I'm starting to loathe the actions of hate-filled liberal socialists

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4083
Accurate
Jul 7, 2017 8:45 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4083
DreCosby
jasper de large
Janson Jinnistan
jasper de largeIf they didn't, then they weren't who he was talking about. He was talking about those who did.

I'm actually talking about how you seem completely indifferent to those who did not.

Indifferent? Or simply not claiming to know the truth of it? You seem to claim to know.

But which is more honest? I can at least admit I cannot claim to know the whole truth of the matter, that is to say who among the accusers and accused is lying on each claim and who isn't. I already said maybe they could all be telling the truth. But I've yet to hear you admit that they could be lying. So already we cannot have an honest conversation.
Maybe just some are lying but most are telling the truth. Maybe some are telling the truth, but most are lying. Maybe all of them are telling half-truths. Maybe half are telling truth, and half are lying. Maybe it's all true. Maybe none of it is.

But the inescapable fact remains as I said that we cannot necessarily connect what he talked about with Billy Bush to what he was specifically accused of by the individual accusers. He didn't name any names besides the one who he remarked left him alone.

I've yielded the truth, which is that I don't know. You will not yield this same truth, but instead would presume to know the truth. But you cannot fool anyone into believing that you know what you plainly cannot possibly know, yet you will not admit even this basic entry-level concession. So really why should anyone even bother listening to you since you've already decided to presume knowledge of that which you absolutely cannot claim to know?

Look, it's plain for all to see that you really want the worst to be the truth. And if it is, then I absolutely want there to be consequences just as badly as anyone.

So go prove it. Why are you arguing with me? I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the accusations. I will celebrate and applaud anyone who can prove such damning claims as Trump's being a serial rapist or traitor to the nation. Truth be told, the latter has always been a greater concern, but I guess that has to be the misogynist in me. It cannot possibly be because I find the security of the nation and our entire way of life to be a greater concern than he-said-she-said scandals which no one will ever get to the bottom of.

Clinton skated after rape. And didn't Cosby just walk in the face of a tsunami of accusations?

What in the ever-loving blazes do you guys really expect here?

It's either Trump into 2020 or WW3 happens. And God forbid both. I know you guys want to hate on me for being so callous and cold, and heavens-to-betsy, indifferent. Sorry for all that. I'm just a lot more concerned about WW3, Russia, North Korea, and I dunno, a thousand other things besides cases the only thing we can be certain of is that none of us can prove one way or another.

People are dying in the world. They are being maimed.

You guys are fretting over quarrels you'll never get to the bottom of and memes.

Let's say that 12 of the accusers are lying and only 1 of them is telling the truth. That still means that Trump is a sexual predator. And even if he didn't describe exactly what he did, that one woman, who previously thought that no one would believer her, came forward because she thought that people might believe her after they heard him describe sexual assault. So the only way for this to be a nothing burger is if not a single one of them was telling the truth. So it looks like I'll have to ask the question again since you still haven't answered it. Do you really think that all 13 accusers are lying??

Good grief you've set a really low bar here. This is at least the 5th time you've asked, and you're getting the same answer. I don't know. Nothing has changed. And you still cannot connect his comments to Billy Bush to the accusers.

You're already granting for the sake of argument that 12 of them could be lying. But I already told you that maybe they could all be telling the truth. So why are you still asking me about something which I cannot possibly claim to know and neither can you?
Jul 7, 2017 8:59 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4083
Janson JinnistanI don't mind dressing jasper down on whichever subject he feels most comfortable with.


jasper de largeThat guy probably didn't even make the meme.

He did. ?He admitted it. ?He was "honored" by the president's retweet.

lol yes, because when people claim things on the internet that makes it true.

The fact of the matter is CNN had already demonstrated gross incompetence and integrity by hunting down a meme-maker in the first place.? And they still might not have gotten the right guy.


Janson JinnistanI don't mind dressing jasper down on whichever subject he feels most comfortable with.


jasper de largethen sought to prosecute the baiter

Well, CNN doesn't have the power to prosecute anyone - not being district attorneys - and I'm not aware that they've sought to press charges.

Tapdancing Christ on a cracker! Choosing to press charges or threaten to do so is tantamount to prosecuting. No they are not literally a law firm, but they surely have a legal department and an army of lawyers to do their bidding. Quit passing the buck like it's not their call.

Further, "prosecute" has definitions beyond legal. Not just lawsuits, but wars are also prosecuted. And before you resort to pedantry again by pointing out the obvious that this is "not literally war" - for YOU it is not, but for that lowly (and loathsome I'll grant) Redditor and millions of other people this is very much a war being waged.

So yes, I'll gladly stick with prosecute. What they did is so utterly ridiculous, they've earned this mockery they're currently be deluged with and ironically only serves Trump.

For fuck's sake, is this really so hard for you guys to comprehend? The backlash from this was so easily foreseeable. Who in the hell really thought this was a good idea? Almost the whole of the internet is raining down on CNN with thunderous condemnation - even every liberal pundit I follow is facepalming, and many are piling on.


Janson Jinnistan
They did embarrass themselves by both trying to remove the gif through the "hateful conduct" clause on Twitter and by implicitly threatening to out the guy at some point at their discretion. ?CNN - the channel that three years after claiming plane-snatching black holes exist in our atmosphere, some people still take them seriously.

I think that you may have missed the part where the guy in question did not apologize for the tweet itself. ?He apologized once he realized that he had an entire history of racist, homophobic and anti-semetic posts that he may have to answer for.

1st part, yep.

2nd part, tweet? What tweet was he supposed to apologize for? You mean the meme? But why should he ever have to apologize for the meme in the first place? This is what's killing CNN right now. The whole point is that they tracked down and imposed what everyone is now perceiving as a formulated threat to dox him if he did not show contrition - again, contrition for something nobody should ever have to be hunted down and forced to apologize for!

His history of shitposting and trolling with racist language is impertinent to the purported case between CNN and him. They did not go after him for any of that. Their version, which has changed at least twice now, is still untenable. And now it is apparent to folks that they were effectively blackmailing him. Why the hell else did #CNNBlackmail become the #1 trending tag?

By now, whether they are technically culpable of blackmail in legal terms or not is practically moot. The optics on this are devastating because they are a multi-billion dollar company seen as vindictive punks triggered by a meme of all things.

Even supposing they had their their way and got a genuine apology they still look horrible.

And again, I don't want to see them destroyed as many folks do, and certainly this case won't ultimately even dent them. They want the whole of legacy media to be toppled and supplanted by internet-based journalism. I already said this is too radical and too destabilizing. I think we'd all be better served by CNN redeeming themselves.

But the damage has been done. It wouldn't matter if the meme-maker turned out to be a serial killer, because the whole idea of a meme is that it stands by itself and anyone can circulate it, and its value is only determined by the weight of its message. The argument itself in this case was just a visual gag.

Odds are just about every other person on this forum has reblogged a meme without knowing who made it or what that creators history was. Odds are pretty good many people have circulated memes made by folks who hold views they'd take exception to, strongly disagree with, or maybe even find offensive. Does that make everyone accountable to each of those meme-creators' views?

The foolishness of this was already patently clear ages ago. CNN's journos responsible for this seem to have behaved as though they were only first exposed to the internet and how it works a week ago.

I'm not one to hastily call for people being fired, I'll just say I wouldn't want Andrew Kaczynski working for my news channel. This was extremely poor judgment that utterly backfired on CNN and reflects them horrifically.
Jul 7, 2017 9:53 AM
0 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4083
From everyone's favorite tiny Jewish, bitter, law-school-graduate firebrand Ben Shapiro:

"Last week, the President of the United States tweeted out an idiotic meme of himself, from his WWE days, pummeling another combatant after clotheslining him. The meme included a CNN logo pasted over the combatant's head, making it appear as though Trump was pummeling the CNN logo.

Dumb, funny, ridiculous.

Par for the course.

It was difficult for CNN to find a way to screw up the story. Here was President Trump tweeting out juvenile insults at them. All they had to do was scoff and point out that Trump is the president, not some 4chan s***poster. This was a gimme.

They blew the putt.

First, they claimed that the gif was an actual threat of violence - or at the very least, would prompt violence from Trump supporters. This comes shortly after a Bernie Sanders-supporting, Trump-hating leftist attempted to assassinate dozens of Republican congresspeople, and CNN insisted - rightly! - that left-wing rhetoric wasn't responsible for nut jobs committing evil crimes. But that logic went directly out the window when CNN saw an opportunity to pounce on Trump.

Then it got worse.

On Sunday, CNN dropped a report on the tweet. The report didn't focus on why the president would tweet such a thing; it didn't focus on why the president would be trolling Reddit for Twitter material; it didn't even focus on why the Trump White House and Trump campaign made unsubtle overtures to the underbelly of the internet.

No, CNN decided to focus on the original s***poster who put up the Reddit meme Trump hijacked for his Twitter. CNN's Andrew Kaczynski put out a piece tracking down the Redditor who put it up; Kaczynski reported that the guy's feed was full of anti-Semitic and racist imagery, but added that the man had apologized profusely online, said that he never wanted Trump to put up the meme, and stated that the meme wasn't meant to encourage violence. Then CNN dropped this incredible two paragraphs:

CNN is not publishing HanA**holeSolo's name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.


That's essentially blackmail. That's CNN stating that it will out the guy if he dares to defy their political perspective or offends them sufficiently.

The whole story is frightening, and obviously an attempt to both nail Trump and discourage people from smacking CNN. Here's the thing: the story here isn't the guy who made the meme. It's the president who tweeted it. Do we really want to establish a rule wherein every piece of information distributed now becomes suspect subject to the other, unrelated work of the source? That?s a pretty dangerous rule. Trump's tweet was unpresidential and ridiculous. It wasn't anti-Semitic or racist. What do the other anti-Semitic or racist memes made by the guy who made the CNN logo meme have to do with anything? And if this fellow's other material is so newsworthy, wouldn't CNN have an obligation to publicize his identity? Why would an apology cause CNN to hide his identity? The obvious implication is that CNN was happy to hide the guy's identity so long as he followed their recommended playbook.

CNN has accomplished the Houdini-esque feat of turning itself into the villain after President Trump tweeted a gif of himself body-slamming the CNN logo and punching it. This should demonstrate once again that Trump isn't ruining CNN - CNN is so obsessed with Trump that it's busily ruining whatever is left of its credibility."

The memes are coming folks.
Jul 7, 2017 10:07 AM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
jasper de largeChoosing to press charges or threaten to do so is tantamount to prosecuting.

Again, I haven't seen any charges pressed. That's tantamount to non-prosecuting.

jasper de largeBut why should he ever have to apologize for the meme in the first place?

The point is that no one asked him to apologize, and CNN would certainly look a lot worse if they tried to get an apology from someone for making such a gif. I guess you could chalk it up to CNN's good fortune that the original gif (without added sound) was made by someone with a long history of racist and hateful posts. Those are the things that the guy was preemptively apologizing for, a self-interested apology to be sure.

jasper de largeWhy the hell else did #CNNBlackmail become the #1 trending tag?

I guess I'll quote you here: "because when people claim things on the internet that makes it true".

jasper de largeOdds are just about every other person on this forum has reblogged a meme without knowing who made it or what that creators history was. Odds are pretty good many people have circulated memes made by folks who hold views they'd take exception to, strongly disagree with, or maybe even find offensive. Does that make everyone accountable to each of those meme-creators' views?

There is also a consistent pattern which goes far beyond these odds. Like the Star of David meme that had only been posted on a white supremacist site, but showed up in a Trump tweet. After awhile, it seems clear that either Trump or someone on his staff is a rigorous viewer of white supremacist message boards and followers of white supremacist twitter accounts. So when this gif was sourced back to someone who is a virulent racist, it's far less surprising than if he wasn't.
Jul 7, 2017 12:09 PM
0 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 22659
jasper de large
DreCosby
jasper de large
Janson Jinnistan
jasper de largeIf they didn't, then they weren't who he was talking about. He was talking about those who did.

I'm actually talking about how you seem completely indifferent to those who did not.

Indifferent? Or simply not claiming to know the truth of it? You seem to claim to know.

But which is more honest? I can at least admit I cannot claim to know the whole truth of the matter, that is to say who among the accusers and accused is lying on each claim and who isn't. I already said maybe they could all be telling the truth. But I've yet to hear you admit that they could be lying. So already we cannot have an honest conversation.
Maybe just some are lying but most are telling the truth. Maybe some are telling the truth, but most are lying. Maybe all of them are telling half-truths. Maybe half are telling truth, and half are lying. Maybe it's all true. Maybe none of it is.

But the inescapable fact remains as I said that we cannot necessarily connect what he talked about with Billy Bush to what he was specifically accused of by the individual accusers. He didn't name any names besides the one who he remarked left him alone.

I've yielded the truth, which is that I don't know. You will not yield this same truth, but instead would presume to know the truth. But you cannot fool anyone into believing that you know what you plainly cannot possibly know, yet you will not admit even this basic entry-level concession. So really why should anyone even bother listening to you since you've already decided to presume knowledge of that which you absolutely cannot claim to know?

Look, it's plain for all to see that you really want the worst to be the truth. And if it is, then I absolutely want there to be consequences just as badly as anyone.

So go prove it. Why are you arguing with me? I don't claim to have any special knowledge of the accusations. I will celebrate and applaud anyone who can prove such damning claims as Trump's being a serial rapist or traitor to the nation. Truth be told, the latter has always been a greater concern, but I guess that has to be the misogynist in me. It cannot possibly be because I find the security of the nation and our entire way of life to be a greater concern than he-said-she-said scandals which no one will ever get to the bottom of.

Clinton skated after rape. And didn't Cosby just walk in the face of a tsunami of accusations?

What in the ever-loving blazes do you guys really expect here?

It's either Trump into 2020 or WW3 happens. And God forbid both. I know you guys want to hate on me for being so callous and cold, and heavens-to-betsy, indifferent. Sorry for all that. I'm just a lot more concerned about WW3, Russia, North Korea, and I dunno, a thousand other things besides cases the only thing we can be certain of is that none of us can prove one way or another.

People are dying in the world. They are being maimed.

You guys are fretting over quarrels you'll never get to the bottom of and memes.

Let's say that 12 of the accusers are lying and only 1 of them is telling the truth. That still means that Trump is a sexual predator. And even if he didn't describe exactly what he did, that one woman, who previously thought that no one would believer her, came forward because she thought that people might believe her after they heard him describe sexual assault. So the only way for this to be a nothing burger is if not a single one of them was telling the truth. So it looks like I'll have to ask the question again since you still haven't answered it. Do you really think that all 13 accusers are lying??

Good grief you've set a really low bar here. This is at least the 5th time you've asked, and you're getting the same answer. I don't know. Nothing has changed. And you still cannot connect his comments to Billy Bush to the accusers.

You're already granting for the sake of argument that 12 of them could be lying. But I already told you that maybe they could all be telling the truth. So why are you still asking me about something which I cannot possibly claim to know and neither can you?

Even if you can't connect the comments to the accusers, they came forward because of them. The fallout is what proves that he's a sexual predator.


I don't think that 12 are lying. I really don't. But of all the possibilities that you put forth, how possible is it that 100% are lying? It's the least likely scenario, in my opinion. There's a one in a million chance of that being the truth. Are you really entertaining that possibility for the sake of your argument? But if you really don't think that I've been asking a yes or no question, I'll modify it. What odds do you give to the possibility that all of Trump's accusers are lying? What percentage likelihood would you give it?
Jul 7, 2017 2:41 PM
0 0
Stu
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 67041
DreCosbyEven if you can't connect the comments to the accusers, they came forward because of them. The fallout is what proves that he's a sexual predator.

I don't think that 12 are lying. I really don't. But of all the possibilities that you put forth, how possible is it that 100% are lying? It's the least likely scenario, in my opinion. There's a one in a million chance of that being the truth. Are you really entertaining that possibility for the sake of your argument? But if you really don't think that I've been asking a yes or no question, I'll modify it. What odds do you give to the possibility that all of Trump's accusers are lying? What percentage likelihood would you give it?

Also, according to the authorities, only about 5% of sexual assault allegations turn out to be false, and that's just when considering a single accuser... much less twelve of them all accusing the same man.
Jul 7, 2017 6:29 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Jul 17, 2017 10:34 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 11871
YAWNCounterpoint to the idea of White Privilege

Again, a much better discussion here:

http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2017/03/27/ep161-1-white-privilege/

http://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2017/04/03/ep161-2-white-privilege/

Wes raises some of these issues, but with a lot more nuance. It isn't about characterizing white privilege talk simply by a caricature of its most hysterical instances, a "CRIME!" warranting action in line with liquidation of the kulaks. You don't build bridges and break bubbles with that. You just speak past the vast majority of people talking about that in vastly more sensible terms and lead them to believe, "Well, this guy isn't interested in actually understanding me or what I'm saying." You turn into exactly what you're decrying.
Jul 17, 2017 8:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Jul 20, 2017 2:44 AM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Jul 22, 2017 6:01 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
I'm starting to loathe Yarn's media sources.
Jul 22, 2017 6:51 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson JinnistanI'm starting to loathe Yarn's media sources.

It either happened or it didn't. If you have another source establishing, with greater likelihood, that the event didn't happen or happen as described offer it up. Until then, you're just loathing the messenger.
Jul 22, 2017 7:13 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
YAWN
Janson JinnistanI'm starting to loathe Yarn's media sources.

It either happened or it didn't. If you have another source establishing, with greater likelihood, that the event didn't happen or happen as described offer it up. Until then, you're just loathing the messenger.

The details are flimsy, and the school's account is directly contradictory to the professor's. I need to know more before knowing which one to believe.

Here's an example for why this site is not trustworthy. They stand for "pluralism", and we can all agree with this ideal, I hope. But then, without any self-consciousness, they offer this story as another example of this PC authoritarianism. I do not see what the problem here is supposed to be. "Serious explorations into race should focus on the problem of whiteness and be grounded in the claim that it's a hegemonic 'power apparatus'." Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Oh, that's right. You have this defensive tendency to conflate "white" ethnicity with "whiteness", the complexion for the protection which was nicely laid bare in the book by Nell Irvin Painter. There's a variety of white people. They used to be almost purely Anglo-Saxon for centuries. With the melting pot of America, we saw where non-Anglo Gaelic (Irish, Welsh, Scots) and non-Saxon Germanic peoples were folded into the club whereas they had previously been considered "common" (not a compliment, btw). With each wave of immigration, we saw other successive inclusions into the White club - Italians, Greeks, Poles, Jews. Each one of these peoples went through the initiatory hazing of decades of assimilation and swarthy, selfish stereotypes, and finally reluctant acceptance. In short, they had to earn their whiteness. And whiteness is a political construct, not an ethnicity.

So I'm all for a class on this subject, as an example of exactly the kind of pluralism that has been denied to non-white people for ages. Since this school is predominantly white, I don't see how white people would be barred from taking the course, or barred from debating any contentions that they may have with the material. I think that it is helpful for a class studying the phenomenon of "race" to understand these historical hegemonies ("whiteness" being predominant for the West). I hope Yarn doesn't require a trigger warning for this work.
Jul 22, 2017 7:35 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
YAWN
Janson JinnistanI'm starting to loathe Yarn's media sources.

It either happened or it didn't. If you have another source establishing, with greater likelihood, that the event didn't happen or happen as described offer it up. Until then, you're just loathing the messenger.

The details are flimsy, and the school's account is directly contradictory to the professor's. ?I need to know more before knowing which one to believe.

Here's an example for why this site is not trustworthy. ?They stand for "pluralism", and we can all agree with this ideal, I hope. ?But then, without any self-consciousness, they offer this story as another example of this PC authoritarianism. ?I do not see what the problem here is supposed to be. ?"Serious explorations into race should focus on the problem of whiteness and be grounded in the claim that it's a hegemonic 'power apparatus'." ?Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Oh, that's right. ?You have this defensive tendency to conflate "white" ethnicity with "whiteness", the complexion for the protection which was nicely laid bare in the book by Nell Irvin Painter. ?There's a variety of white people. ?They used to be almost purely Anglo-Saxon for centuries. ?With the melting pot of America, we saw where non-Anglo Gaelic (Irish, Welsh, Scots) and non-Saxon Germanic peoples were folded into the club whereas they had previously been considered "common" (not a compliment, btw). ?With each wave of immigration, we saw other successive inclusions into the White club - Italians, Greeks, Poles, Jews. ?Each one of these peoples went through the initiatory hazing of decades of assimilation and swarthy, selfish stereotypes, and finally reluctant acceptance. ?In short, they had to earn their whiteness. ?And whiteness is a political construct, not an ethnicity.

So I'm all for a class on this subject, as an example of exactly the kind of pluralism that has been denied to non-white people for ages. ?Since this school is predominantly white, I don't see how white people would be barred from taking the course, or barred from debating any contentions that they may have with the material. ?I think that it is helpful for a class studying the phenomenon of "race" to understand these historical hegemonies ("whiteness" being predominant for the West). ?I hope Yarn doesn't require a trigger warning for this work.

Sorry, I just didn't read any of that.
Jul 22, 2017 7:39 PM
0 0
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 12738
YAWNSorry, I just didn't read any of that.

Thank god for the trigger warning. The snowflake almost melted.
Jul 22, 2017 7:40 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Janson Jinnistan
YAWNSorry, I just didn't read any of that.

Thank god for the trigger warning. ?The snowflake almost melted.

This makes no sense, sorry.
Jul 22, 2017 7:43 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 3304
Why do you keep saying sorry?
Jul 22, 2017 7:44 PM
0 0
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 11205
Black PhilipWhy do you keep saying sorry?

Sorry, it's just a habit.
Jul 22, 2017 7:45 PM
0 0
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 3304
You a Brit?
Jul 22, 2017 7:45 PM
0 0