|
Big McHuge posted:When arguing with people about racism, what is the correct way to fight against the "well other races are just as much if not more racist than white people!" argument, aside from pointing out that even if that was true that doesn't excuse a racist point of view in the first place. It's not perfect, but it's easy to think of it in playground terms. Saying mean things about older, popular kids might not be intrinsically better than saying mean things about little kids and outcasts, but it's sure a lot less harmful since you have a lot less chance to hurt them by it.
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:
Once I went and listened though the rants from his show in the 1990s and it was interesting hearing his slide into further partisanship.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I like how they're basically selling bags of sugar + some artificial fruit flavoring and right on the front they say that it needs even more sugar before it becomes palatable That kind of Kool-aid doesn't have sugar in it at all, that's why it's just a few grams per packet. It's just flavor and color. The Lemonade thing's probably just legal requirement since it's got two flavoring agents in it but only one is literally from a lemon. Or maybe even just from the right part of the lemon.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Probably just confirmation bias, and some people simply aren't very social, left or right wing. Or they see a lot of their friends through their normal days at work and church and the like. Or they don't flaunt it to other people. Yeah, I know no shortage of right-wing people who have been all over and have huge social circles, and left-wingers who are recluses. Left or right, the busy and social ones will always be quick to tell you that knowing more people and seeing more of the world is what convinced them of their beliefs, but psychology is funny that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I just don't buy certain folks being socialists and then using liberal as a pejorative, and in the same instance mock people mocking racists. Yeah doesn't jive. "Liberal" has always a pejorative used by those who just think we need the right kind of angry mob to fix society, and only a wuss would think that needs to be a last resort or something. Many but not all of those people are conservatives. Shbobdb posted:So what? The many people who never thought hard about the Confederate flag until recently have been shifting pretty well toward seeing it for what it is, and the racist thrashing of the neoconfederates hasn't done them any favors. Sure, I'm all for the highest publicity, lowest arguably victim things like the woman that took the SC capitol flag down, but when people are literally running into cemeteries and taking stuff, it's sure not going to look very heroic or daring to anyone already invested. It makes a "both sides are jerks, I'm gonna stop paying attention" stance all the easier in this case. It doesn't help if, after all the fanciful neoconfederate rage about "next they're gonna come for our veterans' cemeteries!" being scoffed at as an irrational slippery slope argument, it becomes a visible thing. Sure, taking transient decorations off graves is the lowest possible end of desecration, but the optics are terrible and it's the type of protest which is about optics. In a time when fighting Confederate symbolism and racist connections is popular and gaining ground, there's no reason to fight outside the system unless it's a real easy PR win. On the other hand if you want to take direct action in protest ongoing concrete harm done by racism and/or right-wing terror, great, there are targets for that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:I have a sneaking feeling that because Khal Drogo and Jaime Lannister were more sympathetic characters than Ramsay, and especially Cersei was far less sympathetic than Sansa as a victim, people's moral bells didn't go off until their attachments were strained. That's a huge part. It's not as simple as "there was a rape scene right at the beginning of the series and it didn't get any outcry", because there's much more to it. That rape scene was right onscreen, it was shot like a softcore porn, and in the finest romance novel tradition she was raped until she fell in love with her captor. Pretty drat disturbing stuff. This season, a lot of it wasn't people upset that there was rape. They were upset that there was unsexy rape. That bothers me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Yup. Not always. Sometimes when he's not a Republican icon he's a notorious Communist sympathizer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:The first part does, don't know what the gently caress he is talking about for the second. It's much simpler. Doesn't matter where you are on the spectrum: kids who parrot talking points and/or hold political signs they got from their parents are darling fonts of young wisdom if they agree with you, unknowing victims of control and propaganda if they're not. It's a lot like how whether you agree with a celebrity political quote decides whether the speaker is "a true voice of our times" or "trash for someone who thinks actors should decide policy." Media also tends to give either more play as the first regardless of affiliation, since "kid says thing" is only good press if the outlet wants to endorse it. ("Celebrity shill says bad thing!" can work by contrast, but only if it's a specific celebrity the viewers are predisposed to boo properly.) Don't get me wrong, teaching your kid "love your gay neighbors" is great while teaching "get the illegals out!" is morally repugnant, but if you're having them hold up a rally sign you can't read or coaching them to give quotes they barely follow, you're kinda gross even if your cause is good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Modern wine is about as strong as it can be, since it ferments until either the sugar about runs out, or the yeast starts to die from alcohol poisoning. Historical wine would be either that strong, minus hundreds/thousands of years of breeding sweeter grapes and alcohol-tolerant yeast. If you go back to ancient Egypt beer was a significant source of nutrition, but it was sorta thick soupy beer and maybe in the 3% alcohol range. In the more medieval era, beer about as strong as we have today was available, though "small beer" with less alcohol was what children or workers drank. Which yes, meant lots of people were pretty drunk still, but if people were watering their drinks down historically it wasn't because they were freakishly strong by modern standards, but for the same reason people today don't drink nothing but beer and wine. People might be thinking of the US of the late 18th and early 19th century, where everyone on the coasts was drunk on imported rum, and inland farmers made a lot of their crops into whiskey and cider since it was easier to store and take to market. Drunkenness was a historic high there, which is a whole lot of why the temperance movement a few generations later was so strong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:There is also a pretty strong class element to it. Things like vegetarianism and driving a hybrid car in America require a level of economic comfort to where you have time/money to worry about those things that a lot of people consider frivolous. I saw an article a while back that pointed out how hybrids sold best when they were clearly and visibly hybrid-only models, rather than hybrid variants of models that also were available with conventional engines. Mostly nothing to do with performance, but a big part was conspicuous consumption: people that buy hybrids often want specifically to be seen driving a hybrid. Which I guess is fine: early adopters after status symbols bankroll a lot of technological advancements. But it always gets eyerolls from people who can't afford status symbols or don't want that particular one.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:also nixon was running a shadow government and the story ends with nixon shooting himself in the head Yeah. For years I kept hearing about how "Once Captain America quit because of how he felt Watergate disgraced his country" as an example of how comics give relevant commentary on topical events and never thought to question it because why would several independent comics geeks be wrong about comics? It was pretty weird later learning on that the Marvel version of Watergate was about how someone implied to be Nixon turned out to secretly be the leader of a long-standing terrorist organization founded by Hydra, and was in the process of staging a coup by threatening to nuke a bunch of American cities. Then shot himself in the head and became subject of a huge government coverup. And that was what made him give up his identity as Captain America (for four issues) out of shame. I guess the missing 18 minutes were more eventful than I figured.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:
It's exactly that. In my state "assault weapon" includes among other things pistols over a certain weight, regardless of their other properties.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:My takeaway was that the show was about a man who should have died and every day he lives the lives of the people around him get worse. You know, like the title. I think the problem there is that it's pretty clear the initial idea was one side being "can we really trust masked vigilantes to do the right thing when they take the law into their own hands" and the other being "yeah but the government has a lot of shady history when it comes to people with powers". But honestly asking the first question undercuts the genre of superhero comics pretty deeply, and the setting wouldn't be allowed to return to the status quo as always expected if so. In the end writers had to make it pure black and white where the first side was going full-bore fascist and the second had to retroactively insist that like after literally leveling cities on blind rampages the Hulk had never let a single person die. I guess what it comes down to is that the big superhero worlds all function as right-wing/libertarian fantasies about big strong men selflessly guarding the status quo from the villains who want to tear it down while the gummint (outside of those who have secretly allied with the villains) either backs them up, gets out of their way, or is left shaking its fist at those "menaces" who saved the day. And at the same time, are very often written by people further left than that makes it sound and who found that tying in some plots on social issues gets them "real literature" cred with certain critics. So comic books are always really awkward when you examine them for politics. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:the problem is you cant use the original plot for civil war can't be used (legal stuff, mutants not existing in MCU, keeping canon with other movies) while i like the original, its pretty black and white. this one at least has some grey in it which will make nerds debate who is right or not. I'm not saying the movie should use the comic book plot, I'm just saying that the genre of superheroes demanded that the comic book plot never have any reasonable moral dilemma outside the most skin-deep, in the moment character stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Tell us how kids today have gotten lazy and that "music" they listen to is nothing but a bunch of noise too, grandpa!  Seriously, TV not only hasn't gone downhill, we live in an unprecedented golden age and that's even when I hardly watch any of it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Yea if you notice all the ancient alien stuff is based around middle eastern and african greatness being instead attributed to loving ET. No one ever says 'you know, maybe the Parthenon was built by Mork from Ork' Of course stuff built by ancient white people gets attributed to ancient aliens all the time. Maybe not the Parthenon but pretty much anything in Europe that doesn't have a lot of contemporary writing does: Stonehenge or anything else with astronomical implications, vitrified forts, anything requiring a lot of heavy lifting or with associated supernatural stories attached right through the Roman era. That's leaving out any sort of mideast/near east stuff with biblical connections where white supremacists happily go through the mental gymnastics to insist that the important people were white in a way their modern descendants are not. I mean, I'm not disputing that ancient alien theories have a lot of white supremacist bullshit, but if the grander ones focus on stuff outside Europe it's just because most of the sufficiently "exotic" sites are outside of Europe, not because they don't dogpile on anything modestly grand done by ancient whites.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Jesus Christ that sounds like a cringey episode. I mean, from your description I feel like I can almost parse some kind of "point" but I can see how that can be a trainwreck. I remember listening to the rants from his 90s show and his stay rightward slide in that. Think by the 2000 election he'd admitted he wasn't primarily a comedian but was a right wing commentator.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The real answer is that continuity doesn't matter. There are shows where it absolutely does matter (any serial series, like Breaking Bad), and some where it absolutely does not (something like Robot Chicken). The Simpsons takes a moderate track, adapting continuity when convenient but then resetting the scale when it wants to. This is pretty much how every show, comedy or not, worked in 1989 too, and while the genre changed, Simpsons hasn't. nine-gear crow posted:That's because the Simpsons came from an era where a man who could support a house, two cars, three kids, and a stay-at-home wife with a middle management job that only required a bachelor's degree (or like 7/10ths of a BSc, in Homer's case) was still a thing. It was on it's way out the door very slowly at that point in time, but it was still a vestige of the norm of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. This has made the social media rounds, but it's not really true. The old sitcoms Simpsons started off building parodies of had the much-mocked common property of people living way beyond the means you'd expect from their income, even when they had episodes about money problems or something. It wasn't reflective of reality in 1989, it was reflective of TV's long-established unreality. I suppose a lot of old conservatives and young liberals both believe it was once true though, and it makes sense TV would contribute.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Shalebridge Cradle posted:Those are mostly porn blogs and Supernatural fanfic sites though. A lot of them are troll accounts. On the other hand, a lot of the troll accounts end up getting accepted and promoted by the earnest idiots too, so it's the usual internet phenomenon of people with ironic lovely opinions and people with unironic lovely opinions chumming together. Which is I guess is actual Poe's Law, as opposed to the usual "I don't have the empathy to distinguish honestly-held opinions I disagree with from my friends making jokes about them" definition. Either way, they're not a majority.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Not really, no. I frequent this board because it's heavily moderated and for the most part, it's funny and the folks who post here seem intelligent and well informed but, no, I don't shape my identity around it. Like at all. Identifying as a SA forum poster would be bizarre, sure. But people self-identifying according to their pastimes is hardly strange. Lots of people identify by the books they read, or as readers in general. Likewise with music, movies, and sports fans. And that's just restricting it to things people spectate rather than actual participatory hobbies, which games also are. A great many of them are  consumer products too, so nothing strange even there.ToxicSlurpee posted:One of the really bizarre things that happened with relation to MRAism, Reddit, and GamerGate is that a small subset of "people that play games" suddenly decided what "gamer" meant and it was not "person who play games." They created this entire culture around being useless, unemployed neckbeards that hate the rest of the world and expect to be catered to because, by the hours, they're the ones that play games the most. This is a lot more on point. Again, it's nothing all that strange for a small subset of fanatics in a field to go into weird purist arguments and tell others they're doing it wrong, but this time is very unusual in matter of degree. Probably has a lot to do with how video games and the internet both intersect as something that still clings to a "nerd poo poo" reputation years after becoming something grandma spends half her free time on.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Actually that is another good point, there's plenty of apocalyptic 50s & 60s fiction that was promised. You're just as likely to be promised a Fallout esque nuclear wasteland as Leave it to Beaver but with flying cars. It's important to remember that Star Wars was so big partly because at the time a sci-fi movie that wasn't about how man would play God and destroy everything was a real change of pace.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:Nah Yeah, even people who aren't in right-wing circles easily buy into this, they just typically qualify "gun" before "violence epidemic" despite steadily decreasing rates. It's not too surprising, one of the biggest changes of the last 20 years is 24-hour news channels and internet feeds meaning that anything can get a constant drum of coverage.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Phone posted:I'm talking about joules per unit volume. Chemistry. Which from the consumer's perspective also means lower mileage. Even if your car is fine with ethanol, and ethanol is cheaper per gallon than gasoline, you can still pay more per mile on ethanol fuel than gas. Combine that with how corn ethanol (as opposed to sugar cane ethanol in Brazil) is really inefficient and energy intensive to produce in the first place, it's easy to see it as a straight up agricultural subsidy that uses the environment and energy independence as an excuse without meaningfully helping either, and perhaps even doing net harm.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The answer you're going to get from 90+ percent of pro-lifers is that the end doesn't justify the means and administering vigilante justice on an abortion doctor just means there's been 2 murders instead of 1. If you keep pressing the ends justifying the means route from the right, you'll probably get asked if studies about abortion bringing down crime rates should justify the practice from a pro-life perspective. That's sorta a problem there. A lot of people for abortion rights want to have moral clarity and rhetorical punch. "The beginning of human life and when the right to exist begins is a complex philosophical question without any clear lines, but the harm done to women by restricting abortion rights is very clear and demonstrable so priority goes to preventing that", while both true and important, isn't really satisfying in the way of the relatively nonsensical and transparent "either you're a monster because you want to murder doctors or you're a monster because you don't want to murder doctors." Much like the similar "either you're a monster because you don't make rape exceptions, or you're a monster because you want teenage girls to carry rape babies" argument. VitalSigns posted:The reason pro-lifers like Matt Walsh are hypocrites isn't because they don't lust for enough blood. It's because the rational course of action to cut the embryo-murder rate is investments in the most effective known methods: contraceptives, sex education, and natal care; we're stopping literal murders according to them, whether a woman might have guilt-free sex shouldn't be any concern in comparison to that. This on the other hand is spot-on. People who are are anti-abortion but are also for all the problems that make abortion necessary can be called out on that. Likewise the ones that get angry at abortion but ignore fertility clinics destroying embryos. These are strong arguments, and honest ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:To be honest I think you'll find a lot of disgust running through the Republican party right now. Not every person who votes R a lot is a Bible-thumping hate monger. A great many of them wouldn't elect Hillary over a super ultra mega Hitler but I can see a rather significant number of Republicans looking at the guys that are likely to get the GOP nom and going "lolnope." It's very much like how if you believe all the people who say they're refusing to vote for Hillary if she gets the nom, it's not like they're going to vote for Republicans. They'll go third party or stay home.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:to what extent has the right-wing media machine really touched sanders yet? i mean, for what hillary's numbers are, they are what they are after a quarter century of trying to pin bullshit scandals on her As near as I can tell, a few "hurr he'll steal all your money to give people free stuff" Facebook memes, nothing you wouldn't normally see pointed at Democrats in general and no more frequent or severe than Hillary gets when not running for anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:I can easily see Muslims being a potential base for Republicans if the attacks never happened. You're definitely right that Muslims were still collectively seen as backward barbarians who were equally zealous and decadent, but it's not like the image-flip that gays had couldn't happen to Muslims. There's more than enough ideological similarities between conservative Muslims and the Republicans that cultural differences can be tolerated if not accepted. Lest we forget, Anwar al-Awlaki was an outspoken supporter of Bush during the 2000 campaign. As I understand Muslims were one of the few reliably Republican minority groups before 9/11 really triggered the Islamophobia. Even Iran wasn't a big strike against, since the ones here had mostly fled the revolution anyway so it was like Cuban-Americans, and the rest were pretty handily framed as being under evil leaders since Saddam, Qaddafi, etc were fairly secular strongman types.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This was before we were in an extended war/occupation with a Muslim nation where the President literally believed it to be a Holy War and who had defense contractors carve Bible verses into the guns. Pretty much what I was getting at, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Dabir posted:You might be thinking of Starship Troopers, the book was supposed to be taken at face value but the film director made it a satire. That was a little different. Starship Troopers was the one where the writers and director were halfway through the script of an unrelated movie about fighting bugs in space and the studio lawyers saw a superficially similar famous novel and bought the license to head off a lawsuit. The writers/director never read the book or wanted to, so they threw a little tantrum that ended up being a pretty effective satire, if not of the book in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's also funny how easy it is to turn the intro into an extremely racist screed - just make the poor couple Hispanic and you have the dual fears of them outbreeding the pure whites and them being so stupid that they bring America to its knees. The reason why Malthusian "They're breeding too fast!" is a lovely opinion that manages to stay popular across the political spectrum is how easily it reskins to your personal bigotries. If you're on the right it can be black people or immigrants. If you're on the left it can be religious folk or those subhuman rednecks. It's right up there with the symbolism of the zombie as how you're one of the few pure humans, intellectually and morally superior but still doomed by the faceless masses of *insert whoever you dislike already*
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:Do you honestly think Cruz is more "electable"? I remember they said Romney looked "electable" but America wizened up pretty quickly to the fact that he was an awkward stooge for corporate interests. Given that many people within his own party already hate Cruz with the intensity of a thousand burning suns, I don't think his brand of sleazy holier-than-thou grandstanding is going to work with the general public. Yeah, that's just it. Cruz is underwater on favorables/unfavorables within his own party, and is consistent/devoted enough in his own brand of conservatism that there will be no leftward pivot in general election rhetoric. He's got very poor general election chances and no crossover appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Magres posted:My pipe dream is that the GOP dies and the Democratic party fractures into a democratic socialist party or labor party and a liberal party. It's important to remember that before the last realignment really took off, the Republicans had been economically right of the Democrats for decades, and wasn't, nationally, unfriendly to social conservatism. Meanwhile, northern Democrats were already more socially progressive than northern Republicans (much of the reason for their conflict with southern Democrats.) As much as each party changed, the seeds for what they would become were there and had been for some time. So I mean, the Republican name might one day be attached to the leftward party, but if this cycle triggers it it's still a decades off thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
Xanderkish posted:Also Reagan's policy on gay marriage, expanding healthcare, AIDS, police brutality, and drug-related offenses leave something to be desired. Even on the fiscal side he was only "liberal" in that he didn't get around to removing all social services since he only had eight years, and he was willing to add new taxes to pay for military buildup (as long as they were regressive enough). Which I guess means the only party that would have him today is the Democrats, but only because the Republicans have taken up crazytown purity tests since his day rather than because he'd be left of anyone prominent in the modern Democratic party (he wouldn't.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
See, now that's what actual Poe's Law is. When you can't tell the difference between someone who disagrees with you and a parody of someone who disagrees with you written by someone who agrees with you, that's probably just your own lovely lack of empathy. When the fanatics welcome a parody in as one of their own, it's the real deal.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:It's a step in the right direction rather than leaving it to entropy, which gets you people like Donald Trump becoming president But Trump's flavor of right wing populism is pretty well established in Europe already, so I'm not sure how that works.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The part that concerns me is that it's very easy to advocate for (relatively) unrestricted free speech when you're not part of a group that might be harmed by it. An obvious example of speech that causes very real, serious harm is widespread racist speech, which can really gently caress with a person who happens to belong to the targeted group. It just feels like a large reason this extremely pro-free-speech attitude exists is because, almost by definition, the mainstream wouldn't be affected by the most harmful types of speech. Like, if you're some wealthy white person you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from allowing unrestricted speech. So what I get out of this is that we could allow restrictions on speech, but apply some scrutiny to them. Maybe be a bit strict about it or something. It would be an interesting experiment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:the whole gun insurance thing runs headfirst in to stuff like that bit in Freaknomics where statistically a pool is more dangerous to own than a gun. It's a lovely talking point to use due to the fact that you're not going to have a pool owner drag it with them to a school or theater to drown people with, but that's the argument against it that people will bring up. A more important point is the proponents generally not thinking that liability insurance by nature exempts intentional criminal acts so doesn't even really make sense for what they want it to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's also much easier to wage endless wars for dubious purposes if the only people getting killed and maimed are drawn entirely from low-income communities. The human cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has been largely invisible to most people. War no longer touches enough lives to become a social issue that angers anyone. As it stands, our volunteer military comes disproportionately from middle and upper income families. We can manage long-term warfare with less political blowback now almost entirely because smaller numbers of increasingly mechanized troops allow us to mostly confine the death and misery to foreigners no one back home cares about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:To be fair, when I think of an anti-vaxxers, I'm usually thinking of a left-wing nut. Historically speaking it's about 50/50, but recent years have moved it more 60-40 a right-wing position due to rising "government out of my life!" stuff presumably. To the point where in one of the primary debates, none of the Republican candidates would dare to make a solid stance for vaccination. That said, the left-wing side is still alive and well, and they're heavily overlapping with the Greens in particular.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Ya'll, the "Obama did nothing during Katrina" thing i'm seeing on facebook and twitter. That is a joke right? 4chan is loving with us? The Twitter collage I saw had one ironic anti-Trump account, one suspended account, and four accounts full of consistent pro-Trump messaging. One had the eight-digit-number name scheme I understand is heavily correlated with bots, the others do not. So yeah, there's actual bots and/or true believers spouting this. Or if they're trolls they've very long-con types.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2017 09:19
|
|