+- +-

+- You

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

+- Site Data

Members
Total Members: 83
Latest: Hazelrabbit2006
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 112662
Total Topics: 4372
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 55
(April 18, 2016, 06:09:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Author Topic: LOL Kanye  (Read 281 times)

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478

Social Buttons


Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1841
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2018, 03:13:32 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2018, 06:05:31 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?

I hadn't heard of that.  If it wasn't on neutral sites like Reuters or randomly popped up on Yahoo's main page when I'm going into my Yahoo email that's linked to my Regal Rewards Club, I probably won't see it.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4697
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2018, 02:35:49 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6668
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2018, 03:24:47 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1841
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2018, 05:30:44 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2018, 08:02:08 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

Why?  When have I ever seen me use the term "snowflake" in a political discussion?  I use it completely differently than this new age usage for it.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6668
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2018, 08:32:58 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

Sure, but if the goal is to restore some trust in news media, that seems like a bad way to go about it even if it's just for a joke.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2018, 08:43:51 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

Sure, but if the goal is to restore some trust in news media, that seems like a bad way to go about it even if it's just for a joke.

Whose goal is that?  One would think the media, but they continually go out of there way to dig that ditch deeper by the yard.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6668
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2018, 08:57:35 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

Sure, but if the goal is to restore some trust in news media, that seems like a bad way to go about it even if it's just for a joke.

Whose goal is that?  One would think the media, but they continually go out of there way to dig that ditch deeper by the yard.

It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2018, 11:41:50 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

Sure, but if the goal is to restore some trust in news media, that seems like a bad way to go about it even if it's just for a joke.

Whose goal is that?  One would think the media, but they continually go out of there way to dig that ditch deeper by the yard.

It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

Well, then yeah.  I thought u referring to the CNN, FOX, and MSNBC of the world. 

I use Reuters, BBC, Economist, Forbes, WSJ mostly.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1841
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2018, 06:11:36 pm »
http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2018/05/you-re-hurting-people-whitney-houston-s-family-livid-at-kanye-west-album-cover.html

That's distasteful, but I suppose not entirely unexpected. After all, I suppose Kanye feels has to find new ways to keep staying in the spotlight after last month (especially if he's still as indebted as he said he was in 2016).

Right now, though, he's old news, and Elon Musk is the one in the spotlight. Given your well-known attitude towards journalism, I imagine you've now heard that he apparently intends to create a website where people would vote on the credibility of the media?
I like Musk but Pravda is just an awful idea.

Either way, I'm surprised you aren't complaining about Houston's family being snowflakes, Dylan.

I just read some article on this a minute ago. Why name it after the Soviet propaganda paper?

Why does a company selling liquid food substitute name themselves after the iconic fictional forerunner that was made out of people? I thought you of all people would instantly get the Silicon Valley's favorite kind of irony.

Sure, but if the goal is to restore some trust in news media, that seems like a bad way to go about it even if it's just for a joke.

LOL. His goal is clearly to create a new way to browbeat the media into not writing bad stuff about him. All that's going to happen is that his horde of fans will downvote every outlet that dares to write something negative about him, and 4chan/8chan will upvote Infowars, Gateway Pundit, The Right Stuff etc. to the sky on literally the day his website'll go live. No-one else will bother to use it.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1841
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2018, 07:16:01 am »
It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

Well, then yeah.  I thought u referring to the CNN, FOX, and MSNBC of the world. 

I use Reuters, BBC, Economist, Forbes, WSJ mostly.

Dylan, do you actually subscribe to Economist and WSJ? I can't say much for the latter because practically all of it appears to be under a paywall (though I do remember once seeing a hilarious pro-Jeb Bush editorial there, about a month before he pulled out.) The Economist is similar, but the content they do allow for free actually seems to require you take pretty much all of it on faith, to a much greater extent than any other "normal" media I've seen.

Here's a recent example: it's a long, detailed, disturbing expose on China's police control of the Uighurs in Xinjang...that doesn't bother to reference anything in it; either you believe every single claim they make there is accurate, or you don't. No links to the documents they claim prove PRC paid for the construction of 73 camps (there's 1 Google Earth photo of one place), nor to the internal report supposedly describing the untrustworthiness criteria that'll send one to said camp. There are not even any photos of some of the most striking things they claimed to witness, like the windowless "convenience police stations" on every block, chained butcher's knives or the poles carrying cameras on every road. (There was however a meaningless photo of two police on a scooter, so it's not like they were explicitly forbidden from photographing the police.)

This really is one of the main reasons why The Guardian remains my primary Western news source; they generally seem far better at referencing the things they report on, and supporting them with additional context and evidence, than not just my (admittedly very limited) impression of The Economist, but also the vaunted NYT and Washington Post. I really don't get the enormous importance you in America ascribe to them: maybe their national-level investigations behind paywalls are somehow worth it, but their reporting on foreign countries is obviously slanted. NYT in particular is so clearly in love with its idea of being a champion of "western liberal democracy", that pretty much any reporting they do on any other country will obviously be written with the conclusion already in mind.

In my experience, The Guardian is weirdly more even-handed not just on the left-wing states in South America or the somewhat-ideologically-aligned nations like us or Iran, but even on places like Hungary, where a left-wing paper would have no reason to be less biased then the "centrist" NYT. Washington Post seems a little more restrained there, though it's compensated by the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" domestic hysteria. Even so, I remember how the same event (a supposedly collapsing Mosul Dam) was reported first by WaPo, and then by The Guardian. The latter got to it several months later, but that was ultimately justified, since a) it didn't collapse, even though WaPo claimed it could do so imminently; b) their reporting had far more context WaPo sacrificed for speed. Granted, Guardian's opinion section is often comparatively poor, with a wide swathe being Slate-level, but that's only a fraction of their 600/day output, and there are still many notable (i.e. the creator of Black Mirror) and/or reasonable contributors there (i.e. when Trump's son released emails, one of the contributors immediately ignored the hysteria and correctly surmised it wouldn't impeach anyone.)

Any way, the only time I've seen something remotely similar to that Economist's article was some two years ago in the British Spectator, which had a long column wailing about the plight of Nigerian Christians that again did not try to reference anything in it: moreover, at one point the author slipped by saying Christians in the other part of the country do not care, which to me, at least, suggests that they know what's happening in their own country better than some visiting right-wing columnist. Speaking of which, said Spectator also has an Australian wing, which is ridiculously unhinged: I think I once linked to here a suggestion by one of their contributors that no-one besides a necessary number of scientists needs to know science because it takes away from the wonders of the world, etc. (Notably, this was in a response to a secular Iranian immigrant saying she now only believes in the things she can prove with a formula.)

The Spectator and The National Review also seem to have some considerable crossover: it also seems that much of Diego's views on Britain are thus shaped by those Spectator/NR contributors. As such, you can still find some really funny May fanboyism there: seehere, here or here (the supposed "cunning plan" that got junked nearly a year ago.) Moreover, even I, not being a particular friend of the EU or the like, still have a problem calling this "slightly biased": https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/ Dylan may like the intent of the piece, but it's really sloppily written, especially when it comes to this:

Even nuclear proliferation no longer quite follows the post-war boilerplate of the anxious West clamoring for non-proliferation, rogue regimes getting nukes with a wink and nod of either the Chinese or Russians, and then the world assuming “once a nuclear nation, always a nuclear nation.”

Instead, if there is a next round of proliferation, it will likely be among democratic nations — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — to counter the failure of Western nations, the U.N., and international associations to stop proliferation by the unhinged. They will seek deterrence against regimes that were nuclearized and supported by Russia and China in the past.


While the suggestion that Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation stands out as pure comedy gold, this entire excerpt is actually nonsense, starting from the fact that unquestionably democratic and unquestionable US allies (Britain, France and Israel) account for nearly half of all nuclear nations. Take out India (always democratic, but often more aligned with us), and you are left with DPRK and Pakistan (questionably democratic, though a lot more so than either KSA or Egypt; a US ally when it got the nukes with the help of Saudi Arabia and China.)

As for others, I think I visited The Hill a couple of times, but it's mainly a flood of raw press releases/commentaries by your politicians that may be centrist, but obviously holds little relevance for me. (Politico technically has a similarly narrow focus, but its long-form interviews still keep me visiting from time to time, even if the EU section is pretty trash.) BBC is purposely milquetoast on their domestic politics, and the global reporting feels so-so; I've seen Chinese on Quora in particular complain about their misrepresentations, and I can see their point. However, its long-form science/technology content was amazing when I got lost in it for hours two years ago: I should probably set time to do so again. Reuters is fine, but a little too dry without the whole interview/analytical layer; the important primary reporting on there, will generally be picked up by others anyway.

PBS, NPR and The Week are not really places I visited much, if at all. I probably should check them out, as in the last year, I mainly addressed the biased perspective I get on Western politics from Guardian and Vox (before 2017, by which point they have thoroughly discredited themselves for anything but the TV series recaps and more speculative green energy/tech content, including some crank liberal-libertarian scientist proposals.) by delving straight into the other side, like New York Post and Washington Times. I even tried to seriously read Breitbart for a couple of days in the wake of Bannon's implosion, which just left me bewildered (btw, it has been in constant decline ever since then: it seems like most of its readership went either to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, which spiked at the same time, or to the ridiculously shallow Gateway/"True" pundit crap. ) While NYP surprised me at times with some local news and mainstream feminist content, the only explicitly right-wing outlet I like was The American Conservative, though that's probably because I've only seen their anti-interventionist columns where I already agree with them.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4697
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2018, 01:04:19 pm »
It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

Well, then yeah.  I thought u referring to the CNN, FOX, and MSNBC of the world. 

I use Reuters, BBC, Economist, Forbes, WSJ mostly.

Dylan, do you actually subscribe to Economist and WSJ? I can't say much for the latter because practically all of it appears to be under a paywall (though I do remember once seeing a hilarious pro-Jeb Bush editorial there, about a month before he pulled out.) The Economist is similar, but the content they do allow for free actually seems to require you take pretty much all of it on faith, to a much greater extent than any other "normal" media I've seen.

Here's a recent example: it's a long, detailed, disturbing expose on China's police control of the Uighurs in Xinjang...that doesn't bother to reference anything in it; either you believe every single claim they make there is accurate, or you don't. No links to the documents they claim prove PRC paid for the construction of 73 camps (there's 1 Google Earth photo of one place), nor to the internal report supposedly describing the untrustworthiness criteria that'll send one to said camp. There are not even any photos of some of the most striking things they claimed to witness, like the windowless "convenience police stations" on every block, chained butcher's knives or the poles carrying cameras on every road. (There was however a meaningless photo of two police on a scooter, so it's not like they were explicitly forbidden from photographing the police.)

This really is one of the main reasons why The Guardian remains my primary Western news source; they generally seem far better at referencing the things they report on, and supporting them with additional context and evidence, than not just my (admittedly very limited) impression of The Economist, but also the vaunted NYT and Washington Post. I really don't get the enormous importance you in America ascribe to them: maybe their national-level investigations behind paywalls are somehow worth it, but their reporting on foreign countries is obviously slanted. NYT in particular is so clearly in love with its idea of being a champion of "western liberal democracy", that pretty much any reporting they do on any other country will obviously be written with the conclusion already in mind.

In my experience, The Guardian is weirdly more even-handed not just on the left-wing states in South America or the somewhat-ideologically-aligned nations like us or Iran, but even on places like Hungary, where a left-wing paper would have no reason to be less biased then the "centrist" NYT. Washington Post seems a little more restrained there, though it's compensated by the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" domestic hysteria. Even so, I remember how the same event (a supposedly collapsing Mosul Dam) was reported first by WaPo, and then by The Guardian. The latter got to it several months later, but that was ultimately justified, since a) it didn't collapse, even though WaPo claimed it could do so imminently; b) their reporting had far more context WaPo sacrificed for speed. Granted, Guardian's opinion section is often comparatively poor, with a wide swathe being Slate-level, but that's only a fraction of their 600/day output, and there are still many notable (i.e. the creator of Black Mirror) and/or reasonable contributors there (i.e. when Trump's son released emails, one of the contributors immediately ignored the hysteria and correctly surmised it wouldn't impeach anyone.)

Any way, the only time I've seen something remotely similar to that Economist's article was some two years ago in the British Spectator, which had a long column wailing about the plight of Nigerian Christians that again did not try to reference anything in it: moreover, at one point the author slipped by saying Christians in the other part of the country do not care, which to me, at least, suggests that they know what's happening in their own country better than some visiting right-wing columnist. Speaking of which, said Spectator also has an Australian wing, which is ridiculously unhinged: I think I once linked to here a suggestion by one of their contributors that no-one besides a necessary number of scientists needs to know science because it takes away from the wonders of the world, etc. (Notably, this was in a response to a secular Iranian immigrant saying she now only believes in the things she can prove with a formula.)

The Spectator and The National Review also seem to have some considerable crossover: it also seems that much of Diego's views on Britain are thus shaped by those Spectator/NR contributors. As such, you can still find some really funny May fanboyism there: seehere, here or here (the supposed "cunning plan" that got junked nearly a year ago.) Moreover, even I, not being a particular friend of the EU or the like, still have a problem calling this "slightly biased": https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/ Dylan may like the intent of the piece, but it's really sloppily written, especially when it comes to this:

Even nuclear proliferation no longer quite follows the post-war boilerplate of the anxious West clamoring for non-proliferation, rogue regimes getting nukes with a wink and nod of either the Chinese or Russians, and then the world assuming “once a nuclear nation, always a nuclear nation.”

Instead, if there is a next round of proliferation, it will likely be among democratic nations — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — to counter the failure of Western nations, the U.N., and international associations to stop proliferation by the unhinged. They will seek deterrence against regimes that were nuclearized and supported by Russia and China in the past.


While the suggestion that Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation stands out as pure comedy gold, this entire excerpt is actually nonsense, starting from the fact that unquestionably democratic and unquestionable US allies (Britain, France and Israel) account for nearly half of all nuclear nations. Take out India (always democratic, but often more aligned with us), and you are left with DPRK and Pakistan (questionably democratic, though a lot more so than either KSA or Egypt; a US ally when it got the nukes with the help of Saudi Arabia and China.)

As for others, I think I visited The Hill a couple of times, but it's mainly a flood of raw press releases/commentaries by your politicians that may be centrist, but obviously holds little relevance for me. (Politico technically has a similarly narrow focus, but its long-form interviews still keep me visiting from time to time, even if the EU section is pretty trash.) BBC is purposely milquetoast on their domestic politics, and the global reporting feels so-so; I've seen Chinese on Quora in particular complain about their misrepresentations, and I can see their point. However, its long-form science/technology content was amazing when I got lost in it for hours two years ago: I should probably set time to do so again. Reuters is fine, but a little too dry without the whole interview/analytical layer; the important primary reporting on there, will generally be picked up by others anyway.

PBS, NPR and The Week are not really places I visited much, if at all. I probably should check them out, as in the last year, I mainly addressed the biased perspective I get on Western politics from Guardian and Vox (before 2017, by which point they have thoroughly discredited themselves for anything but the TV series recaps and more speculative green energy/tech content, including some crank liberal-libertarian scientist proposals.) by delving straight into the other side, like New York Post and Washington Times. I even tried to seriously read Breitbart for a couple of days in the wake of Bannon's implosion, which just left me bewildered (btw, it has been in constant decline ever since then: it seems like most of its readership went either to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, which spiked at the same time, or to the ridiculously shallow Gateway/"True" pundit crap. ) While NYP surprised me at times with some local news and mainstream feminist content, the only explicitly right-wing outlet I like was The American Conservative, though that's probably because I've only seen their anti-interventionist columns where I already agree with them.
For the record, I'd like to add that I think The Economist is a superb source of news. I subscribe to the print magazine and try to read as much of it as possible every week, as I feel it holds an incredibly well-rounded focus (sections on Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, China specifically, Britain specifically exist every week). They also have really strong business and finance sections which interest me. Anyway, I just wanted to stick up for that publication from a different end of the political spectrum since I think it's basically the best that exists. Don't get as much of my domestic news from there (I use the Flipboard app primarily, although NYT and CNN as well), but I think it's a great magazine.

Robert Neville

  • God-King
  • Zack Snyder
  • **********
  • Posts: 1841
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2018, 01:22:21 pm »
For the record, I'd like to add that I think The Economist is a superb source of news. I subscribe to the print magazine and try to read as much of it as possible every week, as I feel it holds an incredibly well-rounded focus (sections on Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, China specifically, Britain specifically exist every week). They also have really strong business and finance sections which interest me. Anyway, I just wanted to stick up for that publication from a different end of the political spectrum since I think it's basically the best that exists. Don't get as much of my domestic news from there (I use the Flipboard app primarily, although NYT and CNN as well), but I think it's a great magazine.

Well, The Economist is British, so it's no surprise they would have a section about themselves. You are saying those other sections exist every week? Here's Guardian's Asia Pacific for just the last three days; and same for Americas, MENA, Africa and Europe. Not to mention the Cities and Global Development sections (also grouped into world news), which are slower to update, but have some of the most unique content: the stories of aid workers in the latter are particularly eye-opening.

Tut

  • God-King
  • Paul Thomas Anderson
  • ******
  • Posts: 6668
  • It's all over now, baby blue...
  • Location: Nice try, NSA
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2018, 02:24:50 pm »
It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

Well, then yeah.  I thought u referring to the CNN, FOX, and MSNBC of the world. 

I use Reuters, BBC, Economist, Forbes, WSJ mostly.

Dylan, do you actually subscribe to Economist and WSJ? I can't say much for the latter because practically all of it appears to be under a paywall (though I do remember once seeing a hilarious pro-Jeb Bush editorial there, about a month before he pulled out.) The Economist is similar, but the content they do allow for free actually seems to require you take pretty much all of it on faith, to a much greater extent than any other "normal" media I've seen.

Here's a recent example: it's a long, detailed, disturbing expose on China's police control of the Uighurs in Xinjang...that doesn't bother to reference anything in it; either you believe every single claim they make there is accurate, or you don't. No links to the documents they claim prove PRC paid for the construction of 73 camps (there's 1 Google Earth photo of one place), nor to the internal report supposedly describing the untrustworthiness criteria that'll send one to said camp. There are not even any photos of some of the most striking things they claimed to witness, like the windowless "convenience police stations" on every block, chained butcher's knives or the poles carrying cameras on every road. (There was however a meaningless photo of two police on a scooter, so it's not like they were explicitly forbidden from photographing the police.)

This really is one of the main reasons why The Guardian remains my primary Western news source; they generally seem far better at referencing the things they report on, and supporting them with additional context and evidence, than not just my (admittedly very limited) impression of The Economist, but also the vaunted NYT and Washington Post. I really don't get the enormous importance you in America ascribe to them: maybe their national-level investigations behind paywalls are somehow worth it, but their reporting on foreign countries is obviously slanted. NYT in particular is so clearly in love with its idea of being a champion of "western liberal democracy", that pretty much any reporting they do on any other country will obviously be written with the conclusion already in mind.

In my experience, The Guardian is weirdly more even-handed not just on the left-wing states in South America or the somewhat-ideologically-aligned nations like us or Iran, but even on places like Hungary, where a left-wing paper would have no reason to be less biased then the "centrist" NYT. Washington Post seems a little more restrained there, though it's compensated by the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" domestic hysteria. Even so, I remember how the same event (a supposedly collapsing Mosul Dam) was reported first by WaPo, and then by The Guardian. The latter got to it several months later, but that was ultimately justified, since a) it didn't collapse, even though WaPo claimed it could do so imminently; b) their reporting had far more context WaPo sacrificed for speed. Granted, Guardian's opinion section is often comparatively poor, with a wide swathe being Slate-level, but that's only a fraction of their 600/day output, and there are still many notable (i.e. the creator of Black Mirror) and/or reasonable contributors there (i.e. when Trump's son released emails, one of the contributors immediately ignored the hysteria and correctly surmised it wouldn't impeach anyone.)

Any way, the only time I've seen something remotely similar to that Economist's article was some two years ago in the British Spectator, which had a long column wailing about the plight of Nigerian Christians that again did not try to reference anything in it: moreover, at one point the author slipped by saying Christians in the other part of the country do not care, which to me, at least, suggests that they know what's happening in their own country better than some visiting right-wing columnist. Speaking of which, said Spectator also has an Australian wing, which is ridiculously unhinged: I think I once linked to here a suggestion by one of their contributors that no-one besides a necessary number of scientists needs to know science because it takes away from the wonders of the world, etc. (Notably, this was in a response to a secular Iranian immigrant saying she now only believes in the things she can prove with a formula.)

The Spectator and The National Review also seem to have some considerable crossover: it also seems that much of Diego's views on Britain are thus shaped by those Spectator/NR contributors. As such, you can still find some really funny May fanboyism there: seehere, here or here (the supposed "cunning plan" that got junked nearly a year ago.) Moreover, even I, not being a particular friend of the EU or the like, still have a problem calling this "slightly biased": https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/ Dylan may like the intent of the piece, but it's really sloppily written, especially when it comes to this:

Even nuclear proliferation no longer quite follows the post-war boilerplate of the anxious West clamoring for non-proliferation, rogue regimes getting nukes with a wink and nod of either the Chinese or Russians, and then the world assuming “once a nuclear nation, always a nuclear nation.”

Instead, if there is a next round of proliferation, it will likely be among democratic nations — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — to counter the failure of Western nations, the U.N., and international associations to stop proliferation by the unhinged. They will seek deterrence against regimes that were nuclearized and supported by Russia and China in the past.


While the suggestion that Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation stands out as pure comedy gold, this entire excerpt is actually nonsense, starting from the fact that unquestionably democratic and unquestionable US allies (Britain, France and Israel) account for nearly half of all nuclear nations. Take out India (always democratic, but often more aligned with us), and you are left with DPRK and Pakistan (questionably democratic, though a lot more so than either KSA or Egypt; a US ally when it got the nukes with the help of Saudi Arabia and China.)

As for others, I think I visited The Hill a couple of times, but it's mainly a flood of raw press releases/commentaries by your politicians that may be centrist, but obviously holds little relevance for me. (Politico technically has a similarly narrow focus, but its long-form interviews still keep me visiting from time to time, even if the EU section is pretty trash.) BBC is purposely milquetoast on their domestic politics, and the global reporting feels so-so; I've seen Chinese on Quora in particular complain about their misrepresentations, and I can see their point. However, its long-form science/technology content was amazing when I got lost in it for hours two years ago: I should probably set time to do so again. Reuters is fine, but a little too dry without the whole interview/analytical layer; the important primary reporting on there, will generally be picked up by others anyway.

PBS, NPR and The Week are not really places I visited much, if at all. I probably should check them out, as in the last year, I mainly addressed the biased perspective I get on Western politics from Guardian and Vox (before 2017, by which point they have thoroughly discredited themselves for anything but the TV series recaps and more speculative green energy/tech content, including some crank liberal-libertarian scientist proposals.) by delving straight into the other side, like New York Post and Washington Times. I even tried to seriously read Breitbart for a couple of days in the wake of Bannon's implosion, which just left me bewildered (btw, it has been in constant decline ever since then: it seems like most of its readership went either to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, which spiked at the same time, or to the ridiculously shallow Gateway/"True" pundit crap. ) While NYP surprised me at times with some local news and mainstream feminist content, the only explicitly right-wing outlet I like was The American Conservative, though that's probably because I've only seen their anti-interventionist columns where I already agree with them.

Serious question: What is wrong with you?

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4697
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2018, 05:40:22 pm »
For the record, I'd like to add that I think The Economist is a superb source of news. I subscribe to the print magazine and try to read as much of it as possible every week, as I feel it holds an incredibly well-rounded focus (sections on Central America, South America, Europe, Asia, China specifically, Britain specifically exist every week). They also have really strong business and finance sections which interest me. Anyway, I just wanted to stick up for that publication from a different end of the political spectrum since I think it's basically the best that exists. Don't get as much of my domestic news from there (I use the Flipboard app primarily, although NYT and CNN as well), but I think it's a great magazine.

Well, The Economist is British, so it's no surprise they would have a section about themselves. You are saying those other sections exist every week? Here's Guardian's Asia Pacific for just the last three days; and same for Americas, MENA, Africa and Europe. Not to mention the Cities and Global Development sections (also grouped into world news), which are slower to update, but have some of the most unique content: the stories of aid workers in the latter are particularly eye-opening.
Nothing in my comment had to do with The Guardian (although I would say its quality of journalism is lower than what I find in The Economist every week); it's a fine source.

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2018, 06:14:28 pm »
It really depends on what you call "media." TYT and Breitbart are both technically "news," but I don't consider them under the umbrella of journalism. Same goes for CNN and FOX. The news outlets I use are 538, The Economist, The Week, NPR, PBS, BBC, National Review, and The Hill. Some of these are slightly biased, but I respect them all.

Well, then yeah.  I thought u referring to the CNN, FOX, and MSNBC of the world. 

I use Reuters, BBC, Economist, Forbes, WSJ mostly.

Dylan, do you actually subscribe to Economist and WSJ? I can't say much for the latter because practically all of it appears to be under a paywall (though I do remember once seeing a hilarious pro-Jeb Bush editorial there, about a month before he pulled out.) The Economist is similar, but the content they do allow for free actually seems to require you take pretty much all of it on faith, to a much greater extent than any other "normal" media I've seen.

Here's a recent example: it's a long, detailed, disturbing expose on China's police control of the Uighurs in Xinjang...that doesn't bother to reference anything in it; either you believe every single claim they make there is accurate, or you don't. No links to the documents they claim prove PRC paid for the construction of 73 camps (there's 1 Google Earth photo of one place), nor to the internal report supposedly describing the untrustworthiness criteria that'll send one to said camp. There are not even any photos of some of the most striking things they claimed to witness, like the windowless "convenience police stations" on every block, chained butcher's knives or the poles carrying cameras on every road. (There was however a meaningless photo of two police on a scooter, so it's not like they were explicitly forbidden from photographing the police.)

This really is one of the main reasons why The Guardian remains my primary Western news source; they generally seem far better at referencing the things they report on, and supporting them with additional context and evidence, than not just my (admittedly very limited) impression of The Economist, but also the vaunted NYT and Washington Post. I really don't get the enormous importance you in America ascribe to them: maybe their national-level investigations behind paywalls are somehow worth it, but their reporting on foreign countries is obviously slanted. NYT in particular is so clearly in love with its idea of being a champion of "western liberal democracy", that pretty much any reporting they do on any other country will obviously be written with the conclusion already in mind.

In my experience, The Guardian is weirdly more even-handed not just on the left-wing states in South America or the somewhat-ideologically-aligned nations like us or Iran, but even on places like Hungary, where a left-wing paper would have no reason to be less biased then the "centrist" NYT. Washington Post seems a little more restrained there, though it's compensated by the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" domestic hysteria. Even so, I remember how the same event (a supposedly collapsing Mosul Dam) was reported first by WaPo, and then by The Guardian. The latter got to it several months later, but that was ultimately justified, since a) it didn't collapse, even though WaPo claimed it could do so imminently; b) their reporting had far more context WaPo sacrificed for speed. Granted, Guardian's opinion section is often comparatively poor, with a wide swathe being Slate-level, but that's only a fraction of their 600/day output, and there are still many notable (i.e. the creator of Black Mirror) and/or reasonable contributors there (i.e. when Trump's son released emails, one of the contributors immediately ignored the hysteria and correctly surmised it wouldn't impeach anyone.)

Any way, the only time I've seen something remotely similar to that Economist's article was some two years ago in the British Spectator, which had a long column wailing about the plight of Nigerian Christians that again did not try to reference anything in it: moreover, at one point the author slipped by saying Christians in the other part of the country do not care, which to me, at least, suggests that they know what's happening in their own country better than some visiting right-wing columnist. Speaking of which, said Spectator also has an Australian wing, which is ridiculously unhinged: I think I once linked to here a suggestion by one of their contributors that no-one besides a necessary number of scientists needs to know science because it takes away from the wonders of the world, etc. (Notably, this was in a response to a secular Iranian immigrant saying she now only believes in the things she can prove with a formula.)

The Spectator and The National Review also seem to have some considerable crossover: it also seems that much of Diego's views on Britain are thus shaped by those Spectator/NR contributors. As such, you can still find some really funny May fanboyism there: seehere, here or here (the supposed "cunning plan" that got junked nearly a year ago.) Moreover, even I, not being a particular friend of the EU or the like, still have a problem calling this "slightly biased": https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/ Dylan may like the intent of the piece, but it's really sloppily written, especially when it comes to this:

Even nuclear proliferation no longer quite follows the post-war boilerplate of the anxious West clamoring for non-proliferation, rogue regimes getting nukes with a wink and nod of either the Chinese or Russians, and then the world assuming “once a nuclear nation, always a nuclear nation.”

Instead, if there is a next round of proliferation, it will likely be among democratic nations — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — to counter the failure of Western nations, the U.N., and international associations to stop proliferation by the unhinged. They will seek deterrence against regimes that were nuclearized and supported by Russia and China in the past.


While the suggestion that Saudi Arabia is a democratic nation stands out as pure comedy gold, this entire excerpt is actually nonsense, starting from the fact that unquestionably democratic and unquestionable US allies (Britain, France and Israel) account for nearly half of all nuclear nations. Take out India (always democratic, but often more aligned with us), and you are left with DPRK and Pakistan (questionably democratic, though a lot more so than either KSA or Egypt; a US ally when it got the nukes with the help of Saudi Arabia and China.)

As for others, I think I visited The Hill a couple of times, but it's mainly a flood of raw press releases/commentaries by your politicians that may be centrist, but obviously holds little relevance for me. (Politico technically has a similarly narrow focus, but its long-form interviews still keep me visiting from time to time, even if the EU section is pretty trash.) BBC is purposely milquetoast on their domestic politics, and the global reporting feels so-so; I've seen Chinese on Quora in particular complain about their misrepresentations, and I can see their point. However, its long-form science/technology content was amazing when I got lost in it for hours two years ago: I should probably set time to do so again. Reuters is fine, but a little too dry without the whole interview/analytical layer; the important primary reporting on there, will generally be picked up by others anyway.

PBS, NPR and The Week are not really places I visited much, if at all. I probably should check them out, as in the last year, I mainly addressed the biased perspective I get on Western politics from Guardian and Vox (before 2017, by which point they have thoroughly discredited themselves for anything but the TV series recaps and more speculative green energy/tech content, including some crank liberal-libertarian scientist proposals.) by delving straight into the other side, like New York Post and Washington Times. I even tried to seriously read Breitbart for a couple of days in the wake of Bannon's implosion, which just left me bewildered (btw, it has been in constant decline ever since then: it seems like most of its readership went either to Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, which spiked at the same time, or to the ridiculously shallow Gateway/"True" pundit crap. ) While NYP surprised me at times with some local news and mainstream feminist content, the only explicitly right-wing outlet I like was The American Conservative, though that's probably because I've only seen their anti-interventionist columns where I already agree with them.

I do not.  My brother does.  And I sign in under his Login info.  Same with ESPN.  I'm too fucking cheap to do so.  Generally, I'll see a subject I am interested in on my google news or yahoo news - it will often be a crappy MSM article.  I will then google it with the subject words then "Wall Street Journal" or "Economist" or one of the other more neutral NEWS sites.  The only time I reference once of the fake news sites is when literally nobody else has written about it and they are (for once) just reporting what happened.  That is a rare occurrence though.

Kale Pasta

  • God-King
  • David Lynch
  • **********
  • Posts: 4697
  • And the path was a circle, round and round
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2018, 11:43:11 pm »
I do not.  My brother does.  And I sign in under his Login info.  Same with ESPN.  I'm too fucking cheap to do so.  Generally, I'll see a subject I am interested in on my google news or yahoo news - it will often be a crappy MSM article.  I will then google it with the subject words then "Wall Street Journal" or "Economist" or one of the other more neutral NEWS sites.  The only time I reference once of the fake news sites is when literally nobody else has written about it and they are (for once) just reporting what happened.  That is a rare occurrence though.
Just out of curiosity, do find the WSJ more neutral than the Times or Washington Post?

ChillinDylan Godsend

  • God-King
  • Wes Anderson
  • **********
  • Posts: 7478
Re: LOL Kanye
« Reply #19 on: June 03, 2018, 01:03:33 am »
I do not.  My brother does.  And I sign in under his Login info.  Same with ESPN.  I'm too fucking cheap to do so.  Generally, I'll see a subject I am interested in on my google news or yahoo news - it will often be a crappy MSM article.  I will then google it with the subject words then "Wall Street Journal" or "Economist" or one of the other more neutral NEWS sites.  The only time I reference once of the fake news sites is when literally nobody else has written about it and they are (for once) just reporting what happened.  That is a rare occurrence though.
Just out of curiosity, do find the WSJ more neutral than the Times or Washington Post?

Yes - way, way more neutral (I'm assuming you mean New York Times).  NY Times and WaPost are 2 of the primary culprits of partisan "reporting" amongst the "bigger" sites imo.  I mean, WaPost literally changed their slogan to "Democracy Dies In Darkness" after Trump took office.

 

+- Hot Threads

The Official Movie Trailer/TV Spot Watching Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 20, 2018, 07:02:52 pm

THE OFFICIAL MOVIE WATCHING THREAD by Kale Pasta
August 19, 2018, 12:27:17 pm

2 Fudge 2 Knuckle by Tut
August 17, 2018, 09:06:12 pm

MWO Movie News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company by Kale Pasta
August 17, 2018, 04:51:12 pm

Favorite Kurosawa Films by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 15, 2018, 11:14:23 pm

THE SCHOOL THREAD! by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 15, 2018, 11:11:42 pm

Funny Memes/Gifs... by Hazelrabbit2006
August 12, 2018, 09:48:12 am

Peter Rabbit (2018) by Hazelrabbit2006
August 09, 2018, 06:38:30 am

The Official "Going to see..." Movie Thread by Hazelrabbit2006
August 09, 2018, 06:37:15 am

Recent purchases (part II) by Tut
August 06, 2018, 02:27:46 pm

Will be visiting my brother in Moscow by Charles Longboat Jr.
August 02, 2018, 02:46:07 pm

Upcoming 2018 Releases You're Looking Forward To by Crohn's Boy
August 01, 2018, 12:24:08 am

The Official Album Listening Thread by Charles Longboat Jr.
July 31, 2018, 05:14:14 pm

The 2018 US Midterms and Goober-natorial Elections Thread by Tut
July 30, 2018, 05:59:00 pm

What song are you listening to - Part II by Robert Neville
July 30, 2018, 05:07:24 pm