|
I imagine in the earlier segment they all vehemently agreed that internment was a reasonable and measured idea to the problem until someone told them they had to think the opposite.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Moktaro posted:Must be nice to live in a Black & White world. Peter Molyneux is the game designer. No relation, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Probably late to the party on this one, but discovered a really bad site today: quote:Andrew Klaven's latest novel is Werewolf Cop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
The blatant mischaracterization and removal of context describing the London Mayor's comment regarding "no need to be alarmed" really pissed me off today and is a perfect example of the things that RWM does every day to seize the narrative. Are they dog piling on Bill Maher today? Oddly, I hear little mention of it except on Howard Stern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The blatant mischaracterization and removal of context describing the London Mayor's comment regarding "no need to be alarmed" really pissed me off today and is a perfect example of the things that RWM does every day to seize the narrative. Leaving Maher swinging is good for RWM. A lot of liberals don't like him, and haven't for a long time. But so long as he has a prominent voice he'll continue to cook off problems and division among the left. When/If he's ever fully spurned by the left then it'll be a week of "libs claim they're so tolerant but look at how they turned on Maher over one little thing," while ignoring the vast history of priors. Then, out the other side of their mouth they'll admonish the left for not having cut ties with Maher earlier. In all seriousness, nothing coming out of the right at this point is surprising. They've been given carte blanche to grossly mischaracterize or tell flat out lies. No one will call them out in positions of relevance to their audience. They have their own network of callers and correspondents and officials that they can run on at any given time to agree with whatever the narrative they're fabricating is at the given moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Leaving Maher swinging is good for RWM. A lot of liberals don't like him, and haven't for a long time. But so long as he has a prominent voice he'll continue to cook off problems and division among the left. When/If he's ever fully spurned by the left then it'll be a week of "libs claim they're so tolerant but look at how they turned on Maher over one little thing," while ignoring the vast history of priors. I think we may be getting there sooner than I would've guessed, I was pretty surprised to see Franken bailing on him... quote:“Senator Franken believes that what Bill Maher said was inappropriate and offensive, which is why he made the decision not to appear on the next episode of ‘Real Time,’” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. “He was glad to see Bill, who the Senator considers to be a good friend, apologize and express sincere regret for his comment.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Breitbart did a thing about Canada this weekend that was wrong. http://ipolitics.ca/2017/06/05/city-police-call-b-s-on-breitbart-report-of-massive-pro-trump-hill-rally/ quote:Ottawa police are debunking a right-wing American news outlet’s claim that thousands of pro-Trump supporters descended on Parliament Hill Saturday. So, natch, this has gotten right-wingers in Canada all riled up because local Ottawa media also went with the Breitbart debunk and none of them covered the " However, they also had this poo poo which is even more wrong and was not called out by Canadian media, to my knowledge. Breitbart, so you don't have to go to the page posted:Other marchers were protesting the impending passage of M-103, a new law that would make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in Canada. This is pure horseshit. 1) M-103 was passed in March. Its passage is not "impending." 2) M-103 is a Parliamentary Motion and not a law. 3) M-103 makes no reference whatsoever to criminalizing criticism of Islam because it is not a law, or even a bill that might become a law later. 4) the motion does contain the quoted line, but again government condemnation in a Parliamentary Motion is basically the House of Commons standing up and saying "we think this is bad" and sitting back down again and going on with their business. The government also passed a condemnation of anti-Semitism a few years ago and nobody ruffled their feathers. 5) IT WILL NOT LEVY CRIMINAL SENTENCES ON THOSE WHO CRITICIZE ISLAM BECAUSE IT IS NOT A BILL AND IT IS NOT A LAW AND A LAW LIKE THAT WOULDN'T MAKE IT PAST THE SUPREME COURT. It would get Charter challenged immediately and would be struck down. Here's the full text of M-103 quote:That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is a sore point for me because we deal with this poo poo in Canada all the time with idiot Facebook groups and our own right-wing media people calling it a "bill" and a "law" and claiming you'll go to jail for saying Muslims are evil. It was first presented in the House last December, but then some idiot went and shot up a mosque in Quebec City and this motion became incredibly relevant even though the petition that led to it was written and signed and presented before the mosque shooting happened. It became a huge, national issue about freedom of speech and all that jazz, even though people explained until they were blue in the face that it had no legal binding whatsoever. Some people have presented concerns about the collection of data to contextualize hate crime reports and the recommendations that come from that, in that it could, possibly, lead to government overreach in an attempt to react to the data, but that part of this hasn't happened yet and won't until November, probably. But still, gently caress Breitbart for their lovely bullshit and straight up loving lies about this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Are they dog piling on Bill Maher today? Oddly, I hear little mention of it except on Howard Stern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
Nah, aside from Franken canceling on him and his scolding from HBO there hasn't been much noise about it. The Franken thing makes me think he's pretty close to the tipping point though, so can't afford any more near-term screwups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Nah, aside from Franken canceling on him and his scolding from HBO there hasn't been much noise about it. The Franken thing makes me think he's pretty close to the tipping point though, so can't afford any more near-term screwups. It's also not the kind of thing that will inspire lasting anger. he told an ill-conceived joke that used "House N" as a self-deprecating punch line. He was not going after black people. It was stupid, insensitive, and offensive, but its not the same as all of the people out there right now straight up using that word to hurt black people so there will not be lasting issues from it unless it becomes a pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Breitbart did a thing about Canada this weekend that was wrong. Remind me what a parliamentary motion is; it's basically just a statement of the gov's position and intent, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Are they dog piling on Bill Maher today? Oddly, I hear little mention of it except on Howard Stern. He's a white male who likes to use racial slurs and is afraid of Muslims. Not sure what the fox news crowd is supposed to be outraged by.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Maher is like a caricature of the smug liberal idiot. It's good for business to have someone like that around to point at, especially if he occasionally lapses into right wing talking points, That way they can say stuff like "See. even the smug libtard gets it!" If HBO ever dropped him I could see Fox news making a play for him as one of their "House Liberals"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:Probably late to the party on this one, but discovered a really bad site today:
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Are they dog piling on Bill Maher today? Oddly, I hear little mention of it except on Howard Stern. Most of the criticism from the right was long the lines of "Oh, HE gets to say it but when I say it it's a hate crime."
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Republicans posted:Most of the criticism from the right was long the lines of "Oh, HE gets to say it but when I say it it's a hate crime." And, if he doesn't get to say it, they get talk about how the tolerant liberals eat their own over "harmless jokes".
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Remind me what a parliamentary motion is; it's basically just a statement of the gov's position and intent, right? Essentially yes. It's the House of Commons stating an opinion. There is nothing binding about a motion. There is no need for multiple readings in the House and Senate, as with a bill, and it does not become law or change the criminal code or other relevant rules in any way. http://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Guides/PrivateMembersBusiness-e.html posted:In deciding between a bill and a motion, the first difference to keep in mind is in their effect. Since in agreeing to a motion expressing a resolution, the House is only stating an opinion, the government will not be bound to adopt a specific policy or course of action. By contrast, because it becomes law when passed by Parliament, a bill may have far reaching implications for both the government and the public. Like, here's a motion on porn. http://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/Arnold-Viersen(89211)/Motions?sessionId=152&documentId=8136502 M-47 posted:That the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to examine the public health effects of the ease of access and viewing of online violent and degrading sexually explicit material on children, women and men, recognizing and respecting the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard, and that the said Committee report its findings to the House no later than July 2017. No one is arguing this will make porn illegal. This didn't make national headlines or cause anyone to protest. There is probably going to be a report submitted on studied effects of violent porn, but the government is under no obligation to do anything about it or make a law. When it comes to the controversial M-103, people are fearful that the word "Islamophobia" in it will chill speech that is critical of radical Islam and make people conflate arguing that ISIS is evil to belief that all Muslims are evil (because nobody already believes that, right?) Despite the fact that the text of the motion condemns "all forms of religious discrimination" the fact that it singles out criticism of Islam makes people nervous. The Conservative party tried to introduce their own motion that condemned religious discrimination that did not use the word "Islamophobia" but it was voted down. But, again, in no way is criticism of Islam illegal in Canada, nor are criminal penalties for it "impending." There are no criminal penalties against someone for saying Islam is bad or Muslims are bad. There was at least one sign at that protest, based on videos I've seen of it online, where someone drew Mohammed on a sign, and they didn't go to jail. Breitbart is straight up wrong about what M-103 is and does. HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
 "Londonistan", subtle. I can't believe this isn't satire, but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:
Londonistan? More like Londinium! I've heard these assholes call it Londonistan because of its mayor before, but this may be the first time it got top billing. I wouldn't be willing to wager money on that, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Prism posted:Londonistan? More like Londinium! The hashtag #LondonHasFallen was going around after Khan was elected. I think they keep having to update the death date to the current year in their memes, though, because, for some reason, the city still exists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Prism posted:Londonistan? More like Londinium! Yeah, I remember Londonistan being used by (one of) my racist uncle(s) before my dad and I went there over 5 years ago, so it's at least that old.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:Maher is like a caricature of the smug liberal idiot. It's good for business to have someone like that around to point at, especially if he occasionally lapses into right wing talking points, That way they can say stuff like "See. even the smug libtard gets it!" If HBO ever dropped him I could see Fox news making a play for him as one of their "House Liberals" Bill Maher touts the liberal snowflake idea, as well as "don't treat Trans people like humans otherwise it'll cost the election." He definitely panders to the bigoted rhetoric of white America. Of course, there's the Islamophobia argument he had with Ben Affleck too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
mojo1701a posted:Yeah, I remember Londonistan being used by (one of) my racist uncle(s) before my dad and I went there over 5 years ago, so it's at least that old. Local racists tried to do it with Calgary too after Nenshi got elected in 2010, but Calgaristan doesn't flow quite so well, I guess; I haven't heard it in a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
i dont know why anyone calls bill maher a liberal, he's much closer to a middle aged pushing retirement white moderate who hasn't updated his self perception since the 70's and still sees himself as the bleeding heart progressive of his youth instead of a sore backed greyhair who complains about taxes and kids these days
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
he's a liberal, he's just a cranky douchebag liberal, conservatives having no absolute monopoly on such persons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
he's a third way centrist with some libertarian ideas thrown in see also: andrew sullivan, marty peretz, a whole host of middle aged white men associated with the Dem party in the 1990s
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Prism posted:Local racists tried to do it with Calgary too after Nenshi got elected in 2010, but Calgaristan doesn't flow quite so well, I guess; I haven't heard it in a long time. And I've heard Brampton locally referred to Bramladesh for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:he's a liberal, he's just a cranky douchebag liberal, conservatives having no absolute monopoly on such persons. i dont watch the guy but what does he say that's liberal because all i know about him is that he's super freaked out by islam, hates religion in general, and doesn't trust vaccines
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
he's on PETA's board, he endorsed bernie, obama, and kerry. he ripped on Dubya pretty harshly. There's plenty of douchebag atheists who lean towards islamophobia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Sean Hannity wants everyone to know he's very concerned about NSA and IC overreach when it comes to spying on American citizens and abuse of power; especially in the executive branch. I guess he's come around since those halcyon days of 2003 or so when it was our patriotic duty to agree to be spied upon by our government and everyone who opposed it had something to hide and was a terrorist sympathizer. He also wants to connect some dots and get to the bottom of these leaks (presumably by "investigating them) but at the same we should all just drop this Russia poo poo since there's not any hard evidence. "These leaks are the real story here and we should investigate them. Coming up tonight on Hannity, Julian Assange, ladies and gentlemen." Sean Hannity is the loving worst.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont watch the guy but what does he say that's liberal because all i know about him is that he's super freaked out by islam, hates religion in general, and doesn't trust vaccines Like other internet libertarians, he doesn't like fundamentalist christians or ISPs that block his torrenting
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Sean Hannity wants everyone to know he's very concerned about NSA and IC overreach when it comes to spying on American citizens and abuse of power; especially in the executive branch. I guess he's come around since those halcyon days of 2003 or so when it was our patriotic duty to agree to be spied upon by our government and everyone who opposed it had something to hide and was a terrorist sympathizer. I still enjoy his interview with Assange, right after the DNC email leaks, where he talked about how Assange was a hero and was doing so much good exposing corruption in our government, after saying a few years before that Assange was an evil traitor who directly caused the deaths of Americans and he should be eternally imprisoned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Like other internet libertarians, he doesn't like fundamentalist christians or ISPs that block his torrenting Bill actually spent a lot of his shows last year bitching about people stealing music online. It came out of nowhere and I don't know why it took until 2016 for him to start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:Bill actually spent a lot of his shows last year bitching about people stealing music online. It came out of nowhere and I don't know why it took until 2016 for him to start. Spotify has been available in the US since 2011, and it was by no means the first subscription-based music streaming service. Isn't this basically the equivalent of Bill Maher spending half of his 2017 shows complaining about how ugly Google Glass is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Prism posted:Londonistan? More like Londinium! Londonistan was a thing amongst fuckwits over 10 years ago. On a unrelated matter. How's the retalitory attack on Rachel Maddows sponsers that Hannity and his supporters were trying to make a thing going? I assume it's *sad trombone* on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Pikavangelist posted:Spotify has been available in the US since 2011, and it was by no means the first subscription-based music streaming service. Isn't this basically the equivalent of Bill Maher spending half of his 2017 shows complaining about how ugly Google Glass is? Er, I think you don't really understand what's going on if you think music piracy vanished with Spotify etc coming about. Whole bunch of people don't want to hear ads and don't want to pay money to remove ads, the two usual things streaming services do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I still enjoy his interview with Assange, right after the DNC email leaks, where he talked about how Assange was a hero and was doing so much good exposing corruption in our government, after saying a few years before that Assange was an evil traitor who directly caused the deaths of Americans and he should be eternally imprisoned. It's as if he was a hypocrite or something but I know that's not right. He's a Great American.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Deptfordx posted:Londonistan was a thing amongst fuckwits over 10 years ago. I mean it was comically doomed to failure from the get go but Hannity somehow managed to time it perfectly to be right when Maddow disappeared for 2 weeks due to unspecified health problems that created a huge wave of concern and sympathy for her. I wonder what would happen if Sean disappeared for weeks with an unclear medical problem. I'm sure people would get very sad and express their concern, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:I mean it was comically doomed to failure from the get go but Hannity somehow managed to time it perfectly to be right when Maddow disappeared for 2 weeks due to unspecified health problems that created a huge wave of concern and sympathy for her. They would think the DEEP_STATE had assassinated him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Makes sense since there were some people who seemed to seriously think Russia had killed Maddow. Of course the Hannity theory would have been featured on Tucker and The Five and expressed deeply by guest host Gavin McInnes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 00:56
|
|