|
"How could anyone take negative connotation out of a public hanging reference in Mississippi?"
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:That is what it is supposed to be, yes. Problem is, Trump thinks NATO is actually a protection racket. Yeah, when you say "Nice store you have here, shame if something happened to it" you're not actually hoping the store owner goes out and gets a security system or insurance (or in this case perhaps a shotgun under the counter).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2018/11/4-teens-to-charged-with-rape-in-damascus-hs-locker-room-attack/ I can't speak to the news story you're viewing but the article seems to handle it fairly. Like, there's going to be some sensitivity to it because they ARE kids and its obviously less of an independent or sexual crime as it is clearly an unacceptable and horrible atmosphere. Like you don't rape your teammate with a broom handle unless there's an expectation of it and a confidence that its no big deal. The kids should be and are charged but its obviously a much bigger issue with probably a lot of other people who arguably hold more blame allowing or encouraging it to happen. And like, right or wrong, 5 kids ending up in jail for raping a 6th is gonna rock a community, holidays or otherwise. I'm guessing the news story you saw was very different in tone because "Thanksgiving" isn't in that article once.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
There's something morbidly amusing about the fact that Trump couldn't take Thanksgiving off from being a racist monster and just repeating some nonsense about thanks, family, football*, and troops but instead did an actual "lets do the opposite of the bs Thanksgiving legend message".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that's just like an unfilled in space for a case number.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
Is that a scale model of the White House IN the White House? Is that a wreath made out of "Be Best" pencils? Is that the red forest? What did I watch? Drone posted:https://twitter.com/RealPressSecBot/status/1067143714684850176 Its gonna be kinda funny when they start an international propaganda station and just forget to name it something other than Fox News.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
I mean, I sorta get the red forest. You have a long hallway. You put up trees. Oh, you have to be different and can't just have a tree that looks like a tree because you're so special. But like... where the gently caress did the pencil wreath come from? I half expect to hear some bullshit story that Baron made it in art class. Like there was some crystal soccer ball ornament in one of those shots and I was thinking "Oh, that's the Trump idea of a kid's ornament, right?"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I don't...understand this logic. "Executive Time"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Jesse Watters is the "lets go to Chinatown and make fun of the way they talk" guy so he's really, really got it ingrained to mockingly scream "racism" at every opportunity because that's totally what happened to him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Both. Geraldo was sitting in "the liberal" chair so the basic Five formula is for him to point out their hypocrisy and villainy and then for them to all make jokes and mock him to distract from it rather than address anything. Its like every segment of every episode of The Five. Geraldo calling himself the pinata was basically right on the nose because that's the role of the person in that chair. To make the liberal case and then just let them all make fun of him and talk about anything but what he said until commercial. But also its Watters' reflexive defense to undermine people pointing out his own racism by calling everything racist so making it into a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
The Panama Papers were a lifetime ago back in 2015.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:if he isn't smilling while everyone elses loses/crying, its not a win/fair. Like, I'm no psychologist but I don't think the narcissistic lesson we're getting from Trump is "he'll always hold out for the win" its that "he'll convince himself he did win no matter what happens."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
Rex-Goliath posted:Money to 'finish' the wall. That's an interesting word selection there By the time the 2020 stuff kicks off the wall's just going to be "finished" according to Trump and debates are going to be this nonsensical mess of Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck arguments over whether it exists or not and Trump will like refuse to take part in a CNN debate because they aired "fake" footage of the border with no wall and instead the President will do an interview on Sarah Huckabee Sander's new Fox News show where they talk about the Golden Age for America.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Yes it is, we just don’t recognize it as such because we’ve been conditioned to accept American corporate media as inherently legitimate and well-intentioned. drat. The first post I saw in there was from the guy who wants to outlaw all media and replace it with open source Twitter reporting. That thread promises to be a hell of a read later today..
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:It’s all name recognition, but I think if we use it for just that it’s useful. For example Gillibrand barely polling in the combined double digits isn’t a good look for the week the press was giving her free publicity. Whether or not Gillibrand makes an impression definitely isn't going to be shaped by her announcing in January in the middle of the longest shutdown in US history and while all the usual abnormal Trump poo poo is happening. Even the people paying attention only did so long enough to move her from one column of "maybe" to another of "in."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Is Pelosi, in adding 1 billion to border funding to the anti-shutdown bill, in fact caving in after a month? Why now? The conflict was never "border funding", that was RW narrative. The conflict was "a border wall". Pelosi has been clear all along that she supports "border funding" but not "a wall." Republicans have advanced the argument that you can not have border security without a wall the Democrats have consistently made the argument that there's a lot they can do to protect the borders, but the wall is stupid/barbaric/immoral. If she agrees to a marginal increase to the stuff she has openly supported and not the thing Trump has demanded and Trump agrees that is in fact Trump "caving." STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Jan 19, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2019 08:14
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Good for Buzzfeed for stepping up and sticking with their story. People give them a lot of poo poo as a company, but Buzzfeed News is one of the few journalistic sources that really research and seem to have earned the trust of their sources. Someone explain to me what I'm missing. I've only perused that link but here's what I feel like is happening. Buzzfeed: We've seen evidence that the SCO has proof that the President instructed Cohen to lie to Congress about when/how the Trump Moscow deal happened." Everyone: Holy poo poo! They have evidence of Trump telling him to lie to Congress! That's just like John Dean and Nixon! SCO: Some parts of that article aren't true, but we're not saying which. Cohen's Lawyers: But I definitely say he told me to lie. Everyone: drat it. So I guess the part about Cohen's claims are true but the parts that there's evidence that directly links Trump aren't. That sucks. Buzzfeed: Here's evidence that Cohen lied about when/how the Trump/Moscow deal happened. That wasn't really the part anyone had in question? What am I missing? I'm fully open to the possibility that I'm missing something obvious because I'm often an idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
Hastings posted:From what I've seen in the media (especially CNN and ABC) they've been using this whole story to act as if Buzzfeed News is a bunch of partisan hacks who deeply betrayed everyone and made us all look stupid. It's very much been written as "Mueller came out and said Buzzfeed was wrong" not that they had a portion worded slightly off, but that it was wrong. This is why the authors have been firm on sticking with their sources and releasing more documents. But from what I can tell nothing Buzzfeed is posting appears to actually speak to any of the (reasonable) criticism people have had about Buzzfeed's original article? Like, even the RWM "everything is a lie" attack isn't "Trump Moscow deal wasn't going on longer than they admitted" its "Trump didn't tell Cohen to lie about it." Because THAT's the big thing. Like yes, some people especially in RWM took the opportunity to say that EVERYTHING Buzzfeed said was untrue. But even once we both agree that was unfair aren't there still reasonable questions about SOME of what Buzzfeed said (especially considering the SCO statement and some of their walkbacks) that none of these documents seem to actually address? edit: Is this offtopic for the thread? I feel like I'm trying to get clarification that I'm reading the news articles correctly or have the glaring thing I'm missing pointed out to me if it exists. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Jan 23, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 02:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I fully admit the whole WaPo part of the story lost me and could be missing a key part of the story that I'm confused on. I did see the reports that the DOJ pressured the SCO and while I think that's certainly a meaningful and troubling aspect of the story I'm not sure it actually speaks to the question of Buzzfeed's reporting. Unless we're assuming the SCO lied as a result of the DOJ pressure to undermine Buzzfeed. Its obviously a problem that DOJ applied that pressure at all, and maybe that the SCO responded in any way (although that seems tough to judge not knowing the details of what's true and not). But assuming the SCO was making an honest (if vague and solicited) statement it still leaves us in the same place RE: Buzzfeed and the original story. I'm not sure I'm willing to take the step that "since many of the people criticizing Buzzfeed were doing so in bad faith and since the Trump Admin was obviously pushing to discredit Buzzfeed it means that Buzzfeed gains credibility in response."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
I guess, and maybe I'm just completely wrong in this regard, I've been taking this as soon as the SCO statement came out Buzzfeed started walking back their claims/implications that there was direct evidence linking Trump to Cohen's perjury and started refocusing the reporting on proving that Cohen lied at all and that the Moscow project was more than they've admitted. And maybe that's a misreading that I formed from the SCO and/or my own suspicions from the original article but while the DOJ/WaPo stuff is certainly a matter of concern it doesn't seem to actually add credibility to Buzzfeed's piece as people seem to be suggesting. Not to mention that they're still out there on their own with the story. I mean, its definitely a think we probably have to just wait and see how it all plays out since Buzzfeed isn't officially backing off. But I guess I'm reacting to the people who seem to feel like Buzzfeed is "winning" this in some way. Which I understand probably comes from a broader dissatisfaction with the way some mainstream media has handled other stories like the Covington Catholic thing. But still doesn't strike me as terribly helpful as I don't much care for "one side is bad so the other side must be good" thinking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Its just a bizarre criticism that could only be considered sincere if you're like really, really incapable of drawing obvious conclusions or completely ignorant to any racial history of any kind. Like it doesn't take a huge reach to figure out why a bunch of racists attacking a black man and calling him racial slurs and tying a rope around his neck would also have bleach to pour on him. Its a transparent racist action that fits with all the other things that make it clear these guys were making a premeditated racist attack. Its like if he said had been attacked by people wearing white hoods and you asked why they were outside in their bed sheets. edit: And like, I think its even possible that this WAS a random attack and that the letter was sent by an unrelated racist. I have no idea if the two are connected but it neither seems out of the realm of possibility that (a) multiple racist psychos targeted this black man and (b) racist psychos were looking for any black person to attack. I also don't think it really changes anything because either way it was clearly a premeditated lynching. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 31, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
I think the general consensus from these polls I've seen is that "Black Virginians" are just (a) more likely to be Democrat and thus more likely concerned about the bigger consequences of Northam and others resigning and (b) more realistic about the racism they regularly face and less surprised that Northam and half a dozen other Virginian politicians were all independently blackfacing it up in the 80s.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Yeah, there's the issue of racism and blackface and Northam's unquestionably terrible handling of this and clear inability to get what's wrong. Then there's the bigger issue of why blackface was apparently so accepted so recently in Virginia and what that says about Virginia race relations today. Then there's the real world political consequences of possibly giving the Governorship over to Republicans while important issues are on the table. Its obviously a complicated matter for many. And then there's like this less partisan question of how "right" it is to allow 3 levels of elected members of one party to be taken down by a pr campaign from the opposition party and then giving a member of that party become the new governor. Especially when the Speakership was decided by a coin toss. I'm not sure what the hell that is but its definitely not a representative government. STAC Goat fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Feb 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Does it matter that the opposition party are the ones bringing it up if the accused officials, y'know, actually did it? The fact that congressional Democrats are promising to look into Trump's taxes, etc. and plenty of left-leaning media outlets dig for dirt on his administration doesn't change the fact that he ought to be held to account for whatever additional wrongdoing they will almost assuredly uncover. A crime is a crime, etc. Northam, Fairfax, and everyone else absolutely should be held accountable for what they're guilty of - crime or otherwise. But if there was a deliberate attempt from the left to not only get Trump to resign but to also get Pence to resign and work their way down to Nancy Pelosi becoming President a whole lot of Republicans would understandably have concerns about what that exactly means for a representative government. And the Virginia situation is a number of layers deeper. Lines of succession weren't designed in this way. There's something uncomfortable about the idea of a political party losing an election and then enacting something of a "soft coup" to take power anyway. Like even if you support them and their agenda it sets a troubling precedent and its definitely not anything remotely resembling a representative democracy. I don't actually know what the right answer to that question is. It feels like it can be simultaneously true that the Virginia Democrats should be held accountable for their sins but also that there appears to be an agenda by the Virginia Republicans to grab the governorship through very undemocratic means. I don't know how to rectify those two things without some moral compromises one way or another.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Yeah, it does seem unavoidable even if everyone resigns. It just struck me as a weird situation that made the bigger picture a little more complicated. I imagine Republicans would be bothered by Northam appointing his own replacement before resigning, and that would be kind of fair. But the right idea seems to be to just have a new election and it sounds like that's what would happen in that case.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it would not be fair. I think I was making it pretty clear that I have a serious problem with the idea of flipping the party in power through this means. What I was saying was that there's definitely something off about the idea that a politician is unfit for office and should resign, but that they'd personally choose their replacement right before they did. If they're unfit for office they should be unfit for such a major decision, and even if they wouldn't having deposed leaders choosing their successors is very monarchal as opposed to any kind of representative democracy. Nothing about a situation where 3 lines of succession resign in near unison is gonna feel like a normal, proper representative government, which as said by others is really why this situation feels like such a stuck trap.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Wasn't that the "Why would these people looking for a black man to lynch also be carrying bleach?" thing?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
The Smollett story seems to be: Smollett: I was lynched. Some people: That seems unlikely. Who lynches people in the cold? Media: An anonymous source suggests it was staged. Smollet: That's not true. Media: An anonymous source suggests it was staged. Cops: That's not true. Media: An anonymous source suggests it was staged. Some people: Seems like it was staged. Makes sense since it seemed so unlikely in the first place. I'm either missing some really big piece of this puzzle or I'm really blown away by the way people are reacting to this story. Or I'm just not up on lynching etiquette to understand why this story was so unlikely in the first place. PerniciousKnid posted:Having never employed a nanny myself, how would you know if they have/require a visa? I would assume you would want to factor that into taxes and your nanny would say "by the way if you file taxes on this I'm gonna get deported, so just pay me under the table and you get to save money on the taxes." And that's assuming she didn't just seek out such an arrangement as many do. There's also been talk that the nanny thing was really just the tip of the iceberg and there was no chance she was going to get through the nomination process. It came off like the nanny thing was the most innocent thing they could throw out as an excuse, but there was no clue or hint of what the other stuff could be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
Or, you know, we default to giving alleged victims the benefit of the doubt until investigations or information give reason to do otherwise? And coming back when they do to boast to all the people who did that you were right to think that a hate attack seemed unlikely or fishy for random reasons like "it was cold" seems not to serve a lot of purpose and maybe should cause you to take a step back and ask what you're getting out of it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:"You may have been right, but I'm still better than you since you were only right by virtue of being a bad person." I mean, its cool that being right on the internet about picking which hate crimes to believe and not is the main issue here. For the record, I was wrong about Smollett being the victim of a hate crime. I still stand by my basic stance of supporting alleged victims until investigations or evidence prove otherwise. Judge me how you will for that apparently controversial stance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think people who believed him did anything wrong, I just think actively punishing people for expressing skepticism leads to dangerous tunnel vision. I didn't super agree with the probation at the time because probating people for saying stupid or offensive poo poo is somewhat arbitrary and selective and I'm not in love with the way its handled in D&D. But its over and done with so I don't really see the point in re-litigating it and demanding an apology, especially when the poster said they were wrong for the post. But even if they didn't like... what is accomplished for coming back for a round of "I told you so?" What lesson do we learn? Don't give the benefit of the doubt to alleged victims? Be more suspicious of hate crimes that allegedly happen in the cold?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
predicto posted:I got nothing out of it, but my reasons were not random. It wasn't just cold, it was hazardous and there were lots of other things weird about it. You are assuming that I just automatically default to doubting the victim (or doubting gay people, or doubting black people) or something. I don't. At best my post was slightly aambiguous in retrospect (and I apologized for that) Look, I'm sorry. I did and still do think that the "cold" and "bleach" things were dumb reasons to be suspicious of this. You can feel free to disagree with me on that but I don't see how they in anyway factored into the debunking of Smollett's story. And as I said somewhere I don't get how "it was too cold to do a hate crime" doesn't just run parallel to "it was too cold to stage a hate crime." It seems like a not super meaningful factor. But I'm not calling you a bigot either. There's a million reasons why you might have gotten there. Maybe you genuinely were ignorant to the role bleach has played in historical hate attacks? Or maybe you are just naturally suspicious of celebrities as you've seemed to voice since? Or maybe you just had a day where you voiced things badly as you've suggested? I have days and posts where I'm dumb and subjects that I make a fool of myself on. And you don't have to agree with me that you were wrong. If you still feel it was too cold and the bleach was too weird, you do you. I still think those were spurious reasons to doubt it but I'm obviously not gonna be fighting hard for Smollett's honor at this point. But if at some point I called or implied you were a bigot I DO apologize for that. Because I will confess that I got kind of hot about this subject for a few days and I kind of forcibly withdrew from these threads because I could feel myself ready to say something I'd regret.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:32 |
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't have a great answer to that, but this isn't the first time the broad left side of the spectrum has gone all in on a hoax, and every time it happens that itself does a lot to make it harder for future victims to be believed. I think giving credible victims the benefit of the doubt to some extent is good, but obviously people are going to draw the line on who does and doesn't seem credible differently, and on what the evidence at hand (generally limited at first) suggests that may conflict with that narrative, and a healthy discussion allows for some difference in opinion on that without the assumption of bad faith. I think healthy discussion is good. I'm definitely not going to bat for the poster saying "Maybe the CPD made deep fake videos with AI" or thinking we have any credible reason to assume this is all a CPD framejob. Once the CPD officially announced they had a paper trail it seemed pretty plausible that Smollett was guilty. And if people who paid more credence to the rumors that came out the days earlier wanted to rub it in my face that they were right and I was wrong to doubt them... well they're probably right but I still don't see what that accomplishes besides someone feeling superior. I still think we should have healthy skepticism of anonymous sources that don't present any evidence to their claims, especially when the official channels are publicly denying it (apparently the CPD was lying when they said Smollett wasn't a suspect of a crime). Like I said, I could feel myself losing perspective the last few days so I withdrew. But like we're talking about weeks earlier and stuff like "it was really cold out and why were they carrying bleach?" That's different than "Smollett seems linked to the suspects and there's sources saying he may have faked it." And yeah, if we give all victims the benefit of the doubt we're gonna get burned every now and then. I can live with that because it means me sticking with my principles. And I can live with my principles, even if they don't always play out in my favor. edit: Ack, double post. My bad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2019 03:38
|
|