+- +-

+- You

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 87
Latest: brewski
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112780
Total Topics: 4374
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 4
Total: 4

Poll

Spam VS Treet

Spam
14 (38.9%)
Treet
14 (38.9%)
Other
8 (22.2%)

Total Members Voted: 32

Author Topic: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle  (Read 61853 times)

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9400 on: August 09, 2018, 04:22:24 pm »
Page one of the authoritarian's playbook: Establish vague laws, rules, and guidelines that can be enforced subjectively.
I'm sure it's fine when industries like insurance or telecom use that vague language to rip people off, but far be it from the tech companies to ban this piece of shit...

It's well within their rights to do so, but it's still stupid and evil. When you cut out a man's tongue, you do not make him a liar-- you only prove that you fear what he had to say.
I feel like that analogy fails here though; Alex Jones is still perfectly free to say whatever he wants on his own website or whatever, these companies have just decided that he can't promote his shit on their platforms, which I don't really see a problem with. This might bother me if it was Comcast blocking people from accessing Infowars.com, but to me this is just Apple, Spotify, etc. saying that people will have to go elsewhere to access Jones' content, not prohibiting them from finding it altogether.

I'd have thought you'd be more worried about this, Mr. I-Hate-Monopolies. YouTube is indisputably number one in terms of video streaming services. It's definitely not as bad as Comcast censoring speakers, but Facebook, YouTube, and Google are all powerful companies that have the capability to censor large swaths the political spectrum. Again, they have the right to do so, and they have no social responsibility to give anyone a platform, but if I were running these companies I wouldn't be censoring anyone aside from bots and spammers.
While monopolies indubitably drag down the economy and are detrimental to society more broadly, this really has nothing to do with the consolidation of power. Sure, I'd likely support breaking up Google in the future, but YouTube banning a channel is hardly a huge overstep; it's like Wal-Mart choosing not to carry a product. Yes, it hurts, but it isn't a death knell for the product. Rather, I just see it as the company choosing not to associate which isn't particularly similar to a ban that would actually prevent customers from seeking out that brand/product. And the censorship would bother me more if Jones wasn't using these platforms to promote blatant falsehoods and (at least according to the company, I personally haven't seen this) bigoted content.

Question: Would you support removing the Young Turks from YouTube?
No, but at least from what I've seen they're hardly comparable to Alex Jones. Just from seeing their vids pop up on Facebook, they just seem to talk about politics from a (very) liberal point of view, not anything really malicious. You'll notice I'm not advocating banning Hannity or Tomi Lahren or whoever; even if they do say racist things sometimes, it's a far cry between them and the real crazies like Jones.

Hannity, Lahren, and Cenk Uygur all use their platforms to spew falsehoods too, though. In fact, I'd say they're all far more dangerous than Jones, because they coat their lies in a thin veneer of superficial fact. They also have the advantage of plausibility. Which of these sounds more believable to you?

A) Barack Obama, who lived abroad in a Muslim-majority country for much of his youth, is a secret Muslim.
B) Companies like Monsanto are doctoring their research to show that GMOs are harmless, all while secretly poisoning the world.
C) Hillary Clinton is an interdimensional globalist Jew reptilian puppet demon who molests Christian babies in order to summon Moloch to the basement of a pizza parlor in New York City.

Now, all of these are false statements, but I'd argue that C-- while easily the most heinous-- is also the most harmless. No thinking person can possibly believe that for a second. The easiest to believe is B (though maybe not for Dylan, who likely believes A unironically). But B is still a lie. All three statements are equally true, in that they're not true at all-- but B and A are based off of enough fact (Monsanto isn't a very honest company and Obama lived in Indonesia) to be plausible.

A communist will believe B because it confirms his bias. A racist will believe A because it confirms his bias. They're fairly easy lies to accept once you've done a little bit of mental gymnastics. C, however, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I don't regard it as a threat at all.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9401 on: August 09, 2018, 07:46:45 pm »
Page one of the authoritarian's playbook: Establish vague laws, rules, and guidelines that can be enforced subjectively.
I'm sure it's fine when industries like insurance or telecom use that vague language to rip people off, but far be it from the tech companies to ban this piece of shit...

It's well within their rights to do so, but it's still stupid and evil. When you cut out a man's tongue, you do not make him a liar-- you only prove that you fear what he had to say.
I feel like that analogy fails here though; Alex Jones is still perfectly free to say whatever he wants on his own website or whatever, these companies have just decided that he can't promote his shit on their platforms, which I don't really see a problem with. This might bother me if it was Comcast blocking people from accessing Infowars.com, but to me this is just Apple, Spotify, etc. saying that people will have to go elsewhere to access Jones' content, not prohibiting them from finding it altogether.

I'd have thought you'd be more worried about this, Mr. I-Hate-Monopolies. YouTube is indisputably number one in terms of video streaming services. It's definitely not as bad as Comcast censoring speakers, but Facebook, YouTube, and Google are all powerful companies that have the capability to censor large swaths the political spectrum. Again, they have the right to do so, and they have no social responsibility to give anyone a platform, but if I were running these companies I wouldn't be censoring anyone aside from bots and spammers.
While monopolies indubitably drag down the economy and are detrimental to society more broadly, this really has nothing to do with the consolidation of power. Sure, I'd likely support breaking up Google in the future, but YouTube banning a channel is hardly a huge overstep; it's like Wal-Mart choosing not to carry a product. Yes, it hurts, but it isn't a death knell for the product. Rather, I just see it as the company choosing not to associate which isn't particularly similar to a ban that would actually prevent customers from seeking out that brand/product. And the censorship would bother me more if Jones wasn't using these platforms to promote blatant falsehoods and (at least according to the company, I personally haven't seen this) bigoted content.

Question: Would you support removing the Young Turks from YouTube?
No, but at least from what I've seen they're hardly comparable to Alex Jones. Just from seeing their vids pop up on Facebook, they just seem to talk about politics from a (very) liberal point of view, not anything really malicious. You'll notice I'm not advocating banning Hannity or Tomi Lahren or whoever; even if they do say racist things sometimes, it's a far cry between them and the real crazies like Jones.

Hannity, Lahren, and Cenk Uygur all use their platforms to spew falsehoods too, though. In fact, I'd say they're all far more dangerous than Jones, because they coat their lies in a thin veneer of superficial fact. They also have the advantage of plausibility. Which of these sounds more believable to you?

A) Barack Obama, who lived abroad in a Muslim-majority country for much of his youth, is a secret Muslim.
B) Companies like Monsanto are doctoring their research to show that GMOs are harmless, all while secretly poisoning the world.
C) Hillary Clinton is an interdimensional globalist Jew reptilian puppet demon who molests Christian babies in order to summon Moloch to the basement of a pizza parlor in New York City.

Now, all of these are false statements, but I'd argue that C-- while easily the most heinous-- is also the most harmless. No thinking person can possibly believe that for a second. The easiest to believe is B (though maybe not for Dylan, who likely believes A unironically). But B is still a lie. All three statements are equally true, in that they're not true at all-- but B and A are based off of enough fact (Monsanto isn't a very honest company and Obama lived in Indonesia) to be plausible.

A communist will believe B because it confirms his bias. A racist will believe A because it confirms his bias. They're fairly easy lies to accept once you've done a little bit of mental gymnastics. C, however, is so far outside the realm of possibility that I don't regard it as a threat at all.
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9402 on: August 09, 2018, 08:58:55 pm »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9403 on: August 11, 2018, 12:10:40 am »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.
I mean, yeah, it's really hard to define anything along this spectrum for certain. That's why you aim for the easiest, most blatant targets like Jones. I have no idea where the "arbitrary limit" you speak of should be set, but I am absolutely positive that Jones is not within the boundaries of said limit.

And while I agree with you that emotion based politics are unhelpful and even harmful (it's the worst, least convincing argument for gun control in particular), I don't think it has anything to do with Trump and many of his supporters decrying basic facts as misinformation spread by the mainstream media. Honestly, I just don't know how we got to the point where the president claims that journalists are the enemy and slanders reputable outlets like the New York Times as spreading fake news and is subsequently lauded for those actions by his base. Even worse, members of his own party seem to have picked up some of the practices, although mostly just the part where they claim anything that disagrees with them is fake.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9404 on: August 11, 2018, 02:51:30 am »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.
I mean, yeah, it's really hard to define anything along this spectrum for certain. That's why you aim for the easiest, most blatant targets like Jones. I have no idea where the "arbitrary limit" you speak of should be set, but I am absolutely positive that Jones is not within the boundaries of said limit.

And while I agree with you that emotion based politics are unhelpful and even harmful (it's the worst, least convincing argument for gun control in particular), I don't think it has anything to do with Trump and many of his supporters decrying basic facts as misinformation spread by the mainstream media. Honestly, I just don't know how we got to the point where the president claims that journalists are the enemy and slanders reputable outlets like the New York Times as spreading fake news and is subsequently lauded for those actions by his base. Even worse, members of his own party seem to have picked up some of the practices, although mostly just the part where they claim anything that disagrees with them is fake.

When I think of other easy targets, I think of the people on the furthest ends of this spectrum. Ban someone on one side, and you should ban their equivalent on the other.



Ban InfoWars, and you should ban Occupy Democrats. I'm not exaggerating at all here; they're both mechanisms for distributing misinformation to idiots. Morally and factually, they are equals. But which side has gotten more grief in terms of their social media presence? There are a lot of people on the right who I respect (but disagree with on a number of issues)-- Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson, etc-- and I'd say they're disproportionately attacked by the left. These are reasonable people who I don't consider any more radical than Robert Reich or Noam Chompsky. How long until the thought police decide that they don't deserve a platform either? It's very clear that far-left people like Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn are given a pass, while the middle-right people on that scale are treated like varying shades of Alex Jones.

As for the New York Times, again, I respect it as a publication, but it's obviously biased. The same goes for PBS. And then you have CNN, which does bad reporting AND is heavily biased, and which deserves to be lumped in with FOX as an easily-dismissed news source. My biggest problem with the Times is that it won't admit its bias, and continues to present itself as an impartial outlet, which simply isn't true. The Sarah Jeong thing put that premise to bed for good.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9405 on: August 13, 2018, 06:40:50 pm »
Got to ride in and drive a speedboat for a couple hours today. The lake was very placid for the first hour and we had the lake practically to ourselves.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9406 on: August 15, 2018, 11:43:43 pm »

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9407 on: August 16, 2018, 08:14:17 pm »
I've been on vacation with my family for the last little while, mostly camping on an island with no internet access so that's why I haven't been on here. I'm back for the foreseeable future now.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9408 on: August 16, 2018, 08:25:22 pm »
Look, it's not like I really disagree with you about any of this except what the solution is. All three of those statements are false, but the issue is that I think there's a reasonable claim for A/B that the source thought they were true when posted (well, maybe not for the GMO one, but perhaps if it was worded less conspiratorially). And yeah, C is also the least dangerous of the three, since honestly anyone who belives shit like that is too far gone to be reasoned with anyway. The problem is that C is the only one blatantly false enough to be banworthy.

However, I think you're fundamentally talking about something far more interesting than the Jones ban, which is how we deal with the flow of misleading information in the current age. I really do think that the most destructive piece of Trump's presidency is how he's tried to convince the populace that basic facts can be questioned and considered false. Things like global warming shouldn't be political battlegrounds, yet here we are having to debate if climate change is real as if it's a legitimate question. I know that particular predates Trump, but it's the idea of "alternative facts" and labelling anything and everything as "fake news" that scares me.

I find your justification in the first paragraph to be flimsy. It can be argued that any conspiracy theorist believes that his claims are true. This is the central problem with "hate speech" laws-- if you're going to set a boundary like that, you need to make sure it's extremely well-defined. Since nobody can define "hate," and since you can't define a "reasonable claim," it's just another vague guideline that will obviously be enforced subjectively. You also say that only C is "blatantly false enough to be banworthy," but since when is being wrong a crime? Where's the barrier for "blatant falsehood?" Those three examples I used exist on a spectrum of wrongness; yeah, they're all incorrect, but to varying degrees. Where do we set that arbitrary limit?

As for the spread of fake news, I still think it's nothing more than a stimulus-response reaction to the left's rhetoric. America has decided that incorrect facts are more worth listening to than people's feelings. Every time a Democrat says "Think of the children," "You're a sociopath who doesn't care about other people," "You're a privileged white male," or any other inane emotion-based garbage, it drives more people to spread and believe fake news out of pure spite. If we were having a rational, centrist debate between the moderate left and the moderate right, this would absolutely not be a problem. However, retards have hijacked our political discourse, and the result is that nobody knows what to believe.
I mean, yeah, it's really hard to define anything along this spectrum for certain. That's why you aim for the easiest, most blatant targets like Jones. I have no idea where the "arbitrary limit" you speak of should be set, but I am absolutely positive that Jones is not within the boundaries of said limit.

And while I agree with you that emotion based politics are unhelpful and even harmful (it's the worst, least convincing argument for gun control in particular), I don't think it has anything to do with Trump and many of his supporters decrying basic facts as misinformation spread by the mainstream media. Honestly, I just don't know how we got to the point where the president claims that journalists are the enemy and slanders reputable outlets like the New York Times as spreading fake news and is subsequently lauded for those actions by his base. Even worse, members of his own party seem to have picked up some of the practices, although mostly just the part where they claim anything that disagrees with them is fake.

When I think of other easy targets, I think of the people on the furthest ends of this spectrum. Ban someone on one side, and you should ban their equivalent on the other.



Ban InfoWars, and you should ban Occupy Democrats. I'm not exaggerating at all here; they're both mechanisms for distributing misinformation to idiots. Morally and factually, they are equals. But which side has gotten more grief in terms of their social media presence? There are a lot of people on the right who I respect (but disagree with on a number of issues)-- Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson, etc-- and I'd say they're disproportionately attacked by the left. These are reasonable people who I don't consider any more radical than Robert Reich or Noam Chompsky. How long until the thought police decide that they don't deserve a platform either? It's very clear that far-left people like Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn are given a pass, while the middle-right people on that scale are treated like varying shades of Alex Jones.

As for the New York Times, again, I respect it as a publication, but it's obviously biased. The same goes for PBS. And then you have CNN, which does bad reporting AND is heavily biased, and which deserves to be lumped in with FOX as an easily-dismissed news source. My biggest problem with the Times is that it won't admit its bias, and continues to present itself as an impartial outlet, which simply isn't true. The Sarah Jeong thing put that premise to bed for good.
Look, I'm for fairness but I honestly don't think there's a leftist equivalent of Infowars. The shit peddled on that site is so outlandish as to be completely and entirely unbelieveable. While I agree that something like that isn't necessarily as dangerous as a Fox News or Occupy Democrats, at least those outlets have some basis in reality. Like, Occupy Democrats certianly posts biased and misleading information but (to the best of my knowledge) they don't just make things up, which is what separates Infowars. Also can't speak to the bigotry part of the Infowars ban much, but I suppose that's another form of differentiation. I just think Alex Jones is a far cry from Ben Shapiro, a clearly intelligent man with a degree from Harvard Law who has a clear grasp on reality. Jones just makes things up to pander to a small segment of the population that will clearly eat up anything and buy his products. His status as a talking head also makes him different from actual politicians; no one was advocating a social media ban of Roy Moore to the best of my knowledge. Anyway, I think the crux of it is the bigotry charge which sadly has taken on political sides.

As for the Times, I agree that its newsroom certainly leans left and that it reports from that perspective, but it differentiates itself from things like Fox by reporting the news regardless of which side it serves. I trust the publications like WaPo/NYT/WSJ to accurately report facts and report all relevant news which is not something I can say for Fox. As for CNN, I read it on my phone sometimes since their app is free (my school gives me access to the Times and Journal but that can't be used for mobile), but it isn't my perferred outlet, although I don't think it's nearly as biased as some make it out to be.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9409 on: August 17, 2018, 09:06:12 pm »
Look, I'm for fairness but I honestly don't think there's a leftist equivalent of InfoWars. The shit peddled on that site is so outlandish as to be completely and entirely unbelievable. While I agree that something like that isn't necessarily as dangerous as a Fox News or Occupy Democrats, at least those outlets have some basis in reality. Like, Occupy Democrats certainly posts biased and misleading information but (to the best of my knowledge) they don't just make things up, which is what separates InfoWars. Also can't speak to the bigotry part of the InfoWars ban much, but I suppose that's another form of differentiation. I just think Alex Jones is a far cry from Ben Shapiro, a clearly intelligent man with a degree from Harvard Law who has a clear grasp on reality. Jones just makes things up to pander to a small segment of the population that will clearly eat up anything and buy his products. His status as a talking head also makes him different from actual politicians; no one was advocating a social media ban of Roy Moore to the best of my knowledge. Anyway, I think the crux of it is the bigotry charge which sadly has taken on political sides.

As for the Times, I agree that its newsroom certainly leans left and that it reports from that perspective, but it differentiates itself from things like Fox by reporting the news regardless of which side it serves. I trust the publications like WaPo/NYT/WSJ to accurately report facts and report all relevant news which is not something I can say for Fox. As for CNN, I read it on my phone sometimes since their app is free (my school gives me access to the Times and Journal but that can't be used for mobile), but it isn't my perferred outlet, although I don't think it's nearly as biased as some make it out to be.

Fine, I guess I can't really argue against the bolded part unless we get into really obscure stuff-- still, I think that if there was a far-left version of InfoWars, nobody would be pushing for a ban. The excuse would probably be "Well yes, they promote falsehoods, but they don't promote HATE SPEECH," whatever that means.

I'll respond to the rest of this later. Busy as fuck these past few days.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9410 on: August 23, 2018, 05:43:35 pm »
Friendly reminder that 2001 is coming to IMAX theaters for a week starting tomorrow.

Charles Longboat Jr.

  • Wes Anderson
  • *********
  • Posts: 7180
  • Upon us all a little rain must fall

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9412 on: September 01, 2018, 07:00:36 pm »
The new Suspiria has a 58% on RT but an 8.7 average rating.
Goodbye!

Jim Raynor Remastered

  • Tim Burton
  • ***
  • Posts: 1135
  • Location: Somewhere in South America...
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9413 on: September 14, 2018, 11:09:03 am »
Did this site really degenerated to the point that we’re letting pedos back in?

Anyway, Uni has been tough as hell, and my film “drought” has turned into a famine at this point.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9414 on: September 15, 2018, 05:22:46 pm »
Did this site really degenerated to the point that we’re letting pedos back in?

Anyway, Uni has been tough as hell, and my film “drought” has turned into a famine at this point.

Don't be a pedophobe, right-wing fascist!

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1865
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9415 on: September 16, 2018, 05:00:00 am »
Did this site really degenerated to the point that we’re letting pedos back in?

Anyway, Uni has been tough as hell, and my film “drought” has turned into a famine at this point.

Well, I suppose that's another thing that now brings us closer to the smaller AIBs (4chan-style anonymous imageboards.) I've seen some in Russia that are about as lively as we are, so I don't feel so bad about our current state anymore.

Also, Quora keeps offering up new and interesting personalitities. Say, how do you feel about this guy - A "member of Russian opposition" who wants to see Putin in the Hague, but also believes Mandela is equivalent to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Merkel is a traitor and one of his (Caliph's) best allies? I am not even sure whether it's worth arguing with him, but I think it shows that many of Navalny's supporters wouldn't exactly be considered nice people in the West either.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1865
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9416 on: September 21, 2018, 04:22:51 pm »
So, I don't quite feel like wading back to that full-on argument about Alex Jones yet, but can we all just note the uncanny similarity between this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3LFlWdExvg

and this?

After seeing the Ghostbusters reboot, I've come to realize how futile our existence on this planet is, kinda like the existencialism produced after the First World War and our amazing destructive ability, but said thing can be said about Ghostbusters, or every unnecessary reboot there is for nowadays. The things that we know and love are willing to betray us, by the hands of corporate smugglers ready to assault our wallets in every turn that we EVEN consider, the possibility of buying a ticket to their promised "quality product". It's all on the economy, the need for the money to come in is the quintessential pillar for the whole industry and, oh boy, it includes the need to profane the tombs of sacred franchises that were laid to rest in dignity and respect, only to be digged back up and their corpses flung around for the profit of the makers on those curious enough to see the whole, vile spectacle: and next, their desecrated corpse lays buried in half, to ease the job in digging it back up again when the profit calls.

In the end, nothing matters anymore. We could have radicalized the backlash to stop this unfunny piece of trash onto making its way into theaters, but in an age were food is right outside of our gates, Internet pornography, and the Kardashians still live their stupid lives on television, we had become dormant sheep, and we let this thing happen, we are all guilty of it. Ghostbusters is the sad remainder that we all are going to die someday, and nothing that we have ever done, lived, or seen, has ever fucking, mattered. It's our cardinal sin, that we have let this abomination onto the world, and we must live with it.

Paul Feig can suck a dick.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4707
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9417 on: September 23, 2018, 03:42:39 am »
What the fuck is that Raynor post and how have I never seen it before?

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6690
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9418 on: September 23, 2018, 03:44:23 am »
What the fuck is that Raynor post and how have I never seen it before?

Raynor was always the most legitimately insane user on this board (well, maybe after Neville).

Crohn's Boy

  • David Fincher
  • ******
  • Posts: 4280
  • Hello
  • Location: My couch
Re: 2 Fudge 2 Knuckle
« Reply #9419 on: September 23, 2018, 10:21:17 am »
Imagine getting that worked up over a dumb comedy.
Goodbye!

 

+- Hot Threads

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Charles Longboat Jr.
October 22, 2018, 12:48:36 am

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Robert Neville
October 14, 2018, 05:26:22 pm

The Trump Presidency Thread by Robert Neville
October 09, 2018, 05:27:33 pm

2018 Standings by Crohn's Boy
October 07, 2018, 11:13:25 am

Khabib vs. Conor fight by Robert Neville
October 07, 2018, 07:15:48 am

Another reason why SEC is so embarrassing... by The One Who Lurks
October 06, 2018, 07:21:54 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 29, 2018, 09:36:30 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Jim Raynor Remastered
September 29, 2018, 03:34:00 pm

Book Thread. What are you reading? by Tut
September 26, 2018, 11:40:42 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 20, 2018, 07:51:25 pm

Whats your take on movie crowdfunding? by Robert Neville
September 16, 2018, 07:23:03 am

Consensus XXXIII: Netflicks Moovys by Crohn's Boy
September 14, 2018, 04:06:15 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Tut
September 07, 2018, 04:43:28 pm

Favorite videogame cutscenes by Robert Neville
September 06, 2018, 02:55:25 pm

The US Supreme Court Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
September 04, 2018, 03:02:07 pm