Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. The guy was in comedy for five decades. You can't really judge him based on a handful of quotes. I could go and dig up a bunch of quotes that show him to be more left leaning, but I'm not really interested in arguing about it.

Yeah, Carlin aimed his blunderbuss hither and yon but he swung it mostly in the direction of tradition, the establishment, and the pompous. You'll have to forgive Hermit though - he often confuses a joke for a claim rather than a proposition.

[Seabass]

Meh. The guy was in comedy for five decades. You can't really judge him based on a handful of quotes. I could go and dig up a bunch of quotes that show him to be more left leaning, but I'm not really interested in arguing about it.

Yeah, Carlin aimed his blunderbuss hither and yon but he swung it mostly in the direction of tradition, the establishment, and the pompous. You'll have to forgive Hermit though - he often confuses a joke for a claim rather than a proposition.

He was also very anti-bigot, so Cunt's Carlin avatar does not square with his fondness for the raging homophobe Stephen Crowder or flaming racists like Trump, McInnes, Robinson, Posobiec, etc. But then Cunt doesn't think any of these people are bigots, so I suppose I should just accept that he's an extremely confused buffoon who seems really to only find value in offending people, and probably doesn't see any difference between Carlin's acerbic humor and Crowder's cruel and vicious gay bashing.

[Brian Peacock]

Steady on. Play the ball not the man.

[pErvinalia]

Fuck that.

[Joe]

Steady on. Play the ball not the man nun.

[Brian Peacock]

[Cunt]

My guess is that the corporate media should direct which entertainers you deem acceptable and which you deem heretical.

It's really best for CNN, twitter and every one of the blue-anon group.

[Joe]

[Brian Peacock]

My guess is that the corporate media should direct which entertainers you deem acceptable and which you deem heretical.

It's really best for CNN, twitter and every one of the blue-anon group.

Why give them that power? Why be a passive recipient of news media or political messaging? We do have choices and options here, you know.

You speak as if everybody uncritically accepts whatever press release, news item, corporate or political messages appears in their window of attention. You don't think that this applies to yourself of course, you think you're more discerning and critical of things, but you do seem to assume that everybody else just soaks it up like blotting paper. It seems to me that this view is just another facet of narratives which claim that truly reasonable people cannot make truly reasonable choices or hold truly reasonable views if they differ from those of the orthodox and alt-Right.

I suppose my question is; who's telling you these kinds of stories and why are you so eager to believe them?

[Cunt]

The third installment is the CNN guy admitting they are race grifters.

I haven't heard that one, maybe you'll let me know what is revealed in that one. Or maybe you are already so firmly on one side of the issue, that you can't abide a story which conflicts.

I might listen on my walk today.

[Brian Peacock]

The third installment is the CNN guy admitting they are race grifters.

I haven't heard that one, maybe you'll let me know what is revealed in that one. Or maybe you are already so firmly on one side of the issue, that you can't abide a story which conflicts.

See, there you go again. Nobody could possibly have a valid reason for disagreeing - it must be because they can't comprehend or handle a different point of view, or because they have fixed, intractable opinions held without any real consideration, or because they've been led astray or brainwashed by malign forces.

As I said, it's a way of delegitimising different opinions and making character the primary subject of the conversation - essentially charging others of doing exactly what you're engaging in. Why do you appear so reluctant to talk about these sorts of things?

[Cunt]

Maybe you'll listen and comment, maybe you won't.

I doubt I will hear anything nuanced here, and if you want to discuss why, I can recommend freer places, where all you need is someone willing to discuss it with you.

[Joe]

My guess is that the corporate media should direct which entertainers you deem acceptable and which you deem heretical.

It's really best for CNN, twitter and every one of the blue-anon group.

Why give them that power? Why be a passive recipient of news media or political messaging? We do have choices and options here, you know.

You speak as if everybody uncritically accepts whatever press release, news item, corporate or political messages appears in their window of attention. You don't think that this applies to yourself of course, you think you're more discerning and critical of things, but you do seem to assume that everybody else just soaks it up like blotting paper. It seems to me that this view is just another facet of narratives which claim that truly reasonable people cannot make truly reasonable choices or hold truly reasonable views if they differ from those of the orthodox and alt-Right.

I suppose my question is; who's telling you these kinds of stories and why are you so eager to believe them?

It's a recurring theme for our member from Yellowknife, but how can you take it seriously when he spouts garbage from the discredited criminal James O'Keefe without corroboration from more reputable sources?

I write it off as ad-hominem nonsense and low effort trolling.

[Cunt]

O'Keefe isn't a discredited criminal, but I can guess why you might repeat such unsupported hogwash.

It's a political view, approximately. The 'blue anon conspiracy'.

No need to call you out on it either. It's better to let you 'win' your point. Congrats, Joe!

[Joe]

O'Keefe isn't a discredited criminal, but I can guess why you might repeat such unsupported hogwash.

It's a political view, approximately. The 'blue anon conspiracy'.

No need to call you out on it either. It's better to let you 'win' your point. Congrats, Joe!

You won't call me on it because you hoped I wouldn't see this horse poo and blow it out of the water. Well, you tried!

O'Keefe was convicted of entering real property belonging to the United States under false pretenses and was given three years of probation, a fine of $1,500 and 100 hours of community service. He's a criminal by definition.

Faking a story discredits a journalist, whether it's Brian Williams and his helicopter story or O'Keefe's sleazy faked ACORN recordings. Make shit up and you are untrustworthy as a journalist - end of story. But of course, con artists like O'Keefe have to work, so there's the time he sent a woman to the Washington Post with a fake story about getting pregnant by Roy Moore, or his debunked claim that Ilhan Omar’s campaign was ballot harvesting. Remember the kill cops script controversy?

That's classy company you're keeping there.

The twat was even banned from raising money in Florida. Florida, for Pete's sake! Now that's discredited.

Give it up, Cunt. I don't need you to let me win any points. I can do that on my own.

Now man up and answer Brian's questions, and quit the silly trolling.