|
It's generally more fun. They go for humor first and, since they're all self-proclaimed shitheads, it doesn't matter how far they go in pursuit of it. Bot voting something to the top of Reddit or trolling some retard on YouTube is considered entertainment. It's just one more victory in the cultural war they feel is going on. Where as the left online is all infighting and identity politics. Every post feels like you're stepping on somebody's toes. Like it shouldn't be up for debate that New Deal policies and unions are a good thing for our nation but of course somebody here will post that they were inherently racist institutions. Or on Reddit, you'll see stupid Hillary fans trying to overrun /r/Political_Revolution (which has garbage moderation) or circlejerking in /r/Enough_Sanders_Spam. It's demoralizing. You feel like you're a part of a disappearing group. Large portions of the left behave more like the religious right than the liberals of old. (although I guess I'm talking about the alt-right more than the extreme far-right. i'd also guess it's partially a 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mindset. trump fans get to play both sides against each other which makes bernie democrats feel closer to trump than they do to a third way war hawk like hillary)
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
All you have to do to understand a guy like Peter Thiel is read his wikipedia. It's not shocking that the anti-authority/angry young republican who created a major business and stumbled into investing in Facebook turned out the way he did. And he'd probably really resent you implying that his sexuality means that he has to support a certain group.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:This itself is fake news: I don't know how this is considered a good thing. Gatekeepers can't be completely non-partisan and places like PolitiFact already lost their credibility by using poo poo like a 'truth-o-meter' (which is subjective) and having a scorecard. If you don't see the opportunity for them to use those tools like a weapon to silence any opposition to the official line, you haven't been paying attention. Just look at the way most of the media buried the Podesta emails. Or PolitiFact rating Hillary wanting open borders (a thing from one of her leaked speeches) as mostly false because "It’s not clear at all what she meant, experts agreed." (because experts can't agree on what open borders means and HIllary said that she was only talking about energy and she didn't say it with a specific timetable so  )
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I guess I'll bite. Who are "they" in this scenario, what's "their" agenda and what motivation do "they" have to silence opposition? A Deacon posted:Google, Facebook, and Twitter were pretty open about supporting Hillary Clinton as well. To expand, most technocrats support establishment (aka third way) democrats because their agendas overlap. When they're donating giant amounts of cash to try to elect Hillary Clinton, it's not in their best interest to be 100% impartial. Especially if they feel like the country is being threatened by a person like Trump. Re: Politifact Call Me Charlie posted:Or PolitiFact rating Hillary wanting open borders (a thing from one of her leaked speeches) as mostly false because "It’s not clear at all what she meant, experts agreed." (because experts can't agree on what open borders means and Hillary said that she was only talking about energy and she didn't say it with a specific timetable so Or for example http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/ vs http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-real-unemployment-rate-african/ Do I have a definitive New York Times or NPR link that claims from a position of authority that Politifact has lost their credibility. No. (Even if I did, would you believe it? Or would you explain away the idea of the 'truth-o-meter' being subjective as a thing that doesn't matter since they write a full article trying to explain how they reached that conclusion, as if most people wouldn't close the page once they saw 'mostly false' or 'mostly true' in the heading)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I certainly don't think that Facebook banning sites like GlobalNewsNetworkDailyTruth.com or whatever is going to make people like Charlie stop believing that Google is working with George Soros to maintain the global flouride conspiracy. Those people will always exist, and will find some way other than Facebook to connect with each other. That's a pretty big jump to make, buddy. Dr. Fishopolis posted:In your first example, Trump used a number that Politifact was unable to find any reference to, and the Trump campaign refused to respond to a request for clarification, so they rated it false. In the second example. Bernie used a similar, but different number, and his campaign actually explained to Politifact where it came from and why they're using it, so Politifact rated it true. What's the problem here? You're right. What's the problem with that? They said nearly the same statement was both 'mostly false' and 'mostly true'. Must be all the colloidal silver clouding my judgement or something. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Now you're just selecting the context you want to reply to. Argue in good faith. I'll repeat my entire point in case you honestly somehow missed it the first time. Kind of ironic that you're saying I'm not arguing in good faith while you're calling me names and trying to (poorly) catch me in a GOTCHA because I'm not stupid enough to link to something like http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/16/running-data-politifact-shows-bias-conservatives/ But let's ignore all of that. (And they didn't receive new information but let's imagine they did to simplify this) Politifact received new information about the unemployment rate a month later. Great. Why didn't they update that first article to reflect the new information they have? Why would they leave up an article that says something is 'mostly false' when they run another article a month later saying that something is now 'mostly true'. If the 'fact checker' system was in place at Facebook, would it ever get updated there or would it end up like a situation like this https://mic.com/articles/161840/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-get-more-votes-than-any-candidate-ever where false information is spread through automated systems and algorithms? Also you conveniently left this out of your multiple posts. Call Me Charlie posted:Or PolitiFact rating Hillary wanting open borders (a thing from one of her leaked speeches) as mostly false because "It’s not clear at all what she meant, experts agreed." (because experts can't agree on what open borders means and HIllary said that she was only talking about energy and she didn't say it with a specific timetable so That isn't something from zerohedge/newsbusters/the_donald, that's something I noticed. - edit Bah, should have hit refresh before posting. Tesseraction posted:Politifact does often gently caress up, but these two situations are perfectly valid diverging verdicts. I don't completely agree but you make an interesting point on that example. So thanks for explaining it. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
lothar_ posted:More people should never read forums populated by stupid people. Instead of reading, they should simply post, "I'm not reading anything here because your posts will be terrible, and you should feel bad for wasting your lives on the internet" every time they visit. If enough people do that, then these awful forums might disappear, and the mockers get the added bonus of feeling superior. Besides, feeling superior was what they were looking for anyway by reading forums and trying to find out where they fit in the grand spectrum of opinion. "Am I part of the majority, therefore validating my views? Or am I part of an enlightened minority, and the majority just hasn't caught on yet?" So posting this line and moving on is win/win. Doing this while wearing sunglasses might also help. In a thread full of stupid posts, this is by far the stupidest.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2016 13:45
|
|
|
Privilege is a loaded term in a similar fashion as conservatives saying entitlements. It's meant to shame and silence those who are perceived as privileged. For example...Who What Now posted:Whether or not you feel privileged has no bearing on whether or not you are privileged. And those white guys undoubtedly have a privilege that the non-whites that Wal*Mart would never consider hiring do not. Can you seriously not comprehend how divisive this line of thought is? People struggling to eek out an existence should feel ashamed because they have the privilege to be exploited and abused by a multinational corporation? Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Where did I say they should feel ashamed? That'd be news to me, considering I've explicitly said the opposite more than once. It's a loaded term that's used to marginalize a person's struggles. And you can try to claim that's not the way you meant to use it but it doesn't change that fact. To call people who are stuck in a minimum wage job at part-time hours privileged (because of the color of their skin or the genitalia between their legs) is beyond ridiculous. Of course they'd react badly to that statement. You're belittling everything they're going through. (That's not even getting into the people who try to use the term as a way to silence others. I deem you privileged therefore anything you say doesn't matter.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
I don't know. Telling the dumb assholes at Walmart that their white privilege allows them to work such a terrible job can't go wrong. If they have some sort of baggage (like crippling poverty) that won't allow them to take a simple statement in stride, they probably weren't going to be an ally anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Not getting shot to death by cops for no reason is one of the privileges that should be checked, though. This isn't triage. You don't have to marginalize the problems of the working poor so we can focus on fixing bad police behavior. Dismissing everything they're struggling with as 'petty problems' isn't a way to gain allies to your cause. Notice how most of the liberals complaining about identity politics aren't taking the rear end in a top hat position of 'get rid of them completely because they're petty issues compared to my economic concerns'. I think most of us realize that we're in this together. Making sure people can earn a living wage is good thing for everybody. Making sure the police have better training (so they don't randomly shoot a black guy in the back or choke a homeless man to death or kill a retarded person who's stayed in a movie theater past the movie he paid for) is good for everybody. Fados posted:Every race in america is victim of police brutality tho, everyone should be able to get on board with that, so even in that case they are doing themselves a disservice by framing it as a race problem. Oh boy, do I have a post for you... Dr. Fishopolis posted:Why argue anything at all to white voters? Why do we have to spin anything or give a single poo poo what white men think? Every piece of data available shows that Trump did not expand the republican base one iota. The right didn't win, the left lost because it didn't vote. Trying to reach fragile little souls who can't cope with their looming demographic irrelevance is a losing strategy, and this election proved it. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 02:02
|
|