• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:34
CEST 14:34
KST 21:34
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202550RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams4Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing RSL Season 1 - Final Week
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 1v1 Fastest Support! ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
CSL Xiamen International Invitational [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 962 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 10045

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 10043 10044 10045 10046 10047 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-11 22:20:01
March 11 2018 22:16 GMT
#200881
On March 12 2018 05:59 A3th3r wrote:
The US continues to be in Afghanistan, five years in, seemingly for no other reason than to give American youths a foreign place to have adventurous & dangerous experiences & fight & maybe die there. This is not a good reason to be in a state of wartime vigilance.

I was reading this today: https://fair.org/home/they-put-lethal-weapons-into-the-hands-of-13-year-olds/

Militarism in the US is a frightening thing.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-11 22:22:19
March 11 2018 22:21 GMT
#200882
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
March 11 2018 22:36 GMT
#200883
On March 12 2018 07:16 a_flayer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 05:59 A3th3r wrote:
The US continues to be in Afghanistan, five years in, seemingly for no other reason than to give American youths a foreign place to have adventurous & dangerous experiences & fight & maybe die there. This is not a good reason to be in a state of wartime vigilance.

I was reading this today: https://fair.org/home/they-put-lethal-weapons-into-the-hands-of-13-year-olds/

Militarism in the US is a frightening thing.

Did you realize that what you linked is a very misleading opinion piece? I'm okay with you linking it and analyzing it to point out where it makes good points, even if some of the other points are quite bad, but if you are going to post something that is mostly garbage and not even comment on it then I'll just point that fact out to you.

And the implication that the US enjoys seeing their youth fighting and getting killed in a foreign country is utterly disgusting. Yes, there are some very valid criticisms that can be made, but that is clearly not one of them and those who push it to try and facetiously make their point should be embarrassed.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
a_flayer
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
Netherlands2826 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-11 22:48:38
March 11 2018 22:47 GMT
#200884
It is called a "CounterSpin interview", and it is an interview with a person, so yes I am aware it is "an opinion piece."
I saw the hints.
When you came along so righteous with a new national hate, so convincing is the ardor of war and of men, it's harder to breathe than to believe you're a friend. The wars at home, the wars abroad, all soaked in blood and lies and fraud.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24676 Posts
March 11 2018 22:52 GMT
#200885
The emphasis was really on the fact that it is misleading to the point of being terrible, not that it is an opinion. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-12 01:33:08
March 12 2018 01:31 GMT
#200886


This is a good, but depressing read.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
March 12 2018 02:56 GMT
#200887
Really hoping Democrats gave him the SOTU response to kill any hopes of a national political career.

Over the past decade, Massachusetts has been one of the states at the forefront of the pro-marijuana movement. But one of the state’s rising political stars is not on board.

“This one is a tough one for me, because my views do not exactly line up with my own state, and it’s something that I’m struggling with,” Rep. Joe Kennedy III said in a podcast interview this week with Vox.com’s Ezra Klein.

Even as he has seen his national profile continue to rise, the 37-year-old Democratic congressman has taken heat from the left over his opposition to marijuana legalization (including for medical purposes), which has become increasingly popular both within his party and across the country. After he was tagged to deliver his party’s response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address in January, pro-marijuana outlets scoured Kennedy’s voting history in the House and found that he was among the few Democratic representatives who consistently voted against even mildly pro-marijuana bills — even measures that many Republicans supported.

“I don’t think marijuana should be legalized,” Kennedy flatly told Boston magazine in 2016, two months before the Massachusetts voters approved a referendum to do just that.

In his interview with Klein, the congressman cited some of the unintended consequences of decriminalizing and legalizing the drug. Recalling his days working as a state prosecutor when Massachusetts voted in 2008 to decriminalize marijuana, Kennedy said the decision affected the ability of police officers to search and seize other illegal items, such as guns, from vehicles.

“If you smelled [marijuana] in a car, you could search a car,” Kennedy said. “When it became decriminalized, you couldn’t do that.”


Source

Democrats like this guy...
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
March 12 2018 03:05 GMT
#200888
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Ayaz2810
Profile Joined September 2011
United States2763 Posts
March 12 2018 03:45 GMT
#200889
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
Vrtra Vanquisher/Tiamat Trouncer/World Serpent Slayer
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13924 Posts
March 12 2018 03:48 GMT
#200890
On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Did you miss the "for the sake of discussion would you mind enumerating"?
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Ayaz2810
Profile Joined September 2011
United States2763 Posts
March 12 2018 04:18 GMT
#200891
On March 12 2018 12:48 Sermokala wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Did you miss the "for the sake of discussion would you mind enumerating"?


Is that a fancy way of saying "Google it for me so I don't have to"? Why write out what someone else was already nice enough to write out?
Vrtra Vanquisher/Tiamat Trouncer/World Serpent Slayer
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13924 Posts
March 12 2018 04:20 GMT
#200892
On March 12 2018 13:18 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 12:48 Sermokala wrote:
On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Did you miss the "for the sake of discussion would you mind enumerating"?


Is that a fancy way of saying "Google it for me so I don't have to"? Why write out what someone else was already nice enough to write out?

Thats the fancy way of saying "actually add something of value to the thread please" instead of just making another one liner cheer leading post that does nothing, adds nothing, and goes nowhere.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-12 05:53:29
March 12 2018 04:26 GMT
#200893
On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Yeah, I more meant from the rally speech yesterday, and was hoping for specifics so we could talk in the forum about whether the statement is racist, and if so what makes it so. For all the times we've had the "definition of racism" discussion in this thread, I'm not sure we've actually had much back-and-forth on the specific statements that are racist, why they're racist, what type of racism they are, etc.

For instance, on the Maxine Waters "low IQ" remark, I think there's a discussion to be had about whether it's racist and if so, why. Of course, intelligence testing (especially the SAT, I don't know about IQ) has a rather checkered past with regards to race, often being designed to try to prove the superior intelligence of the white race. There's the classic scientific racism position which holds that blacks are universally less intelligent, arguably subhuman, which would probably tout imperfect measures of intelligence like IQ as evidence.

But you could argue Trump isn't really talking about any of that. He's just saying he thinks this one person isn't smart. It's not surprising for a Republican to think a Democrat is stupid, or vice versa, and it doesn't automatically make it racist because the Democrat is black, just like it wouldn't necessarily be racist for me to say Ben Carson is an idiot. That said, it's interesting he puts it in terms of IQ for her specifically. Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, Clinton, and many others get all kinds of insults thrown at them by Trump, but he never goes after IQ to my recollection. Same for all the Republicans he went after in the primary. Why, with this one Congressman (Edit: Congresswoman) specifically, does he go after intelligence? And why is it specifically "low IQ" rather than just "stupid"?

It might be weak evidence of Trump's racism, but I think there's a lot stronger evidence out there. Doodsmack seems to think there was particularly blatant stuff in the most recent rally speech, though, so I thought it would be better for discussion if he mentioned what specifically he thought was so clearly racist. Sorry if my request was unclear.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
March 12 2018 05:45 GMT
#200894
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
March 12 2018 05:59 GMT
#200895
"I have not intentionally visited schools that are under-performing"

Well that explains her expert analysis on how taking money from them helps the kids there.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Tachion
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada8573 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-12 06:52:41
March 12 2018 06:52 GMT
#200896
On March 12 2018 10:31 Plansix wrote:
https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/972098736825487361

This is a good, but depressing read.

+ Show Spoiler +
[image loading]


This doesn't actually seem to be anything new, it just finally got a light shone on it. Evangelicals are expected to lean very hard R, and when Republicans started voicing out against black movements and threw up a racially divisive candidate, people of color finally got to see how little these people cared for their concerns in these circles.
i was driving down the road this november eve and spotted a hitchhiker walking down the street. i pulled over and saw that it was only a tree. i uprooted it and put it in my trunk. do trees like marshmallow peeps? cause that's all i have and will have.
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
March 12 2018 12:32 GMT
#200897
On March 12 2018 05:59 A3th3r wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 11 2018 23:53 iamthedave wrote:
On March 11 2018 23:21 a_flayer wrote:
On March 11 2018 23:13 iamthedave wrote:
On March 11 2018 23:06 a_flayer wrote:
On March 11 2018 22:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 11 2018 18:02 a_flayer wrote:
We also reviewed engagement between automated or Russia-linked accounts and the @Wikileaks, @DCLeaks_, and @GUCCIFER_2 accounts. The amount of automated engagement with these accounts ranged from 47% to 72% of Retweets and 36% to 63% of likes during this time—substantially higher than the average level of automated engagement, including with other high-profile accounts. The volume of automated engagements from Russian-linked accounts was lower overall. Our data show that, during the relevant time period, a total of 1,010 @Wikileaks tweets were retweeted approximately 5.1 million times. Of these retweets, 155,933—or 2.98%—were from Russian-linked automated accounts. The 27 tweets from @DCLeaks_ during this time period were Retweeted approximately 4,700 times, of which 1.38% were from Russian-linked automated accounts. The 23 tweets from @GUCCIFER_2 during this time period were Retweeted approximately 18,000 times, of which 1.57% were from Russia-linked automated accounts.

We next examined activity surrounding hashtags that have been reported as potentially connected to Russian interference efforts. We noted above that, with respect to two such hashtags—#PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak—our automated systems detected, labeled, and hid a portion of related Tweets at the time they were created. The insights from our retrospective review have allowed us to draw additional conclusions about the activity around those hashtags.

We found that slightly under 4% of Tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from accounts with potential links to Russia, and that those Tweets accounted for less than 20% of impressions within the first seven days of posting. Approximately 75% of impressions on the trending topic were views by U.S.-based users. A significant portion of these impressions, however, are attributable to a handful of high-profile accounts, primarily @Wikileaks. At least one heavily-retweeted Tweet came from another potentially Russia-linked account that showed signs of automation.

With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions. We learned that a small number of Tweets from several large accounts were principally responsible for the propagation of this trend. In fact, two of the ten most-viewed Tweets with #DNCLeak were posted by @Wikileaks, an account with millions of followers.

Source


I remember people thinking we were crazy when we said Twitter was intentionally suppressing our voices, (far more than suppressing Russians/bots) turns out they were, and they just came out and said it and liberals didn't bat an eye.

This is one reason why I'm strongly suspicious of people who claim their obsession with Russia is about free and fair elections.

Well, they didn't *just* say that in the sense of just = recently. This was published in October last year. But yeah, you don't see these stats reported in the media much, for some obscure reason. Maybe because they're thoroughly underwhelming in terms of exposing Russian influence? And you should see the kind of criteria Twitter used for determining if an account was "Russian". My steam account would be flagged as Russian because I use Cyrillic in my nickname there (its "Rак" which is both descriptive of myself in Dota and for mocking Putin's appearance because that's how adult I am lol).

We took a similarly expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account. Because there is no single characteristic that reliably determines geographic origin or affiliation, we relied on a number of criteria, including whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user’s display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria.

But also, as I see this was not clear from the bit I quoted, the 'hidden' tweets were hidden based on the notion that they were spam rather than being allegedly an automated Russian account. The exact definitions for what prompts their automated system to set tweets to be 'hidden' are not clear to me based on this document. Hidden tweets don't show up in search engines, and don't count towards trending and stuff. Maybe its not so bad as it seems in terms of censorship (although 50% of tweets apparently being bots is a disturbing notion on its own).

Meanwhile my friends at Fair.org made this observation (highlight is mine):
Eight days into the first wildcat strike by West Virginia teachers in 27 years—organized by rank-and-file union members in all 55 West Virginia counties—America’s largest liberal cable network, MSNBC, is a virtual no-show in reporting on the momentous labor unrest.

Save for one two-minute throwaway report from daytime show Velshi and Ruhle (2/27/18), MSNBC hasn’t dedicated a single segment to the strike—despite the strike’s unprecedented size and scope, which garnered major coverage from major outlets like CNN (3/1/18), the New York Times (3/1/18), Washington Post (3/2/18), Vox (2/24/18) and dozens of others.

Another major topic that’s non grata at the Comcast-owned cable network is recent efforts by senators Bernie Sanders, Chris Murphy and Mike Lee to end US backing for the brutal, human rights-abusing war on Yemen. Wednesday, the independent, Democrat and Republican introduced a bill to cut off financial and logistical support for Saudi Arabia’s bombing and blockade of Yemen, which has left over 15,000 dead and created more than a million cases of cholera.

As FAIR has noted before, the US-created humanitarian crisis is a total non-issue to MSNBC. During the Obama years, it was ignored entirely (FAIR.org, 10/14/16), and MSNBC hasn’t done much better under Trump’s tenure—reporting on Russia-related stories 5,000 percent more often than on the largest man-made famine on Earth (FAIR.org, 1/8/18).

If congressional Democrats or DoJ officials fed a story to CNN or the Daily Beast, detailing how West Virginia teachers shared a handful of Russian memes in the run-up to the strike, or claiming that a Saudi bombing victim moonlighted as a Kremlin-paid troll, MSNBC would likely have given the stories six segments apiece. Not that the Mueller probe or the larger Russia investigation aren’t newsworthy—they are objectively important—but the nonstop firehose of Russia coverage, as FAIR has shown before, is crowding out other issues important to activists and progressives.
Source

MSNBC, just like most other American TV media, is simply dangerous in its inability to address society in a balanced way as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not talking left versus right balance, but simply covering subjects proportionally based on the reality of their actual impact in society. Its disturbing to see, quite frankly.


Well they go off ratings, don't they? I imagine a teachers strike isn't the sort of thing they want, ratings wise.

That said, I had the impression MSNBC was better regarded - leftie wise - than CNN, is that true? Seems odd that it's CNN who gives the story its fair due, that considered. Might it be something to do with MSNBC's owners?

Their motivation for being shitty is irrelevant to me. They could have captured 100% of the audience with 100% of the advertisers and it makes no difference to me as to how I judge how much time they dedicate to one thing or another. Ratings are not what gives news/reporting quality.


No, I meant it more as an observation for why they didn't. Unless it's more to do with some sort of anti-strike bias by the owners and they just don't want that stuff on their station.

The news has - industry wide - been driven by market forces more towards ratings and sales. I wish there was an easy fix for that but if there is I don't know what it is. If the Trump Presidency in America - and Brexit in the UK - have shown anything it's that the press is vital and needs some sort of stabilisation against market forces, because they seem inexorably to poison the well of good journalism.

On March 11 2018 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On March 11 2018 15:48 Ayaz2810 wrote:
On March 11 2018 08:50 GoTuNk! wrote:
On March 11 2018 05:18 Nebuchad wrote:
On March 11 2018 05:14 Jockmcplop wrote:
On March 11 2018 04:59 Nebuchad wrote:
On March 11 2018 04:18 GoTuNk! wrote:
On March 11 2018 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]

I hope you'll remember that position of yours the next time you hear that SJWs on campuses are the real fascists.


Wrong. You can be a fascist or a communist without murdering people or personally forcing them to death by starvation, since it's a political position. Organizing to riot and violently shut down lectures you disagree with on universities does come close though.
Calling them "literally mousolini" would be different. Nice try.


So it's wrong to compare Trump and Hitler, but it's correct to compare SJWs and fascists?


You can compare Trump to Hitler, but its pointless. He isn't like Hitler.

A much more interesting comparison is John I of England. He was petty and nasty, treated powerful barons with disrespect constantly, pissed everyone off, as well as having a ridiculously unhealthy diet. He did some stuff right, but failed alot too.


That's all fine but I'm much more interested in the fact that GoTunk thinks comparing Trump and Hitler is awful and evidence of idiocy but at the same time comparing SJWs and fascists is all the rage.


I never said such thing.
What I said is you can certainly call people who organize to violently shut down lectures of people who disagree with them, fascist. Wether they call themselves "SJW", freedom fighters, or christian templars is irrelevant to the act.


When the lectures are legitimate, and not just thinly veiled trolling, I would be on board. That seems to rarely be the case. Legitimately different opinions are okay, bullshit like... say Milo, not so much. A lot of "boohoo, students are intolerant of my intolerance!" going on these days.

I don’t think that the far right is scoring very high on self awareness. In France they are sooooo against political correctness but if you say that FN voters are deplorable pond scums, they basically tell you that it’s offensive and how can you generalize, and it’s a huge group of people we are talking about, etc etc...


I agree, but I don't like no-platforming and shutting down university talks and the like, and I'm increasingly leery of safe space legislation, which is a good idea in principle that seems to be increasingly mis-used.

There was a recent incident in the UK of Antifa (legitimately Antifa, not alleged) shutting down a public debate between Sargon of Akkad and Yaron Brook in one of our universities. To me that's not something to be celebrated. Sure, Sargon is a twat and nobody should listen to him, but if they want to waste their brain cells and if they think he actually is smart that's on them. Similarly, if people at universities want to listen to Milo spread his garbage, it's up to them.

An article on the event, for the curious: https://www.rt.com/uk/420563-antifa-alt-right-kings/

Universities are where people need to be encountering these ideas, while they're in an environment that's multi-faceted and people actually talk about things.


tl;dr Universities are good. Duhh

The US continues to be in Afghanistan, five years in, seemingly for no other reason than to give American youths a foreign place to have adventurous & dangerous experiences & fight & maybe die there. This is not a good reason to be in a state of wartime vigilance. That being said, if by some amazing miracle they are able to put in a representative democratic & functioning government in there that would be an incredibly impressive achievement. I would imagine that oil is a factor in that decision. However, as of now, the US has the highest oil production rate due to the oil fields in Texas, Saskatchewan, North Dakota, & South Dakota, so that is not as huge of a draw as maybe it used to be.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/a-war-without-an-objective-6000-days-in/


That was a complete TL;DR fail.

A proper summation would be 'universities are supposed to be good but are increasingly not.'
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
March 12 2018 12:40 GMT
#200898
On March 12 2018 13:18 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 12 2018 12:48 Sermokala wrote:
On March 12 2018 12:45 Ayaz2810 wrote:
On March 12 2018 12:05 ChristianS wrote:
On March 12 2018 07:21 Doodsmack wrote:
So Trump's rally yesterday confirmed again that he's an old-fashioned flaming racist. Any denial of this fact is intellectual dishonesty. There's too many correlations for a half intelligent person to deny.

For the sake of discussion, would you mind enumerating some of the parts that you think prove his racism beyond the point of intellectually honest denial? I heard he called Maxine Waters "low IQ," anything else?


Pretty easy to find.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Did you miss the "for the sake of discussion would you mind enumerating"?


Is that a fancy way of saying "Google it for me so I don't have to"? Why write out what someone else was already nice enough to write out?


I've tried googling it but all I get are many many articles about different trump rallies where he was racist, mostly from 2017.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
Mercy13
Profile Joined January 2011
United States718 Posts
March 12 2018 13:59 GMT
#200899
Certain extreme cases which have happened to make the news aside, this study makes some interesting conclusions regarding how views on free speech in America have changed over time:

For most of its surveys between 1972 and 2016, the General Social Survey asked a U.S. sample to consider the following types of potential public speakers. (They asked about a few others but the following are the ones they asked most consistently.)

“…a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior.” (Henceforth “racist.”)
“Somebody who is against all churches and religion…” (Henceforth “antitheist.”)
“…a man who admits he is a Communist.” (Henceforth “communist.”)
“…a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country.” (Henceforth “militarist.”)
“…a man who admits that he is a homosexual?” (Henceforth, “homosexual.”)
For each type of person, they also asked, “If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community, should he be allowed to speak, or not?”
. . .

[image loading]

[image loading]

Here’s the first interesting insight from Figure 2. As late as the 1970s & 1980s, the Left & the Right were, compared to today, relatively ambivalent about letting people, especially their ideological enemies, speak freely. Many conservatives did not wish to give freedom of speech to groups they were inclined to dislike, such as homosexuals and atheists. Liberals were less willing to give speech rights to militarists than they are today. But since then, the left and the right have become more tolerant to the free speech of many groups. Except racists. What’s unique about today’s fashion of “no platforming” racists (really, anyone deemed racist) is not that it’s new; what’s unique is that this specific type of speaker was exempt from the generally rising tide of speech toleration over the past few decades. Today’s vaguely leftist fashion of “no platforming” anyone deemed racist does not reflect a sudden, massive shift of opinion (although there’s some shift); it seems more to reflect a quite traditional tendency of aversion to despised speakers, which only now appears peculiar because most other despisable speaker types have become tolerated by most other ideological factions. The general, national puzzle, therefore, is not “Why do leftists suddenly seem so opposed to racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist?” This is a puzzle, which we’ll address next, but it’s not the over-arching puzzle. The most general puzzle is “Why have racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist, been exempt from the rising tide of speech toleration, for liberals and conservatives?” As Figure 1 shows, the relatively stable attitudes toward racist speakers are visible as nationwide averages, ignoring ideology. I won’t try to provide an answer for this question here, as clarifying the question seems worthwhile enough for the moment.

The second important fact shown in Figure 2 is that generally, on average, support for free speech increases as you move from conservatism to liberalism. To any political scientist, this should not be surprising; liberals are known to be higher in openness than conservatives, and conservatives have always been more concerned with social control (law and order). This is only interesting as a corrective for claims that have become very popular in the alt-ideological indie media world. This is understandably due to the presence of high-profile left-wing ideologues opposed to free speech—and the presence of high-profile free speech defenders who happen to lean center-right/libertarian. I think I have heard on separate occasions people such as Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan and others, all talk about how puzzling it is that liberalism/leftism used to be the camp of free speech but now they’re the camp of speech suppression. This is not really true. I think what they should say, and maybe what they mean to say, is that “a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech.”
...
The third most fascinating insight from Figure 2 is where, exactly, there has been some opinion shift away from free speech in recent years. If there’s one segment of the ideological spectrum that has become the most censorious toward racists, it is not the Extreme Liberal but rather the Liberal and Slightly Liberal. In other words, it’s likely not Liberalism itself doing the work here, if Extreme Liberals are the most supportive of free speech for racists. As mentioned above, those who identify as “extremely liberal” have always been, on average, the most supportive of free speech (even for racist speakers). Historical phenomena such as the left-wing Berkely Free Speech movement of the 1960s has not been reversed by contemporary SJWs; extreme liberals carry on that tendency, the inference here is simply that SJWs are actually not extreme liberals.


Source
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-03-12 14:29:39
March 12 2018 14:23 GMT
#200900
On March 12 2018 22:59 Mercy13 wrote:
Certain extreme cases which have happened to make the news aside, this study makes some interesting conclusions regarding how views on free speech in America have changed over time:

Show nested quote +
For most of its surveys between 1972 and 2016, the General Social Survey asked a U.S. sample to consider the following types of potential public speakers. (They asked about a few others but the following are the ones they asked most consistently.)

“…a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior.” (Henceforth “racist.”)
“Somebody who is against all churches and religion…” (Henceforth “antitheist.”)
“…a man who admits he is a Communist.” (Henceforth “communist.”)
“…a person who advocates doing away with elections and letting the military run the country.” (Henceforth “militarist.”)
“…a man who admits that he is a homosexual?” (Henceforth, “homosexual.”)
For each type of person, they also asked, “If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community, should he be allowed to speak, or not?”
. . .

[image loading]

[image loading]

Here’s the first interesting insight from Figure 2. As late as the 1970s & 1980s, the Left & the Right were, compared to today, relatively ambivalent about letting people, especially their ideological enemies, speak freely. Many conservatives did not wish to give freedom of speech to groups they were inclined to dislike, such as homosexuals and atheists. Liberals were less willing to give speech rights to militarists than they are today. But since then, the left and the right have become more tolerant to the free speech of many groups. Except racists. What’s unique about today’s fashion of “no platforming” racists (really, anyone deemed racist) is not that it’s new; what’s unique is that this specific type of speaker was exempt from the generally rising tide of speech toleration over the past few decades. Today’s vaguely leftist fashion of “no platforming” anyone deemed racist does not reflect a sudden, massive shift of opinion (although there’s some shift); it seems more to reflect a quite traditional tendency of aversion to despised speakers, which only now appears peculiar because most other despisable speaker types have become tolerated by most other ideological factions. The general, national puzzle, therefore, is not “Why do leftists suddenly seem so opposed to racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist?” This is a puzzle, which we’ll address next, but it’s not the over-arching puzzle. The most general puzzle is “Why have racist speakers, or speakers deemed racist, been exempt from the rising tide of speech toleration, for liberals and conservatives?” As Figure 1 shows, the relatively stable attitudes toward racist speakers are visible as nationwide averages, ignoring ideology. I won’t try to provide an answer for this question here, as clarifying the question seems worthwhile enough for the moment.

The second important fact shown in Figure 2 is that generally, on average, support for free speech increases as you move from conservatism to liberalism. To any political scientist, this should not be surprising; liberals are known to be higher in openness than conservatives, and conservatives have always been more concerned with social control (law and order). This is only interesting as a corrective for claims that have become very popular in the alt-ideological indie media world. This is understandably due to the presence of high-profile left-wing ideologues opposed to free speech—and the presence of high-profile free speech defenders who happen to lean center-right/libertarian. I think I have heard on separate occasions people such as Bret Weinstein, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan and others, all talk about how puzzling it is that liberalism/leftism used to be the camp of free speech but now they’re the camp of speech suppression. This is not really true. I think what they should say, and maybe what they mean to say, is that “a puzzling minority of vaguely leftist activists, who happen to have gained media attention, wish to suppress free speech.”
...
The third most fascinating insight from Figure 2 is where, exactly, there has been some opinion shift away from free speech in recent years. If there’s one segment of the ideological spectrum that has become the most censorious toward racists, it is not the Extreme Liberal but rather the Liberal and Slightly Liberal. In other words, it’s likely not Liberalism itself doing the work here, if Extreme Liberals are the most supportive of free speech for racists. As mentioned above, those who identify as “extremely liberal” have always been, on average, the most supportive of free speech (even for racist speakers). Historical phenomena such as the left-wing Berkely Free Speech movement of the 1960s has not been reversed by contemporary SJWs; extreme liberals carry on that tendency, the inference here is simply that SJWs are actually not extreme liberals.


Source


At a glance, it seems extreme liberals and conservatives have the most similar patterns.

Somethingsomethinghorseshoes.

Also the intolerant left/ SJW is apparently made up of liberal/ slightly liberals.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
Prev 1 10043 10044 10045 10046 10047 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Esports World Cup
10:00
2025 - Day 3
Serral vs ReynorLIVE!
Maru vs Cure
herO vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
EWC_Arena7558
ComeBackTV 2009
Hui .578
TaKeTV 430
Berry_CruncH316
JimRising 288
3DClanTV 236
Rex230
CranKy Ducklings117
mcanning106
Reynor82
SpeCial67
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
EWC_Arena7558
Hui .578
JimRising 288
Rex 230
mcanning 106
Reynor 82
SpeCial 67
ProTech53
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 4638
Bisu 1968
Flash 1076
firebathero 1061
EffOrt 911
BeSt 808
Jaedong 693
Stork 368
Mini 351
Hyuk 335
[ Show more ]
Zeus 302
ggaemo 255
Last 253
Pusan 213
Soma 176
Soulkey 173
Mind 166
Snow 137
ZerO 135
Light 133
Hyun 116
ToSsGirL 102
JYJ95
JulyZerg 71
Larva 68
Dewaltoss 63
Sea.KH 49
Sharp 42
sorry 30
soO 27
sas.Sziky 25
Sacsri 24
Movie 19
yabsab 19
Icarus 15
scan(afreeca) 13
ivOry 4
Terrorterran 3
Dota 2
XcaliburYe301
BananaSlamJamma244
420jenkins118
League of Legends
febbydoto11
Counter-Strike
fl0m1478
x6flipin411
zeus176
sgares146
Other Games
singsing2423
B2W.Neo1237
Beastyqt527
crisheroes359
hiko303
Fuzer 193
QueenE33
ArmadaUGS25
ZerO(Twitch)6
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 7
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 10586
• WagamamaTV392
League of Legends
• Nemesis1356
• Jankos569
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
22h 27m
OSC
1d 1h
CranKy Ducklings
1d 21h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.