|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 02 2019 00:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2019 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 01 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On February 01 2019 23:27 Taelshin wrote:
Isn't TYT funded by some massive billionaire backer? I dunno anyways I don't agree with you at all about him making the world worse but as I said , to each his own. You shouldn't write off every guest he has just because you don't like the host, that seems petty and you might miss out on someone who really speaks to your ideals. TYT is mostly funded by members but they do have some backers, you're right. If you can show that their views have been influenced by that reality, have at it. I have not seen that but I also don't watch them a lot anymore, they're not as leftwing as I'd like. That should tell you enough about whether Rubin's guests speak to my ideals. Either way the case is extremely easy to make for Rubin, he has zero consistency to his views and his changes of opinion just happen to coincide with his changes of moneymaking schemes. He is unarguably a sellout, and he sells out for the worst. Including Bolsonaro. Imagine going to Brazil as a gay man and saying that Bolsonaro is a cool dude and he only looks bad because the media is doing some leftist conspiracy against him. God I hope the money's worth it. lol, what a dumbass. Has he learned about him since or is he just letting that linger? I don't know. Haven't heard any retractions but I wouldn't have heard them. Did a quick Twitter search and found nothing so my guess is he lets that linger, that's his style. Show nested quote +On February 01 2019 23:50 Taelshin wrote:
It's been a while since I watched the Stefan episode It was posted on nov 9th 2017 but If I remember right he did comment to SM that his views on IQ and such were controversial. Maybe that's not enough push back for you guys but as it goes by listening to someone speak your able to decide for your self if their idea's are bad or not. I'll never tire of posting some Innuendo Studios I think. Here is the relevant one in this case!Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 00:06 Taelshin wrote:
Is it the job of the interviewer to push there own views and conclusions on the interviewee or are some people just not worthy of being aloud to speak(and who gets to decide whats worthy or not)? You could start with the people who are blatantly lying on your show. Some interviewers would take issue with that, they would feel that it devalues their program.
I still remember when the world was going to end if we didn't save the rain forest so that scares me about Bolsonaro but that gay people in his country are worried about being burned at the stake would seem to be something Rubin would want to know about him.
|
On February 02 2019 00:36 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 00:12 iamthedave wrote:On February 01 2019 23:57 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2019 22:03 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On January 28 2019 18:39 iamthedave wrote:On January 28 2019 03:11 JimmiC wrote:
As I just mentioned above, the parties official message was much better than the tweets. Twitter is a bad forum for politics. Who knew? Pretty good one to get the opinions of the MPs but ill remember your opinions when you comment on trumps twitter. Also notice how I follow up with corrections comparer to you who just keeps spouting ill informed opinions as facts and bad one liners. Much like the world didnt name Juan president. He named himself acting president as leader of the national assembly until fair elections can be held. And the (free) world supported that. You still cant get even the order right. Even after corrected multiple times. I mean it shows your level of knowledge when you made that 8 day comment which was clearly an opinion based on reading the title of an article and not the whole thing because I'm sure even you have the reading comprehension to have figured out what they meant if you actually read it. Do you want to take something to calm down and then try reposting that to make some sort of coherent sense? And fear not, you'll find me quite coherent on Trump's twitter. It's also quite amusing to see you having a go at my reading comprehension when I've explained to you my stance on multiple things in clear, simple language and you still don't get it. Something something stones something something glass houses. Your own reading comprehension seems to be at such a remedial level that despite multiple posters in multiple threads all expressing doubts at differing levels of complexity you still can't get your head around a multiplicity of viewpoints on your current obsession. But by all means continue. Your foaming at the mouth is amusing. I'm so, so sorry that I committed the cardinal sin of not agreeing with you on the issue of Venezuala. Also, are you actually arguing that twitter is a good forum for politics? Is that your view? Yes it is my view that Politicians personal view on issues is indicated by tweets from their personal accounts. It doesn't frustrate me that you disagree with me. It is frustrating that you know almost nothing on the subject and make sweeping statements of fact based on only your biases and assumptions. And your ignorance goes as far as you basing your opinion you treat as fact on the titles of articles you don't even bother to read. It also shows a little bit about your character when you search my name to come attack me in here when you have never posted here before. What? I didn't search your name! I wasn't even attacking you. I was making a pithy one-liner about twitter being a shit forum for politics! You were the one who took that neutral one-liner and actually did attack me. NEWSFLASH: The world does not revolve around you, and I don't spare you the slightest thought. The only people I've ever searched on TL were GH and XDaunt, in both cases because I was looking for some old posts they'd made and couldn't remember what threads they made them in. Odd that I thought when you quoted my post and didn't take in the context of the above posts, to make your "pithy" post, with never posting on this thread before that it was something personal. Also do you not think a politicians twitter is not a good place to find that politicians view on a subject? And if you think it is ok, did you not read the post right above or the one two above that? And if you only read that one post, what just happened to bring you to the Canada politics thread at that exact moment to read just that one post? If you would like to continue to discuss how unreasonable my assumption was feel free to PM me. It is always embarrassing when someone posts a Dave Rubin or the like video on an internationally read site. Let it be known that most Canadians to not ascribe to his beliefs and so far any far right candidate with those type of beliefs have gotten 1% of the vote. And MP's have been kicked out of parties for supporting or retweeting that type of shit. There is a push right in certain provinces right now, but it is a push towards the American Center not the American right.
I'm not interested in PMing you. There's nothing I can think of saying there that I'm afraid of being public.
I had in fact been reading the thread for several pages, and your post was the first I felt like commenting on. Pithily. Your paranoia is... interesting. Yes, your assumption is completely unreasonable. Stop being a weirdo.
As for what brought me into the Canadian politics thread? It just turned up on the General sidebar one day and I decided to click on it. Same way I found the US Politics thread way back when, then the UK politics thread, the guns thread, and every other non-gaming thread I read.
And no, generally I don't think twitter is a good place to find a politicians' views on a subject. It's a terrible, terrible medium because the character limit leads to a lack of nuance, and polticians' views on basically anything tend to be nuanced as a simple consequence of their profession, leading to a lot of wrong assumptions that - due to the nature of viral media - get treated as gospel and muddy the waters horribly.
I'd hope that you don't find that view of twitter to be especially controversial. If a politician's views can be easily condensed into so few characters they probably shouldn't be a politician.
EDIT: Amusingly enough I looked back; you didn't even have a post on the first page I looked at, which was number 51, where GH has a go at Trudeau's seeming lack of vim and vigour concerning sterilising people.
|
|
|
Neb I watched that video, The things hes talking about are definitely tools used by both the right and the left or the "alt right" and Farther left say. Obviously hes going after the "alt right" which is fine but he does seem to group a lot of people under that umbrella. If you look at some of the youtube comments there is a one with a lot of replies and its a bunch of people talking about platforming, freedom of speech, the ability to listen to someones idea and then shut it down instead of just de-platforming or not allowing them to speak in the first place. Seems like a valid conversation that's happening in more then one place.
|
What is an "invalid" conversation? And more importantly, is the discussion really happening or is the member of the alt right just regurgitating their propaganda?
|
On February 02 2019 01:38 Taelshin wrote:
Neb I watched that video, The things hes talking about are definitely tools used by both the right and the left or the "alt right" and Farther left say. Obviously hes going after the "alt right" which is fine but he does seem to group a lot of people under that umbrella. If you look at some of the youtube comments there is a one with a lot of replies and its a bunch of people talking about platforming, freedom of speech, the ability to listen to someones idea and then shut it down instead of just de-platforming or not allowing them to speak in the first place. Seems like a valid conversation that's happening in more then one place.
It's a conversation happening most places, I think. I have my personal opinions on how things should be but at this point it's very hard to tell what the actual best approach is. No-platforming in particular strikes me as at best a weak response because it just seems to create a larger place for them on the internet and other places.
|
On February 02 2019 02:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 01:38 Taelshin wrote:
Neb I watched that video, The things hes talking about are definitely tools used by both the right and the left or the "alt right" and Farther left say. Obviously hes going after the "alt right" which is fine but he does seem to group a lot of people under that umbrella. If you look at some of the youtube comments there is a one with a lot of replies and its a bunch of people talking about platforming, freedom of speech, the ability to listen to someones idea and then shut it down instead of just de-platforming or not allowing them to speak in the first place. Seems like a valid conversation that's happening in more then one place. It's a conversation happening most places, I think. I have my personal opinions on how things should be but at this point it's very hard to tell what the actual best approach is. No-platforming in particular strikes me as at best a weak response because it just seems to create a larger place for them on the internet and other places.
It doesn't though. Alex Jones and Milo showed that.
|
If you deplatform people, they cannot make money off their hateful bullshit. Also, the term deplatforming is a term created in the era where anyone can create a youtube channel for free. But this wouldn’t be any different that a local public broadcast station not carrying a show any more because the host said a bunch of racist shit on air. Youtube doesn’t carry Alex Jones anymore because he was far more trouble than he was worth. But remember it took years to get to that point and Alex Jones is a millionaire.
The equation is simple. There is a market for racist TV media telling racists they are right and the world is wrong to repress their world views. There always has been. We just kept it off of major media outlets until the internet gave them a whole new venue to find an audience. The choice is simple. Either kick the racist off of the social media platforms or get comfortable with a bunch of very rich media figures who exist solely to pander to racists and terrible people.
|
P6, is Alex Jones racist? crazy right wing conspiracy theorist maybe, but not racist. is he a terrible person? i don't know the bar for terrible in your mind, but I've never heard that as a description of him. Not someone i watched but harmless would be my judgement.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 02 2019 05:04 Taelshin wrote:
P6, is Alex Jones racist? crazy right wing conspiracy theorist maybe, but not racist. is he a terrible person? i don't know the bar for terrible in your mind, but I've never heard that as a description of him. Not someone i watched but harmless would be my judgement.
He caused the families of the Shady Hook shooting to be harassed for years, to the point where they filed a lawsuit against him for continuing to promote the idea that the families faked their children’s deaths. Or something. And when I say they were harassed, they were forced to move(Like sell their house) more than a few times.
Alex Jones is a straight up harmful person and complete piece of shit, profiting off the suffering of others and spouting conspiracy theories to line his own pockets. I’m sort of shock in 2019 that someone even mildly aware of Alex Jones would know that he straight up garbage human.
As for him being a racist, sure. If I remember he correctly, he was all about the birther conspiracy and that is pretty much across the line for me.
|
On February 02 2019 05:04 Taelshin wrote:
P6, is Alex Jones racist? crazy right wing conspiracy theorist maybe, but not racist. is he a terrible person? i don't know the bar for terrible in your mind, but I've never heard that as a description of him. Not someone i watched but harmless would be my judgement.
To everyone else reading this thread:
Aren't we years into seeing posters like this show up with garbage reactionary media to disperse, only to retreat into some weird facade of innocence or unawareness when they receive critical feedback. It's a great tactic because it keeps allowing them to ask leading questions.
I think it's called concern trolling
|
On February 02 2019 05:31 rexxO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2019 05:04 Taelshin wrote:
P6, is Alex Jones racist? crazy right wing conspiracy theorist maybe, but not racist. is he a terrible person? i don't know the bar for terrible in your mind, but I've never heard that as a description of him. Not someone i watched but harmless would be my judgement. To everyone else reading this thread: Aren't we years into seeing posters like this show up with garbage reactionary media to disperse, only to retreat into some weird facade of innocence or unawareness when they receive critical feedback. It's a great tactic because it keeps allowing them to ask leading questions. I think it's called concern trolling
Taelshin has been a member of TL since 2010, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt for a little while. But I share your opinion on this subject and the direction of this discussion.
|
|
|
On February 02 2019 05:38 JimmiC wrote:
Anyone who touts Alex Jones in any sort of positive light is either a troll as suggested or so far gone it is not worth the effort.
Id go for as to say anyone who touts him in anything but a negative light is already far gone. I will begrudgingly admit that I have on my commute gone through atleast a dozen casts over the past few years. Honestly its a complete waste of time but I feel like its worth listening to just to get a sense so I sometimes force myself. Its so horrifyingly awful and its not just harmless conspiracy theories.
+ Show Spoiler +In alot of ways hes quite deviously clever. What he says is absolute tosh but he frames it in a "but hey what if it is true" narrative and hes very good with the words that are required of him for his particular audience. And in the subtext of all of the rubbish are sublte messages that sort of sit in his audiences brain and I can assure you aside from the clearly aggregious things like the Sandy Hook parent harassment. None of what he says and I mean that in like an all caps yell. NONE is harmless. I can think of a few routine harmless sounding examples of conspiracy theory bullshit + Show Spoiler +(100,000km away there is a Space satelite controlling the weather to force us to believe in climate change) a significant part of the US, more than we like to admit are Dumbasses. The same kind of dumbasses third world countries have and believe me I have more exposure to this then everyone in this conversation combined, but said countries have a reasonable excuse. Whats more concerning is that Alex Jones exists in the first place. And now hes just rolling. Hes gotten kicked of all platforms but continues to enjoy enough success to keep going.
|
On February 02 2019 05:38 JimmiC wrote:
Anyone who touts Alex Jones in any sort of positive light is either a troll as suggested or so far gone it is not worth the effort.
Or in this case, who tries to dismiss him as harmless. I can't think of many figures on the American media stage who I'd describe with worse words than Jones, save the President.
The nicest I could say about Jones would be 'malignant'.
Out of curiousity, does Canada have its Jones equivalents, or does it have laws that would allow lawmakers to shut down someone like him for spreading lies and other bullshit?
|
|
|
|
|
Bleh. You never picture someone that vile doing good in Canada. Fingers crossed she's not a sign of worse to come.
|
|
|
Potential big scoop from The G&M saying the PMO attempted to influence Wilson-Raybould (former Justice Minister and now Veteran Affairs Minister) to ease on prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. She refused, so she was shuffled around. Could hit Trudeau and the Liberals big on an election year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
