listen to you bitching about double standards only after you've eliminated your own, boy.

11/14/2020 6:47:06 PM

I wasn't alive during watergate so theres no need for me to go back and process all of its nuances critically. I don't have a position on it. It would be interesting to go back and do that but I'm not sure how useful it would be.

11/15/2020 12:52:24 PM

Nevertheless, it is a counterexample disproving your

Quote :

"There has to be a name in order for it to at least have some accountability attached to it."

bullshit.

11/15/2020 5:41:22 PM

I'm speaking in 2020. You can't necessarily take things being said today and apply them to historical times. Whats true today may or may not have always been true.

11/15/2020 5:48:19 PM

Quote :

"Whats true today may or may not have always been true."

Oh, look, another fucking retarded comment. So let me get this straight: According to you, then due to his lack of candor, right now it is neither true nor false that, for example, Trump has been money laundering with Russians for decades. Then, say 10 years later, when documents are produced proving it, it suddenly just becomes true, like some kind of Schrödinger's cat wave form collapse bullshit.

Get the fuck outta here.

The Nixon admin was crooked from the Watergate incident on. It didn't suddenly become true once Deep Throat revealed his identity. I'm just pointing out you would be a prime target for a con man due to your inability to, in the absence of hard facts, judge the relative credibilities of the parties in question (for example re: Trump vs the media). Get the fuck outta here with that, "Person A says one thing, Person B says another......gee how ever could we know who to believe" bullshit game.

I'm claiming you would've gotten it wrong then (Watergate).

I'm claiming you're getting it wrong now (Trump admin).

Just because you have anachronistic advantage to judge Watergate properly, that doesn't mean you're not a fucking moron in judging relative credibilities. Even a dumbass can get the story right from 50 years ago; it takes some critical thinking skills to do it in real time.

11/15/2020 6:12:13 PM

You got most of that right but the only part you are wrong about is the credibility of the media. I don't know what the credibility of the media was like back then but today I know not to believe the media because we have continuously seen them perpetuate known lies. Costly lies. You are not vulnerable to Trump's con but are completely vulnerable to the media con. You also show authority bias when it comes to believing anything that comes from "intelligence agencies" .

The difference with me is, I'm not saying believe Trump and don't believe the media. I'm saying don't believe Trump, the media, the democrats, or any part of the deep state. Don't believe any of them. The only place I should be vulnerable to criticism is the wisdom of drawing equivalence betweeen Trump and all these other parties.

Quote :

"I'm claiming you would've gotten it wrong then (Watergate). I'm claiming you're getting it wrong now (Trump admin)."

I'm claiming you would've gotten Iraq wrong because the media, CIA, pentagon, and white house were more "credible" than Saddam because you continuously mischaracterize "evil vs evil" as "good vs evil". It turns out, the whole world is run by pieces of shit who are all constantly trying to outpower each other at the expense of everyday people.

Just because Saddam was a piece of shit, you gave the white house a blank check to make up whatever they wanted about him in order to do whatever they wanted to do. The media didn't question its credibility or properly scrutinize evidence and at the end of the day, the fabrication was all justified because "dictator man bad".

11/15/2020 6:44:47 PM

Quote :

" You also show authority bias when it comes to believing anything that comes from "intelligence agencies" ."

I think you lost the thread of the conversation again. Kindly point out where I've said you should believe anything that comes from intelligence agencies.

Liar.

Quote :

"I'm saying don't believe Trump, the media, the democrats, or any part of the deep state."

And yet you get on here and defend Trump. Get the fuck outta here.

Quote :

"I'm claiming you would've gotten Iraq wrong because the media, CIA, pentagon, and white house were more "credible" than Saddam because you continuously mischaracterize "evil vs evil" as "good vs evil"."

I "would've" gotten Iraq wrong? Get the fuck outta here. Dude, I'm 50 years old. I remember Iraq firsthand, you fucking moron; it wasn't really that long ago. And I opposed the war. You know, for someone who preaches about demanding evidence for this or that, you sure as fuck are ready to make bullshit assumptions about me, you fucking liar.

Fuck you and your dishonesty.

11/15/2020 6:58:06 PM

Ok I am sorry for making an assumption about your position. I incorrectly attributed a line of thinking to your previous comments about the unique danger of Trump with your comments in this thread.

I failed to consider the possibility that someone could have come to that conclusion in many alternatives ways. For example, you could have believed everything you were fed by Powell, Bush, the CIA, the media, and most of the political establishment, but opposed war without thinking they all lied. That would leave you free to believe Trump was uniquely dangerous but I'm still lost on how that could leave any of those parties with significantly more credibility than Trump to the point where you would believe anything they say as long as its against Trump. I could be wrong again, but hey, I approach every situation open to the possibility that I might be wrong.

11/15/2020 10:05:01 PM

You're still way the fuck off, dude. Where did I say Trump was "uniquely dangerous"? Jesus, you can't even get it right when you try to fix it.

That Iraq thing was far from the first false attribution you made to me:

You've been doing it consistently since the beginning.

[Edited on November 15, 2020 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on November 15, 2020 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/15/2020 10:19:16 PM

Quote :

"but I'm still lost on how that could leave any of those parties with significantly more credibility than Trump to the point where you would believe anything they say as long as its against Trump."

And I'm still lost on how you came to that conclusion about me, liar.

11/15/2020 10:34:16 PM

^I'm still awaiting clarification on that, asshole.

11/16/2020 10:09:19 AM

I came to that conclusion because you've never questioned the validityof Trump leaks and anonymous stories over the last 4 years. Most of which were never proven true. When have you questioned the validity of a story that hurt Trump?

You explode into tantrum so often that it distracts from the flow of the conversation. This makes it more difficult to follow and easier to make mistakes which then send you further into rage. This cycle continues until you've filled the page with nonsense.

What if, when someone attributes something to you incorrectly, you decided to simply correct them, clarify your true position and move on?

11/16/2020 8:59:30 PM

Quote :

"I came to that conclusion because you've never questioned the validityof Trump leaks and anonymous stories over the last 4 years."

And you know this.....how?

Have you been spying on me?

Quote :

"What if, when someone attributes something to you incorrectly, you decided to simply correct them, clarify your true position and move on?"

Because your entire argument has been to caricaturize one position of mine after another, then attacking that caricature. You never once address my actual points. That is what distracts from the conversation.

How about you simply stop misattributing things to me, asshole? That too much to ask, you fucking moron?

[Edited on November 16, 2020 at 9:03 PM. Reason : ]

11/16/2020 9:02:41 PM

I will try and I will also try to remove hyperbole from my posts because a lot of times you really hang on to that instead of the point. I'll try to do better but know that theres a chance I may not be capable of meeting your expectations. What if I'm just "dumb"? Is this how you deal with people who aren't as smart as you? You cuss them out and berate them for not being as smart?

11/16/2020 9:06:30 PM

No, I don't cuss you out because you're a fucking moron.

I cuss you out because you're a fucking asshole, moron.

11/16/2020 9:08:39 PM

Quote :

"I will try and I will also try to remove hyperbole from my posts because a lot of times you really hang on to that instead of the point"

How could it be otherwise when the only "point" you ever manage to make is due to your hyperbole and caricaturization? I don't think you can even pull your own weight in a debate without resorting to such bullshit. (I've yet to see it happen, anyway).

11/16/2020 9:11:01 PM

MSM blacked out a bunch of presidential candidates and now want to claim they respect democracy and are the key to its survival.
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1330595697159270400

11/22/2020 5:07:10 PM

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1337393996319117312

Quote :

"[The media] knowingly lied -- over and over -- that the Hunter documents were 'Russian disinformation.'"

Quote :

"As soon as these *genuine* emails emerged, they invented a lie -- 'Russian disinformation' -- that US media spread."

I thought that there was significant evidence that the screenshots of Hunter Biden's emails may have been a mixture of authentic and fabricated.

I guess that Hunter Biden being investigated by the DOJ and there being Russian disinformation about Hunter Biden prior to the election are mutually exclusive and can't coexist within the same universe.

[Edited on December 11, 2020 at 9:24 AM. Reason : ]

12/11/2020 9:03:15 AM

Greenwald is the uber example of choosing a hill to die on

12/11/2020 10:25:43 AM

I still follow him on Twitter, and he repeatedly retweets/likes people like Chuck Ross and Ben Domenech.

I've never really bought into the horseshoe theory, but damn if Glenn Greenwald isn't exhibit A for that argument.

12/11/2020 1:53:45 PM

They lie about a lot of things and push their own agenda but you guys feel the need to defend them just because their bullshit seems to be helping your side THIS TIME. Why can't we just call out bullshit as bullshit and propaganda outlets as what they are regardless of the political impacts of their bullshit?

The Hunter Biden case is no Hill to die on but neither is pretending the MSM is honest. Its ultimately going to be your downfall.

[Edited on December 11, 2020 at 4:40 PM. Reason : sentence structure]

12/11/2020 4:35:19 PM

Take a day off man

12/11/2020 4:57:54 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__eUqFpcYPk
Sick. Kids who believe in Santa Clause are at extremely high risk to grow up believing in MSM. Its the same thing.

[Edited on December 19, 2020 at 2:59 AM. Reason : hire dieties to make the kids be good or control the masses]

12/19/2020 2:57:15 AM

No one gives a shit bro.

12/19/2020 1:28:01 PM

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/26/us/shooting-bowling-alley-illinois/index.html
Passive voice is in full effect throughout MSM for another white shooter. Notice, people "got killed" and shooting "occured" but they don't directly say he did it. Crazy country.

12/29/2020 2:01:11 AM

Aren't they just abiding by due process?

12/29/2020 10:04:07 AM

So what are right wing media sources saying tonight, like newsmax, fox news etc

1/6/2021 9:19:25 PM

Answering that would require me watching one of those networks.

1/6/2021 9:31:17 PM

The bit that I've seen:

Fox News is condemning the violence, but seems to be blaming the division on a pattern of Democrats/MSM attacking the president and refusing to listen to Trump supporters. They're also saying that by condemning today's violence, they are better than the liberals that tolerated/condoned the violent protests last summer.

1/6/2021 9:52:32 PM