|
icantfindaname posted:you know what we do to liberals around here Have them be the majority of posters in this forum, most likely? 
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
leftism's not liberalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:44
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Yeah but no one cares what you think because you are against them regardless and just looking for any reason to discredit their side of the issue. Mhm. I hope you feel the same way about The New York Times, The Atlantic, etc etc because now they're definitely looking at it the same way. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the students were afraid of some outlets giving bad coverage. Now they all are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:45
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
icantfindaname posted:leftism's not liberalism If you say so, Comrade.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:tell them they're a cracker that wants in on the sweet, sweet oppression cred Can't really do that, and let me explain with an anecdote. A few days ago someone tweeted at me calling me a race hustler which gave me the perfect opportunity to respond with the classic "But I'm white?" Social media is weird.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Mhm. I hope you feel the same way about The New York Times, The Atlantic, etc etc because now they're definitely looking at it the same way. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy, the students were afraid of some outlets giving bad coverage. Now they all are. Wow such difference in coverage from normal
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
We live in a country where whole movies are made about the power fantasy of a famous movie star beating up a journalist who was filming them in public without permission. But some college kids block a journalist's view of some private citizens and this is a serious free speech issue. We treat paparazzi like the scum of the earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Petr posted:I'm still not sure if the kkk thing is bullshit - the only source I've seen so far is Twitter. I hope it is. I'm going with wildly exaggerated, because reading Twitter makes it sound like the race war went hot. Lots of dumb kids saying racist and inflammatory things because they're oh so edgy, yes, actual domestic terrorists making threats that really probably aren't credible, possibly, hooded KKK members actively marching through campus throwing poo poo at people and whatever else, you'd think there'd be at least a photo by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:We live in a country where whole movies are made about the power fantasy of a famous movie star beating up a journalist who was filming them in public without permission. But some college kids block a journalist's view of some private citizens and this is a serious free speech issue. We treat paparazzi like the scum of the earth. That's generally because "paparazzi," as the stereotypical celebrity tracker/photographers are known, are notoriously intrusive and intentionally try to get a rise out of people. It's one thing to be blasting flashbulbs when someone's at an event but entirely another when they're going between their car and a restaurant door. They're mouthy voyeurs, not journalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:We live in a country where whole movies are made about the power fantasy of a famous movie star beating up a journalist who was filming them in public without permission. But some college kids block a journalist's view of some private citizens and this is a serious free speech issue. We treat paparazzi like the scum of the earth. Which one is that? I think I know the one you are talking about but I'm blanking on the title. Had the movie star killing several photographers through arranged accidents after his kid got hurt by their chasing for photos right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Bluedeanie posted:As far as I understand, national media hasn't actually set foot in Columbia for any of this, as they're waiting for local papers and stations to put their stuff on the wire or relying on student freelancers. Between literal and repeated threats of violence on/toward campus and a group of protesters' well-intentioned but ill-advised barricading of a public space in an attempt to keep media out, I'm not sure I'd really count on them getting a scoop on any of this. I'm sure MU's lawyers are gonna be thrilled if/when they see this email.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I'm going with wildly exaggerated, because reading Twitter makes it sound like the race war went hot. Most of it is self reported, but the KKK does have a decent sized presence in mid-Missouri, I remember them having a rally in Columbia in 2007 or so. So it really doesn't sound too unbelievable that they'd be there. Fried Chicken posted:Which one is that? I think I know the one you are talking about but I'm blanking on the title. Had the movie star killing several photographers through arranged accidents after his kid got hurt by their chasing for photos right? I think it was actually called Paparazzi? Tom Sizemore was in it and it wasn't very good. The paparazzi are indefensible though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
so I know a guy at Mizzou and it sounds like it's getting real harrowing up there.  ideally I think the campus security force would be setting up some sort of relay service where the officers walk large groups of students from the dorm sections of campus to the classroom sections of campus, but I suppose that would require 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
I hope it's just a couple channer fuckheads on yik-yak who will be arrested presently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
I wonder how one would find a peaceful resolution to the threats at Mizzou. Sure, you might be thinking "gently caress those inbred racists, meet force with force and form patrol crews to intimidate those loving cockroaches and turn those white hoods red" but you'll get a half dozen people saying you shouldn't entertain that notion because they're just scared poor rurals who take their marching orders from the Koch brothers or something. So, absent the "reconstruction" option, what would a peaceful outcome be and how would it be reached? Tell black students to shelter in place until those racist filth sober up and scurry back into their holes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Petr posted:I hope it's just a couple channer fuckheads on yik-yak who will be arrested presently. Wow, an actual optimist in 2015!  Has anyone sent a copy of these headlines to John Roberts, btw? He might discover something interesting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Reading the last ten pages I just want to say I'm glad the D&D sleuths praxed out the real reason Professor Christakis defended the right of students to wear offensive costumes: He's actually a secret racist who loves blackface! All and all this has been a great week for social justice. Wait, what
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
RPZip posted:Wait, what Typical Pubbie is upset that his "welfare king" costume wasn't a hit at the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Halloween party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
now seeing blogs questioning whether the poop swastika was real poop-holocaust denial
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:Someone in my Facebook wall just told me "the term you're looking for is systemic oppression, not racism" and lectured me about being ignorant as if systemic racism was not a form of systemic oppression. I didn't know what to say. Were you playing definitional games, saying things like "racism = prejudice + power" or "people of colour can be racially prejudiced but not racist" or anything else that disingenuously conflates "racism" in the ordinary sense with "institutionally entrenched racism"? Actual question, not accusing you of anything. Petr posted:The reporting on the Mizzou situation is so terrible. Every outlet makes it sound like this is all about the feces swastika, which obviously has nothing to do with the president. Is there a really good writeup somewhere about what the specific problems were leading up to this that I can link people? Try MU's student newspaper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:That's generally because "paparazzi," as the stereotypical celebrity tracker/photographers are known, are notoriously intrusive and intentionally try to get a rise out of people. It's one thing to be blasting flashbulbs when someone's at an event but entirely another when they're going between their car and a restaurant door. They're mouthy voyeurs, not journalists. Yeah except the area we're talking about was those students' currently living area. So showing up and snapping pictures and asking questions they don't want to answer is still really invasive and obnoxious. And it's no more or less public than the sidewalk outside a restaurant. Fried Chicken posted:Which one is that? I think I know the one you are talking about but I'm blanking on the title. Had the movie star killing several photographers through arranged accidents after his kid got hurt by their chasing for photos right? Yeah that's the one. There's also a thread of those sorts of plots on tv shows every time a movie star punches a paparazzi in the face. The plots always a have a "good for you!" vibe. So, to review- Paparazzi: Show up unwanted in the public area outside a public person's house and shout unwanted questions at them. Okay to punch in the face. Real Serious Journalists: Show up unwanted in the public area inside a private person's current living area and shout unwanted questions at them. Not okay to block their view of the people they're bothering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
Real Serious Journalists are no better than paparazzi in most cases and trying to argue otherwise is lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Yeah my point is that this was pretty obviously a paprazzi type situation and where normally we say "what scum", everyone's jumping on the protesters. The only justification seems to be that if you're protesting against an injustice your life oughta be an open book 24/7, and that's a load of horse poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
quote:Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $3.6 trillion over the next decade. However, the plan would improve incentives to work and invest, which would increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 13.9 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 12.2 percent higher wages and 4.8 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would reduce tax revenues by $768 billion. http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-senator-ted-cruz-s-tax-plan Somebody help me out here, make sure I'm reading this correctly. Is the Tax Foundation saying 4.8 million jobs would be created over a decade? Cause that's some horrendously loving lovely job growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:anyone who thinks the protesters should do anything other than storm the university's head office, raise the red flag from the roof, and declare Full Communism should have their D&D card revoked. complaining about the hurt feelings of CNN reporters should get you a term in a labor camp on top of that This but unironically
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Well the press isn't being cordoned off anymore and yet I'm having to trawl twitter for news of this stuff. Maybe they're right to not waste their time with them
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Yeah my point is that this was pretty obviously a paprazzi type situation and where normally we say "what scum", everyone's jumping on the protesters. The only justification seems to be that if you're protesting against an injustice your life oughta be an open book 24/7, and that's a load of horse poo poo. Do you actually condone assaulting paparazzi, though? Clearly the photographer could sue if he wanted to, but I imagine he won't. What I find more alarming than the quite frankly rather awkward, amusing, and ultimately farcical way the protestors obstructed and shuffled him off is the fairly plain fact that they believed at the time that they believed they had license to do so. "You don't have a right to photograph us" One of them said, insipidly. That's worrying, the degree of legal ignorance that leads people think they really do have a right not to be photographed. And the absurd "Did you just touch her!?" bullshit when someone brushes his camera, or when he doesn't budge when pushed. That's really super-duper dumb, to be throwing obviously false accusations to someone that they're doing precisely the thing you're doing to them. Standing in front of a camera isn't a problem if you don't want pictures to be taken of a thing. But everything else about it was so boneheaded on the part of the protestors it really beggars beliefs. Nonsense like this says far more about the dangers of just how quickly rational thought is sacrificed for the sake of myopic concerns in motivated groups. It speaks far more about the intelligence of the protestors than the coherence of their morality. Everyone from the centre-left on rightward is clutching their pearls about how supposedly backwards and regressive the young intellectual left's moral framework is, but I'm far more concerned by the stupidity on display at MU and at Yale than the students' value systems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:16
|
|
|
The Atlantic being the best: Yale http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/the-new-intolerance-of-student-activism-at-yale/414810/ Mizzou http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/how-campus-activists-are-weaponizing-the-safe-space/415080/ quote:First Amendment protections for photographers are vital. And I agree with my colleague, James Fallows, that Tai demonstrated impressive intellectual and emotional poise. But video of his encounter with protestors is noteworthy for another reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Do you actually condone assaulting paparazzi, though? lol are you implying that the journalists here have been assaulted? No, I don't believe in assaulting paprazzi, so it's great that nobody was assaulted. I do agree with treating paprazzi like the scum of the earth, though, so why's everyone coming out against the protesters unless they believe they don't deserve the same consideration as movie stars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:lol are you implying that the journalists here have been assaulted? It seems you have answered your own question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:lol are you implying that the journalists here have been assaulted? Would you agree there is something different about being photographed for being a part of a huge movement, protesting on public property/living there vs. being followed and photographed constantly from the moment you leave your house to go to lunch, run errands, do anything every day for years?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:Would you agree there is something different about being photographed for being a part of a huge movement, protesting on public property/living there vs. being followed and photographed constantly from the moment you leave your house to go to lunch, run errands, do anything every day for years? You'll have to define where you think the line is- are you worthy of contempt after you've taken a certain number of pictures of someone, or only if you're taking pictures of someone who makes movies instead of protests?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Like if I take a bunch of pictures of a homeless person near the dumpster where they sleep is that ok?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:You'll have to define where you think the line is- are you worthy of contempt after you've taken a certain number of pictures of someone, or only if you're taking pictures of someone who makes movies instead of protests? Personally, I think a large part of the disdain for reporters taking photos of celebrities is both that it happens all the time, all day, wherever they go, and that they are taking photos to amplify peoples' personal lives, often accompanied by misrepresentations of what they are doing, to make money from tabloids. I believe there is a difference between that and the situation of taking photos of protesters at Mizzou. That situation is more of a widely publicized, politically related event that is happening on public property in one place with many people attending that has, at most, been happening for a few weeks. e; However, it is understandable as well that what they are doing will be misrepresented because of MSM's take on protesting in general, especially concerning black people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
Blowdryer posted:The Atlantic being the best: Those articles, especially the Mizzou one, articulate the problem really well. When activists show this kind of disgraceful behavior, it alienates people sympathetic to their cause, and opens them up wide for attack by their enemies. When I say "people sympathetic to their cause," I don't mean "if only they were nicer they could get the racists on their side!" I'm talking about people like myself. This exact sort of poo poo, realizing that many student activists don't actually seem to be concerned with the ethics of their own behavior (the spitting! holy poo poo) and are also incredibly foolish about it ("I need some muscle over here," great job saying that on camera) is why I got burnt out and quit almost all the groups I was in at school. The only one that actually did anything useful and practical was the Planned Parenthood action group. When you're fighting for a cause, you are inevitably going to experience a lot of bullshit. Like, for example, the media grossly misrepresenting you. You have to learn to deal with it and ideally find a way to use it for your own ends, not throw a hilarious tantrum for everyone to see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
I saw on facebook that Ronda Rousey has endorsed Bernie Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Like if I take a bunch of pictures of a homeless person near the dumpster where they sleep is that ok? Yes, obviously. 30.5 Days posted:lol are you implying that the journalists here have been assaulted? Yes, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I saw on facebook that Ronda Rousey has endorsed Bernie Sanders. Well, if it's on Huffington Post it must be true! This is going to confuse so many men who objectify women and vote straight-ticket R.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I saw on facebook that Ronda Rousey has endorsed Bernie Sanders. I'd follow Ronda Rousey into hell itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
30.5 Days posted:lol are you implying that the journalists here have been assaulted? Yes, he was "assaulted"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 14:04
|
|
